Dosen’t matter if it happens or not. It’s it’s not required to prove the case because of the overwhelming evidence in every other market where it has. The idea that something will be produced at a loss forever just because you can’t accept that it won’t is troll-level ludicrous. So, hats of to you for that bait, I guess.
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.
others already do that. no need for me to undertaking such an endeavor. the problem is that we don’t have a method to reduce demand. you haven’t even produced a method to measure demand.
Dosen’t matter if it happens or not. It’s it’s not required to prove the case because of the overwhelming evidence in every other market where it has. The idea that something will be produced at a loss forever just because you can’t accept that it won’t is troll-level ludicrous. So, hats of to you for that bait, I guess.
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.
Lol. How about this experiment. You produce something nobody buys and see how long it lasts. Remind me in, idgaf, you’re a troll.
calling me names won’t change the truth.
The truth is whatever you believe regardless of evidence, clearly.
the truth is independent of what anyone believes, but evidence would help point us to truth, if you could come up with some.
such an experiment would have no bearing on a separate product in a separate market.
Produce milk then, I’ll wait.
others already do that. no need for me to undertaking such an endeavor. the problem is that we don’t have a method to reduce demand. you haven’t even produced a method to measure demand.
You have changed the argument from: demand decreasing does not reduce supply. To: we can’t reduce demand. Do you see the flaws in your argument yet?
demand decreasing doesn’t cause a reduced supply.
Evidence? Assertion without requires no evidence to refute.
I’m not going to believe that commies are inherently dumb no matter how hard you try.
you haven’t provided a method to test your hypothesis.
I’m not constructing an argument
I’m deconstructing one.
You think you are, but this is not new territory and you are not that interesting.