4 ms·
You are acting like the demand side is all that matters. Using your analogy, Walmart can reduce their customers’ rice consumption by 50% by the simple act of on
by sundaeofshock 3y ago
You are acting like the demand side is all that matters. Using your analogy, Walmart can reduce their customers’ rice consumption by 50% by the simple act of only allowing 250,000 tons to appear on shelves.
- imgabe 3y agoAnd the people who were eating the other 250,000 tons of rice will do what? Lay down and starve to death?
- sundaeofshock 3y agoIrrelevant question. I was using your imperfect analogy to demonstrate that Exxon can reduce customer oil consumption by reducing the amount of oil Exxon supplies.
- imgabe 3y agoWell, you failed
- sundaeofshock 3y agoWhile I do appreciate your deep insight, I am missing a bit of nuance in your response. Perhaps you can help me understand why Exxon reducing its supply of oil would not reduce its customer’s consumption of its oil.
- imgabe 3y agoLet’s pretend you have a job. You drive 20 miles each way to go to work. When you need gas, you buy it at the Exxon station every 3 or 4 days. Suppose the Exxon station closes. What are you going to do? Quit your job, default on your mortgage and become homeless? No, you’re going to buy gas somewhere else. So, did Exxon reducing its production of gas reduce your gas consumption? Did it move your house closer to your job? Did it make your car more fuel efficient? No, it did nothing except maybe slightly inconvenience you. Open an economics textbook and look up the phrase inelastic demand.
- sundaeofshock 3y agoLooking at a couple of threads of threads on this topic, I think you are not only being intentionally obtuse, but insultingly condescending.
- imgabe 3y agoAnd yet you can’t articulate a single logical reason why reducing Exxon’s oil production will reduce demand for oil. Not even a hypothetical scenario of how it might work. Interesting.