Incorrect. Supply and demand are not independent, they are inextricably intertwined. One person selling his big house MAY reduce overall demand by one, but you cannot say this is necessarily the case. For example, suppose someone happens by to see the For Sale sign in front of Gore’s house. Further suppose this person has never previously considered buying a big house, however, he likes this particular house so much he decides to buy it. Demand has now increased by one, canceling out Gore’s action. Another example: suppose Gore’s house sells quickly. Suppose a developer notices this and decides that demand is sufficiently high that he can sell three more big houses than he originally thought. Developers advertise, and this advertising creates more demand (as it’s intended to). Now, there’s a net gain in demand.
Again, these are merely examples; there’s a virtually infinite number of possibilities, some with an decrease in demand, to be sure, but others with no net change or even an increase. It’s therefore misinformed to state that one person’s sale must decrease demand by the same amount.
Not a bit. But it did help illuminate yours. Thanks.
And your comment in this thread makes you look like what? Someone blowing a typical internet blowhard. And here I am blowing you while you blow a blowhard. Fun.
No it was not. It was an attempt to figure out if there was any way to answer your question.
You wanted to know – in essence – if I had convinced anyone of anything. My impression is that you will accept only an explicit admission as evidence. If so, then fine – I don’t have any evidence that I have convinced anyone of anything.
You still won’t answer the question – for reasons best known to yourself.
:shrug: You are entitled to your opinion. However, I think it’s telling that (1) an individual was presented with compelling evidence that he was in the wrong; and (2) you have failed (as far as I can tell) to answer my question as to whether this is the case.
As I asked before, besides an explicit admission, what will you accept?
And those people are generally incorrect. For example, in the Zebra thread, it was another posters – not me – who advanced Guns Germs & Steel as an authoritative work; that it represented scientific consensus. Under those circumstances, it’s reasonable for me to point to a sketchy passage from the book and ask if that passage too represents scientific consensus.
When I’m actually wrong about something, I admit it as quickly as I can. For example as I did in the thread about balloons. In my experience, most people on the internet do not act this way and will weasel, strawman, evade, and/or accuse their opponent of dishonesty rather than just abandon whatever incorrect or uncomfortable position which they took. I have little respect for such conduct and frankly, I take such charges with a huge grain of salt.
You yourself have evaded simple questions I put to you, as I recall. Why should I have any respect for your opinion?
Hey you fucktard! brazil84. How about answering my challenge, you idiot! (See how irritating this is? Do you see any resemblance in what I’m doing to what you did when you pitted What Exit?)
You totally misrepresent what I say and you’re either an idiot or a liar!! You are a monumental fucktard!!! (i’m sure you can tell that I’m enjoying this)
Of course not, and the same argument could be made about any individual conservation (or non-conservation) measures. i.e. one can concoct a scenario in which the conduct has the opposite of its expected economic effect.
For example, consider the following statement:
Would you agree with this statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Of course I can. I see no need to. You’ve conceded, albeit indirectly, that the statement of yours I quoted from the Gore thread was fundamentally incorrect as posted. Anything else you post which doesn’t directly address that is weaseling. Something you’ve just claimed you don’t do.
Since you won’t answer the question, I will answer it for you.
The answer is “yes,” because reasonable people understand this statement to be a general statement – excluding the sort of scenarios you have dreamed up.
By your logic, the statement is false and is spreading misinformation. Which is clearly ridiculous.
Whatever. You are just the sort of person I have so little respect for – evading a simple question rather than just admit that you are in the wrong.
Any reasonable person would agree with this statement. And yet using your logic, you would claim it is spreading misinformation basically because it omits a disclaimer. As far as I can tell.
All you need is a username? You can’t seriously be saying that.