2 ms·

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 e

by 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.

MR4D 5y ago
One approach to look at is a tax (the tobacco tax as an example). By increasing the price of tobacco products, people will naturally migrate away from them. Although the taxes were/are astronomical in the US, some people continue to buy them. Many fewer people, but still $ billions in sales every year. You can take this approach with pretty much anything - tobacco, beef, soft drinks, carbon-based energy, foreign imports, etc., and it keeps it simple.
- yboris 5y ago
  I'm all in favor of meat taxes. I suspect that most people (in the US at least) are in favor of change of how animals are treated in factory farms. But their refrain from changing anything about their behavior is "the government should do something about it". While government action would be the best scenario (outlawing battery cages, adding taxes on meat, etc), doing nothing isn't an appropriate personal response. Before I reduced my meat consumption to virtually zero, my last concern was "how could I, a tiny individual, make any difference?" And then I heard the expected value argument (where my purchase could result in an extra bulk order from the supplier - so even if low probability, it was still better to abstain).

by yboris 5y ago

MR4D 5y ago

One approach to look at is a tax (the tobacco tax as an example). By increasing the price of tobacco products, people will naturally migrate away from them. Although the taxes were/are astronomical in the US, some people continue to buy them. Many fewer people, but still $ billions in sales every year. You can take this approach with pretty much anything - tobacco, beef, soft drinks, carbon-based energy, foreign imports, etc., and it keeps it simple.

yboris 5y ago
I'm all in favor of meat taxes. I suspect that most people (in the US at least) are in favor of change of how animals are treated in factory farms. But their refrain from changing anything about their behavior is "the government should do something about it". While government action would be the best scenario (outlawing battery cages, adding taxes on meat, etc), doing nothing isn't an appropriate personal response. Before I reduced my meat consumption to virtually zero, my last concern was "how could I, a tiny individual, make any difference?" And then I heard the expected value argument (where my purchase could result in an extra bulk order from the supplier - so even if low probability, it was still better to abstain).