# What determines how much livestock gets raised/killed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 28, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118 "2005-11-28T22:16:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Larkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@Larkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larkin)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/61 "2005-12-01T09:22:34Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Al sorts of things are theoretically possible, but if you read the description on the front of this forum you will se that it is the place for _factual_ answers. Not the discussion of theoretical answers. LittleNemo said that it was fact that in the real world, right now “The percentage of leather sold might go as high as 90% or drop as low as 1%. This will affect the prices but will have no effect on the number of cattle being slaughtered - they’re still being slaughtered for meat not hides.” As I have shown through theoretical models, this is entirely possible. We even have evidence in one of the earlier posts that someone couldn’t even give away his hides. > [@Blake](#): > > So you are saying that right now, in the real world it is a fact that “The percentage of leather sold might go as high as 90% or drop as low as 1%. This will affect the prices but will have no effect on the number of cattle being slaughtered …” > > …Good. If you believe that then provide a reference, or some strong logical argument that makes such a conclusion inescapable. Well, you’re the one making the claims, right? How about you provide evidence that an increase in the price of leather leads to an increase in the number of slaughtered cattle? > [@Blake](#): > > The fact that what LittleNemo says is wrong is actually a good thing. We are all here to fight ignorance, and often we only know where we are ignorant by posting erroneous information and having it corrected. God knows I do it on a daily basis. He may be wrong. He may be right. We have an earlier poster giving evidence that he is right in at least some markets. > [@Blake](#): > > The fact that LittleNemo said something that was wrong and wouldn’t even answer simple questions so we could fight the ignorance he presented, that is a bad thing. It makes it impossible to fight his ignorance but worse, given the nature of the discussion it make sit impossible to conclusively show any lurkers that he is wrong. > > Definitely not cool behaviour on these boards. Well, to be honest, they weren’t very good questions, as I think I mentioned in my last post. > [@Blake](#): > > Firstly I disn’t say marginal I said negligible. Two different things. I’ll have to take your word for it. > [@Blake](#): > > Secondly how does that follow? Gold miners are profit maximisers. Nonetheless a marginal ($1/ounce) change in demand for gold will produce non-zero impact on gold production if sustained for long enough. $1/oz change is marginal? By definition, profit maximizers maximize profit. That means that they’re at the top of the profit curve, which means that the first derviative of profit is zero, which means that by definition the effect of a marginal change in price on profit maximizing output is zero. Since the effect on price of any one individual’s purchases is marginal… ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/62 "2005-12-01T09:54:54Z")
> [@Larkin](#): > > Nope, we can give a price. There is a SURPLUS of leather and no constraints on the sale of leather. There is only one price at which this can be true. Like I said, you provided insufficient information. You never said there were no constraints. You did assume no externialities, but that is not the same as no constraints. To show you why, I have at this moment a surplus of PETE, aluminium cans. I’m going to throw them out I have such a surplus. Yet the price of alumumium cans is not positive. The reasons why I have a surplus is because I am constrained by the cost of transporting and handling those cans. Similarly with leather, the price could easily be positive and still produce a surplus due to all sorts of factors. If you wish to now add no constraints, and genuinely mean no constraints, meaning no other potential uses, no handling costs, no storage costs and so forth then yes, we can say the price of leather is \<=0. But if this is the case then you aren’t actually answering my question at all. I asked whether you believe that leather will _never_ affect the demand for cattle so long as beef demand outstrips leather demand. You are describing one situation where it hypothetically might not affect the demand. But that wasn’t the question. I asked whether you believed it never could. Whether you believe that, no matter what real world scenario we construct, leather will _never_ affect the demand for cattle so long as beef demand outstrips leather demand That’s what threw me. I made the assumption you were addressing the question you referred to with this hypothetical. I’ll say for the umpteenth time. I have never denied that anything at all is hypothetically possible. Ever. Look at my first post and I state outright that this is hypothetically possible given two conditions. So can you answer the actual question? Do you believe that leather will _never_, (whether hypothetically or in practice) affect the demand for cattle so long as beef demand outstrips leather demand? > [@](#): > > Hypotheticals, especially corner solutions like the one I gave, make you think about the economics. In this case, the question is “what’s the profit-maximizing solution?” No, in this case the question was clearly stated by me, and reposted by you when you started to construct that hypothetical. And the question is “Do you believe that leather will never affect the demand for cattle so long as beef demand outstrips leather demand?” > [@](#): > > By assigning positive profit to sales of leather you’re Begging the Question. No, I am not begging the question. I am applying Socratic reasoning. LittleNemo stated that leather will never affect the demand for cattle so long as beef demand outstrips leather demand. If I can produce a single example of where leather does affect the demand for cattle even when beef demand outstrips leather demand then I have proven his contention wrong. And I can do that validly by assigning positive profit to sales of leather because LittleNemos universal statement was not restricted to situations where profits were \<=0. It would only be begging the question if his statement was that leather will never affect the demand for cattle so long as beef demand outstrips leather demand **and** where leather profits were \<=0. Very important point that. It can’t be begging the question if your opponent didn’t include that in his universal statement. You can validly use such situations to falsify his claim. > [@](#): > > No, giffin goods must be necessities. If you’re thinking of luxury goods you’re confusing a giffin good with a different concept. Reference please. My understanding is that a Giffin good is anything where demand increases with price and vice versa. Hence Reebok shoes have been touted as Giffin goods. When Reebok sold their shoes at $25 a pair they sold relatively few. When they increased thee price to $200 they became one of the top brands in the market. Classic Giffin goods as far as I can see. I’m also familiar with the classic example of Giffen goods you gave. But as I said, my understanding is that it has never been demonstrated to actually exist. It’s all based on a lot of assumptions that don’t actually make much sense. I spend 50% more of my income on potatoes, but the actual price of potatoes has only increased 30%. Somehow that means the demand increased with. What it actually seems to mean in practice is that the demand stays static as people buy whatever the bare minimum amount is to live on. The actual evidence that people buy more as price increases is very dubious in these instances. I can’t even imagine how you could produce such an effect with rats, that don’t trade anything AFAIK. But this is a a major sidetrack from the topic at hand. Until we have some evidence I’ll remain sceptical that such a process occurs and we’ll leave it at that sic there are no fats available. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/63 "2005-12-01T10:29:16Z")
> [@Larkin](#): > > As I have shown through theoretical models, this is entirely possible. For the umpteenth time, nobody ever has or ever will say that it is theoretically impossible. Now can you please stop repeating that point? The problem is that LittleNemo said it was factually the case. Not theoretically possible, but factually correct. Do you not see the difference? If I say that it is theoretically possible that the Empire State building has vanished in the last 5 minutes that is a perfectly true and factual statement. If I say that the Empire State building has vanished in the last 5 minutes that is not a perfectly true and factual statement. Only one of those statements is appropriate for posting in GQ. It doesn’t matter how many theoretical models you use to show that it is entirely possible for the ESB to evaporate, on of those statements still won’t be factually correct. > [@](#): > > Well, you’re the one making the claims, right? How about you provide evidence that an increase in the price of leather leads to an increase in the number of slaughtered cattle? Of course I never made any such claim and as such I don’t need to support it. If you believe I ever claimed that an increase in the price of leather leads to an increase in the number of slaughtered cattle then quote me. Once again, you seem to be missing the point. Even though I have said this to you at least 4 times now. I have never denied that anything is possible. What I have been objecting to is the repeated claim that it is factually true that an increase in the price of leather _doesn’t_ lead to an increase in the number of slaughtered cattle. > [@](#): > > He may be wrong. He may be right. Exactly. He may be wrong. He may be right. But he said that he was right. The nature of this forum is the presentation of factual answers that we can establish to be correct. It is not the right place for the presenation of opinions that just may not be incorrect and can not be established. Since LittleNemo presented something here as a fact he has to be able to support it. It’s not enough that nobody can prove him wrong. That is an argument from ignorance, and they just won’t fly around here. “He may be wrong. He may be right” is not an appropriate response in this forum. If he posted it he bloody well ought to be right. > [@](#): > > Well, to be honest, they weren’t very good questions, as I think I mentioned in my last post. They were every good questions insofar as if he had answered them we could have fought a little ignorance. They don’t; get better than that. > [@](#): > > I’ll have to take your word for it. No, you don’t have to take my word for it. WTF do you mean you have to take my word for it? :dubious: You can see that I said ‘negligible’ and not ‘marginal’ simply by scrolling up. And you can see that those are two very different words by using a dictionary. I will post links to several online dictionaries if you like. You certainly don’t; have to take my word for it and I can’t imagine why you thought you did. > [@](#): > > $1/oz change is marginal? Yes. Marginal is wherever you define your margins. With gold at $400/oz I would feel perfectly justified in calling $1/oz marginal. I’m sure that with cattle going for $400 each you would feel justified in calling a $1/animal profit marginal. > [@](#): > > By definition, profit maximizers maximize profit. That means that they’re at the top of the profit curve, which means that the first derviative of profit is zero, which means that by definition the effect of a marginal change in price on profit maximizing output is zero. I don’t even know where to begin with that. I don’t think I agree with any of it except “profit maximizers maximize profit”, and even then it’s doubtful if I mean the same thing you mean. For now I’ll just say that profit maximisers _strive_ to be at the top of the current profit curve. That doesn’t mean they are currently at the top of the profit curve, nor does it mean they will remain at the top of all potential profit curves, past present and future. Since profit curves change depending on prices it’s entirely invalid to deduce the effect of prices based on the current profit curve. > [@](#): > > Since the effect on price of any one individual’s purchases is marginal… Yes, continue? Were you perhaps going to say something like … it may require some multiplier such as a temporal effect to produce an increase? ---
**Author:** ![Larkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@Larkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larkin)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/64 "2005-12-01T10:44:00Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Like I said, you provided insufficient information. You never said there were no constraints. You did assume no externialities, but that is not the same as no constraints. > > To show you why, I have at this moment a surplus of PETE, aluminium cans. I’m going to throw them out I have such a surplus. Yet the price of alumumium cans is not positive. The reasons why I have a surplus is because I am constrained by the cost of transporting and handling those cans. Stick on whatever transport costs you want. Whatever they are, in a free market, there is only one price at which there is a surplus (call it x instead of zero if you want). Similarly at that price there is only one profit level. > [@Blake](#): > > If you wish to now add no constraints, and genuinely mean no constraints, meaning no other potential uses, no handling costs, no storage costs and so forth then yes, we can say the price of leather is \<=0. Provide me a price that’s \<0, and I’ll get rich and you’ll get poor. > [@Blake](#): > > But if this is the case then you aren’t actually answering my question at all. I asked whether you believe that leather will _never_ affect the demand for cattle You use the word NEVER a lot. I’m pretty sure I can successfully argue anything, no matter how wrong, through judicious use of the word NEVER. Let’s try it–can you prove that this brick will NEVER fall up? > [@Blake](#): > > No, I am not begging the question. I am applying Socratic reasoning. No, you’re begging the question. Let me show it to you: assume that Nemo is right (so, we are aassuming that in the real world, prices of leather have NO effect on number of cattle slaughtered). Will your question ever allow him to show that? It won’t, because your question has the answer you want built into it. > [@Blake](#): > > Reference please. My understanding is that a Giffin good is anything where demand increases with price and vice versa. Hence Reebok shoes have been touted as Giffin goods. When Reebok sold their shoes at $25 a pair they sold relatively few. When they increased thee price to $200 they became one of the top brands in the market. Classic Giffin goods as far as I can see. Nope, that would be a veblen good. Giffen requires non-luxury; in your case what happens if the price increases again–does demand return to the same level? No? Then there was a shift in demand curve, not a movement along it. > [@Blake](#): > > I’m also familiar with the classic example of Giffen goods you gave. But as I said, my understanding is that it has never been demonstrated to actually exist. It’s all based on a lot of assumptions that don’t actually make much sense. I spend 50% more of my income on potatoes, but the actual price of potatoes has only increased 30%. Somehow that means the demand increased with. What it actually seems to mean in practice is that the demand stays static as people buy whatever the bare minimum amount is to live on. The actual evidence that people buy more as price increases is very dubious in these instances. > > I can’t even imagine how you could produce such an effect with rats, that don’t trade anything AFAIK. R. Battalio, J. Kagel, and C. Kogut, “Experimental Confirmation of the Existence of a Giffen Good,” American Economic Review, 81, Sept. 1991, pp. 961-970. ---
**Author:** ![Larkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@Larkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larkin)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/65 "2005-12-01T11:12:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > For the umpteenth time, nobody ever has or ever will say that it is theoretically impossible. Now can you please stop repeating that point? > > The problem is that LittleNemo said it was factually the case. Not theoretically possible, but factually correct. Do you not see the difference? Bah, you’re giving me a headache. Look, Little Nemo made a statement. You jumped on him, saying his answer couldn’t be’t possible. I jumped in saying there was no a priori reason why his statement had to be wrong. And that has been our discussion condensed to a few words. > [@Blake](#): > > No, you don’t have to take my word for it. WTF do you mean you have to take my word for it? :dubious: > > You can see that I said ‘negligible’ and not ‘marginal’ simply by scrolling up. > And you can see that those are two very different words by using a dictionary. I will post links to several online dictionaries if you like. If you’re going to get into an economics discussion you should probably be aware that marginal is a term of art, and it means small or negligible changes. > [@Blake](#): > > I don’t even know where to begin with that. I don’t think I agree with any of it except “profit maximizers maximize profit”, and even then it’s doubtful if I mean the same thing you mean. Hmmmmmm… > [@Blake](#): > > For now I’ll just say that profit maximisers _strive_ to be at the top of the current profit curve. That doesn’t mean they are currently at the top of the profit curve, nor does it mean they will remain at the top of all potential profit curves, past present and future. Since profit curves change depending on prices it’s entirely invalid to deduce the effect of prices based on the current profit curve. No, profit maximizers are at the top of the curve. By definition. And it is entirely valid to deduce the effect of marginal price changes on profit maximizing decisions. > [@Blake](#): > > Yes, continue? Were you perhaps going to say something like > > … it may require some multiplier such as a temporal effect to produce an increase? No ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/66 "2005-12-01T11:12:26Z")
**Blake** , **Larkin** is quite correct about Giffen goods. Google “diamond goods” or “positional goods” for what you’re talking about. Giffen goods have upward sloping Marshallian demands and downward sloping Hicksians. They are sufficiently strongly inferior for the income effect to outweigh the substitution effect. Is is possible they existed for some consumers in very poor countries. They are very unlikely to exist now. None of that has anything to do with the question. In reply to **Larkin** ’s free disposal question, the answer is ;), as you well know. **Little Nemo** , what is your response to my reply to you in post #30? If there is a surplus of leather, the (basic) price must be zero, right? And it isn’t, right? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/67 "2005-12-01T11:46:06Z")
> [@Larkin](#): > > Stick on whatever transport costs you want. Whatever they are, in a free market, there is only one price at which there is a surplus (call it x instead of zero if you want). Similarly at that price there is only one profit level. I assume you are being deliberately cryptic here. Far too cryptic for me to understand what you are getting at. There are potentially an infinite number of prices at which my surplus of aluminium cans can be produced. > [@](#): > > Provide me a price that’s \<0, and I’ll get rich and you’ll get poor. Not necessarily. Ever heard of things like loss leaders? There are all sorts of ways that negative prices can make me wealthy. > [@](#): > > You use the word NEVER a lot. I’m pretty sure I can successfully argue anything, no matter how wrong, through judicious use of the word NEVER. Let’s try it–can you prove that this brick will NEVER fall up? No, I can’t and hence if I claimed that all bricks will always stay down that would be a legitimate point to call me on. Of course I have never made any such claim and don’t have to prove it. LittleNemo did claim that leather demand can never effect beef prices while beef demand exceeded leather demand. And he does need to support it. Of course since he has since abandonded any such claims and now agrees with me it’s a moot point. > [@](#): > > No, you’re begging the question. Let me show it to you: assume that Nemo is right (so, we are aassuming that in the real world, prices of leather have NO effect on number of cattle slaughtered). Will your question ever allow him to show that? It won’t, because your question has the answer you want built into it. You might know your economics but your logics a bit rusty. The point of such an illustration is not to allow someone to support their universal statement. It is to prove that the universal statement can be falsified. Of course the answer I want is built into it, that’s because the answer I want is a falsification. Once more with feeling: it can only be begging the question if my qualifier was explicitely excluded in his original universal. > [@](#): > > Nope, that would be a veblen good. Giffen requires non-luxury; in your case what happens if the price increases again–does demand return to the same level? No? Then there was a shift in demand curve, not a movement along it. I stand corrected then. > [@](#): > > R. Battalio, J. Kagel, and C. Kogut, “Experimental Confirmation of the Existence of a Giffen Good,” American Economic Review, 81, Sept. 1991, pp. 961-970. OK. I don’t have access to that journal I don’t think. Nonetheles thanks for the reference. And this is still a hijack. > [@](#): > > You jumped on him, saying his answer couldn’t be’t possible. No I didn’t. I ma getting sick of your putting words in my mouth so I’m calling you out. Quote where I said that his answer couldn’t be possible? If you can’t then I will thank you to withdraw the statement and apologise. > [@](#): > > If you’re going to get into an economics discussion you should probably be aware that marginal is a term of art, and it means small or negligible changes. I did know that. What made you think otherwise? > [@](#): > > No, profit maximizers are at the top of the curve. By definition. And it is entirely valid to deduce the effect of marginal price changes on profit maximizing decisions. I disagree entirely. > [@](#): > > No Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Larkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@Larkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larkin)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/68 "2005-12-01T11:46:22Z")
Looking over this thread it 's clear to me that I’ve just been arguing for the sake of arguing, over trivial stuff that isn’t doing anything to answer the original question. So, I’m going to bow out of this thread. Sorry Blake, but maybe we can continue this discussion on the great debates board, that seems more my speed. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/69 "2005-12-01T11:48:43Z")
I think I’d enjoy that. And thank you for your contributions Larkin. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118/70 "2005-12-01T18:00:44Z")
Ahhh, refreshed and back for another day. And there’s even time for a post or two before work. Blake, if you would like to continue this discussion with me, I would ask that you maintain an acceptable level of courtesy your posts. I will not respond to you if you make accusations against me, make derogatory statements about me, or make false claims about what I’ve said. But, in the spirit of compromise, I’ll overlook for now your continued misspelling of my name. > [@](#): > > Little Nemo, what is your response to my reply to you in post #30? If there is a surplus of leather, the (basic) price must be zero, right? And it isn’t, right? I’m not sure how this follows. The hides obviously have some value so there’s no reason for the price to be zero. But if you consider that the supply is the number of cattle slaughtered for beef, then the supply far outweighs the demand. In circumstances like that, competition drives the price down very low. But I don’t see zero. Or am I missing your point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-determines-how-much-livestock-gets-raised-killed/333118.md?page=3)