• Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
      1·
      13 days ago

      “influences” is a pretty weasley word. show me a formula that actually (as in, verifiably) predicts how “demand” (a pretty weasley word itself) influences supply (probably the only concept for which we will be able to produce quantifiable numbers)

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            1·
            13 days ago

            ok, I used to eat animal products, but then I decided it wasn’t nice and so I stopped supplying them to myself.

              • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                1·
                13 days ago

                demand was when I wanted a hamburder. me wanting a hamburder is 1 demand.

                1 demand = 1 supply.

                I don’t see why you would compare that to global supply. I am not equal to the global population. That was a very illogical leap you took.

                • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
                  1·
                  13 days ago

                  can you see how your want is not quantifiable? how much did you want a hamburder? could you have wanted it less? would that have decreased the supply? this is pure storytelling.

                  • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                    1·
                    13 days ago

                    I just quantified it, why would you say I didn’t? Everytime I wanted a hamburder I supplied one to myself. There were no degrees of wanting at all, I either did or didn’t.

                    And this isn’t storytelling, this is literally what happened. You’re the one trying to muddy the waters.

            • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
              1·
              13 days ago

              a moment of introspection here will show you that, in fact, this is about as close to the truth as you’re ever going to get. all economic theory is storytelling. you happen to like some particular stories better than others, and so you choose to believe them (and even repeat them as though tehy are true). but they are not True in an objective sense. there is no scientific experiment that can be constructed to test these claims which would satisfy the skepticism of a critical rationalist inquiry.

              that’s fine. i believe (or act like i believe) lots of stories that i can’t prove the truth of, which are actually unprovable. we all do. just don’t try to pretend it’s science.