3 ms·

> buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.

by MR4D 5y ago

yboris 5y ago
You're just claiming things based on theory you remember. I'm going by research: > "If someone gives up 1 lb of chicken, total consumption falls by 0.76lb in expectation." https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the-pound/#Elasticities https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the...
- MR4D 5y ago
  How rude - especially since you don't understand the article you just quoted. Of course consumption falls if I give something up. That's not Supply. Your original statement was "buying less meat reduces supply", while the quote you just gave as evidence talked about "consumption", which is the demand side of the equation (technically "quantity demanded", but I'm simplifying). If you don't like my knowledge, maybe this will help [0]. Please don't tell me I'm "just claiming things based on theory I remember" - or anyone else on HN - it's rude. [0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/price-elasticity-of-demand-and-price-elasticity-of-supply-cnx https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
  - yboris 5y ago
    Sorry it was rude of me to assume what the source of your claim was. It is inappropriate of me to make it sound like I have a deep understanding of economics - I certainly don't. If you have the patience, perhaps you can explain to me where the mechanism I describe fails. If in a town 10% of people stop buying beef, grocery store will stop stocking their shelves as much as they did prior. Going up the supply chain, when more stores do this, the supplier will decrease production. Of course this takes time, but given a few-years time horizon, the effects of lower consumption do propagate to the supply. Is your comment just a nitpick with my misunderstanding the technical language economists use? Perhaps you're commenting with an assumption of a shorter time horizon than what I have in mind?
    - MR4D 5y ago
      Thank you - I appreciate your comments. I wasn't nitpicking. This is actually a confusing part of economics, and the language of economics (which I'm trying to avoid) makes it worse. :) Let me give you a few real examples, but with contrived numbers for illustration. 1 - Suppose you can buy either chicken or beef. Both cost $1. Now, due to some reason, the price of beef rises. What will happen, is that some people will buy more chicken, even though the price of that didn't change. (Maybe they can't afford the beef now, maybe they're frugal, etc.) 2 - Next, suppose the same $1 for each, but the price of beef drops. Now, since it is the cheaper source of protein, some people will buy the beef instead of the chicken, simply because it's cheaper. 3 - Third example (a bit more involved): The prices of both are again $1. You and a bunch of friends decide to go without beef for a month. The price of beef will drop. Now (and this is the key part), because the price of beef is now cheaper, some number of people will buy it instead of chicken. What has happened in example 3, is that the second half of that example is actually the same as example 2. In your example of the town buying 10% less beef, then supply will eventually self-correct, but only if nothing else (prices, prices of substitutes, supply of substitutes) changes. This push-pull action on prices and quantities tends to bounce around - that's why prices of beef, chicken, oil, timber, etc tend to change frequently. I hope this helps.
      - yboris 5y ago
        Thank you for the explanation. I guess we all know that if 100% of people stop buying beef, companies will stop growing cows (with minor exceptions of leather etc). A challenge for a group of us, people who would like others to reduce their meat consumption, is to communicate clearly that ever without 100% reduction in supply, there will be positive change (fewer animals raised in factory farms). The argument I lay out is that even if supermarkets aren't 100% sensitive to demand, on average, reduction of consumption does propagate through the market, and at least a part of the effect is lower "production" (fewer animals raised in the future). I think you're 100% right that when there's more supply than consumers, it's likely that the price will drop, and with lower price, more people will be eager to buy. But I still see all this as short-term effects. When looking across a lifetime of action (consuming literally TONS less meat), an individual's choice to eat less meat makes a difference. Perhaps I should stay away from "elasticity" in my wording, as it brings in needless attention to economic theories that can make thinking about this issue harder, not easier.

> buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.

by MR4D 5y ago

> buying less meat reduces supply (it's what economists call elastic) Uhhhh, buying less meat will reduce price, not supply.

yboris 5y ago

You're just claiming things based on theory you remember. I'm going by research: > "If someone gives up 1 lb of chicken, total consumption falls by 0.76lb in expectation." https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the-pound/#Elasticities https://reducing-suffering.org/comments-on-compassion-by-the...

MR4D 5y ago
How rude - especially since you don't understand the article you just quoted. Of course consumption falls if I give something up. That's not Supply. Your original statement was "buying less meat reduces supply", while the quote you just gave as evidence talked about "consumption", which is the demand side of the equation (technically "quantity demanded", but I'm simplifying). If you don't like my knowledge, maybe this will help [0]. Please don't tell me I'm "just claiming things based on theory I remember" - or anyone else on HN - it's rude. [0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/elasticity-tutorial/price-elasticity-tutorial/a/price-elasticity-of-demand-and-price-elasticity-of-supply-cnx https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...
- yboris 5y ago
  Sorry it was rude of me to assume what the source of your claim was. It is inappropriate of me to make it sound like I have a deep understanding of economics - I certainly don't. If you have the patience, perhaps you can explain to me where the mechanism I describe fails. If in a town 10% of people stop buying beef, grocery store will stop stocking their shelves as much as they did prior. Going up the supply chain, when more stores do this, the supplier will decrease production. Of course this takes time, but given a few-years time horizon, the effects of lower consumption do propagate to the supply. Is your comment just a nitpick with my misunderstanding the technical language economists use? Perhaps you're commenting with an assumption of a shorter time horizon than what I have in mind?
  - MR4D 5y ago
    Thank you - I appreciate your comments. I wasn't nitpicking. This is actually a confusing part of economics, and the language of economics (which I'm trying to avoid) makes it worse. :) Let me give you a few real examples, but with contrived numbers for illustration. 1 - Suppose you can buy either chicken or beef. Both cost $1. Now, due to some reason, the price of beef rises. What will happen, is that some people will buy more chicken, even though the price of that didn't change. (Maybe they can't afford the beef now, maybe they're frugal, etc.) 2 - Next, suppose the same $1 for each, but the price of beef drops. Now, since it is the cheaper source of protein, some people will buy the beef instead of the chicken, simply because it's cheaper. 3 - Third example (a bit more involved): The prices of both are again $1. You and a bunch of friends decide to go without beef for a month. The price of beef will drop. Now (and this is the key part), because the price of beef is now cheaper, some number of people will buy it instead of chicken. What has happened in example 3, is that the second half of that example is actually the same as example 2. In your example of the town buying 10% less beef, then supply will eventually self-correct, but only if nothing else (prices, prices of substitutes, supply of substitutes) changes. This push-pull action on prices and quantities tends to bounce around - that's why prices of beef, chicken, oil, timber, etc tend to change frequently. I hope this helps.
    - yboris 5y ago
      Thank you for the explanation. I guess we all know that if 100% of people stop buying beef, companies will stop growing cows (with minor exceptions of leather etc). A challenge for a group of us, people who would like others to reduce their meat consumption, is to communicate clearly that ever without 100% reduction in supply, there will be positive change (fewer animals raised in factory farms). The argument I lay out is that even if supermarkets aren't 100% sensitive to demand, on average, reduction of consumption does propagate through the market, and at least a part of the effect is lower "production" (fewer animals raised in the future). I think you're 100% right that when there's more supply than consumers, it's likely that the price will drop, and with lower price, more people will be eager to buy. But I still see all this as short-term effects. When looking across a lifetime of action (consuming literally TONS less meat), an individual's choice to eat less meat makes a difference. Perhaps I should stay away from "elasticity" in my wording, as it brings in needless attention to economic theories that can make thinking about this issue harder, not easier.