413
HEX THEM (mander.xyz)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/goblincore@lemmy.blahaj.zone
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -14 points 10 months ago (34 children)

I'm pretty sure purchasing a glitter bomb-worth of glitter does not determine whether that same amount will be subsequently manufactured. the glitter has already been made. might was well make the most of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Doesn't it? More people buying -> more being manufactured?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    that's not causal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    wdym

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    if I press the power button on a computer, it boots up following a set of causal events. it's not like there are little people inside the machine deciding how much power to let through or how many pixels to make white.

    but human manufacturing and market systems are rife with people who can decide if or when or how much or how long. my decisions don't cause their decisions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It does indirectly; if there is a trend of glitter bombs that causes the sales of glitter to go up 100% over a sustained period, then those people will likely decide to manufacture more, because making decisions that way is their job. Are you trying to say that their decisions have moral weight here while the consumer's decisions do not? Or are you trying to say that how much glitter is purchased literally does not impact how much is produced? I could see how someone might argue for the former even though I disagree, but I'm pretty sure the latter is just not the truth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It does ensure a non-zero amount ends up as pollution though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    once it is manufactured it is pollution, no matter what happens to it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Mate, you're making commies look bad by failing to understand supply and demand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    supply and demand is a theory about price discovery

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    .. Annnd what does it mean when you buy a big bag of glitter, and then the price is the same tomorrow, and in a week.. And in month?

    It means your demand has not outpaced production, nor reduced a finite resource - your purchase of stock has simply been replenished by a supplier.

    Purchases inform supply - more will be made to continue meeting demand. If this is not the case, the market price will change.

    https://qoblex.com/blog/the-law-of-supply-and-demand-complete-guide-to-market-economics/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    This is the same silly argument people have for eating meat - doesn't hold water

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    it's absolutely true, but if you object, point out whatever said that's wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    When you buy something, you add yourself to the demand for the thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    and when you buy something, the supply shrinks

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    What do manufacturers do when the supply shrinks?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    they're agents with free will. they can decide anything at all, including to destroy their existing inventory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Okay but realistically what is going to happen? You seem smart, you don't need to be walked across the line, you know that in this world that we live in, they are going to manufacture more. Because there is no force that is going to stop them from doing it. And until there is, that won't change. So while that force does not exist, it is a near certainty that you purchasing glitter or meat contributes to its continued production.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    realistically what is going to happen

    production Will continue at the same levels regardless of what I buy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Categorically untrue, there is no demand without consumers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    but production happens without demand

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Does some part of you truly believe that if demand for glitter dropped to 0 that glitter production would continue for any significant period of time?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    that's not what I said. it's a strawman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Then your argument is not clear to me, sorry :/ I said "there is no demand without consumers" and you said "production happens without demand". What do you mean by this? Do you mean that production sometimes exceeds demand? Do you mean that production happens no matter what demand?

    It seems plainly obvious, to me, that by being a consumer of a good, you are stimulating the demand for that good, and with capitalism being as it is, when demand is stimulated, production (or price increasing, where production is not an option) shortly follows. Short of radical regime or legislation change (both of which I should be clear I support) I don't see that changing. Thus, buying glitter is worse than not buying glitter (as far as I can see).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    One single bag of glitter may not make a big difference, but each bag makes an equal contribution. Sure, regulation would be more effective, but in its absence the best way to prevent glitter production is to not buy any.

    This is absolutely causal btw. More glitter purchased -> shelves empty -> stores order more glitter -> producers make more glitter

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •