3mo ago

what advice was great when you first heard it, but has aged like milk since then?

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

291 comments

Every decreased market that ever existed should be sufficient. Fondue pots and miter boxes should get you there.
- that's not a test. it's a survey. I'm looking for a test for your theory. I think it is undisprovable.
- The events were that demand decreased. Yes, demand could decrease in the milk market. Whether or not it will is a separate question. They are different in that the market decreased in the former and not the latter.
  
  to be clear, you have made an assertion without evidence. a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I don't believe you, and no one should.
  
  think people are going to produce rotting milk forever without a customer base for no reason.
  I didn't say that. you asserted the opposite, though, and I pointed out you can't support your claim.
  
  So you don't think milk will be produced without the demand to support it. Tight. We're in agreement. Salut.
- all the people involved in those markets were making decisions distinct from the people making decisions in the milk market. I dont think we can find anything so conclusive.
  
  Here's the test, everyone stops buying milk. Go.
  
  did it work?
  
  You still don't understand basic markets, huh. That's unfortunate.
  
  I understand that markets are populated by irrational actors.
  
  That's not relevant. This issue is more basic than that. It's the most basic.
  Out of morbid curiosity. Hypotheticaly, why or how do you think a producer would continue to operate at full scale with no buyers?
  
  saying it's basic is hand waiving. say what you mean.
  
  So you don't have an answer, that's fine, figured as much. Hand waiving, indeed.
  Irrational actors are unpredictable in compounding ways. The concept is a meta analysis of the individual and the masses. Biases, irrational fear, herd dynamics, etc. These can lead to unpredictable outcomes.
  But markets can still function, sometimes, because of other factors. Leverage, venture investment, loss management, mergers and acquisition, etc. And learning from witnessing a counterintuitive market dynamic.
  In this, most basic example, there are no compounding factors in either case. There are no buyers. So, their irrationally is not a factor. And there is only production of a supply that has no demand.
  Someone producing a degradable product that has no buyers is not what is meant when discussing irrational actors.
  It's not referring to some crazy person who will just operate at a loss forever. And even if it was, they couldn't even do it forever if they wanted to.
  Dodging the question, plugging your ears, and saying, "I heard a term one time that says they could be crazy and would just keep doing it forever for no reason. Prove me wrong." Is not the gotcha argument you think it is.
  Basic markets are not capitalism.
  
  I'm not going to believe something without evidence. your hand waiving is not evidence, and historical data about irrational actors is not predictive about the future of those same markets. it can't be reliable evidence about the future in a separate market.
  
  calling me names won't change the truth.
  
  The truth is whatever you believe regardless of evidence, clearly.
  
  such an experiment would have no bearing on a separate product in a separate market.
  
  Produce milk then, I'll wait.
  
  @remindme@mstdn.social 1 month

291 comments