Vegan Baby Killers

[lord of the mark]

"As LotM has pointed out short run loses are normal business in agriculture. You don't just sell your farm because you don't earn as much money or even lose money. In fact, you probably have insurance. The price will increase when demand increases again, probably do to population increase. "

Probably? You cant do probably here, cause the reason matters.

It seems to me that what you are saying is A. the demand curve shifts to the left (lower quantity demanded at any given price) due to LOTMs posited change in consumer tastes. B. It then shifts to the right, due to increased population. So at some specified future date (?) the price will be the same as it was before the shift in tastes.

Thats quite possible. But it does not nullify what i said about the impact of the change in tastes. Demand at your positied future date will STILL be lower than it otherwise would have been had the change in tastes not occured. And so prices will be lower than they WOULD have been.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The long run price is determined by the average cost + normal profit. Of course most producers will make greater than normal profit because they have more productive land, lower taxes, cheaper labor whatever.

In most economic analysis, capital is included as a cost, so "normal profit" doesnt appear. We refer to economic breakeven instead. when a producer has the ability to earn a return above cost based on ownership of a factor like land, that is land rent. It is NOT profit, economically speaking. Profit occurs when a particular producer can earn, by luck or skill what other producers cant earn with the same factors of production. Your confusion about this is apparently leading to your confusion about the result, since you are not seeing that its specifically the marginal producers who earn zero rent, and thus whose costs must equal price.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"As LotM has pointed out short run loses are normal business in agriculture. You don't just sell your farm because you don't earn as much money or even lose money. In fact, you probably have insurance. The price will increase when demand increases again, probably do to population increase. "

Probably? You cant do probably here, cause the reason matters.

Ok, the price WILL increase due to increase in population.

It seems to me that what you are saying is A. the demand curve shifts to the left (lower quantity demanded at any given price) due to LOTMs posited change in consumer tastes. B. It then shifts to the right, due to increased population. So at some specified future date (?) the price will be the same as it was before the shift in tastes.

Yes

Thats quite possible. But it does not nullify what i said about the impact of the change in tastes. Demand at your positied future date will STILL be lower than it otherwise would have been had the change in tastes not occured. And so prices will be lower than they WOULD have been.

Don't you think that the grain farmers would otherwise increase their production of grain in anticipation of increased demand and population? Don't you believe in price signals? If the tastes never had changed the price of grain would have increased, so the profits would have increased and so the production would have increased.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by General Ludd Is this just a quibble over semantics? The difference between "majority" and "vast majority"? I don't think it really matters to the point I was making.

Your point seemed to be that "eating meat because it tastes good isn't a good reason to eat meat, because the good flavor is almost always coming from something other than the meat." (We really should be speaking in terms of animal products, as this thread is about veganism. If we were, then your claim would look even worse)

I think that that's ridiculous, and I doubt that even the majority of meat served is served in a manner that fits our description of flavorless meat. You haven't shown that it is.

Even accepting that it is, the difference between majority and vast majority is still important. Your point carries alot less weight if 49% of meat served is served in a manner highlighting the meat's flavor than it is if only 1% of meat served is served thusly.

Basically, I think that your sweeping claim is ridiculous and backed up by nothing but your own imagination. Although we all agree that taste shouldn't be the sole manner of deciding what to eat, it is an important factor. You're claiming that meat itself practically never contibutes positively to the flavor of food, which, if true, would take away a major rationale for eating meat. In other words, meat could be replaced with soy in almost every situation without any real loss of flavor quality.
That's a weighty claim, one that shouldn't be made without significant evidence. (It's also a ludicrious claim IMO, as soy can't even duplicate the flavor of poorly prepared, low quality meat like Oscar Meyer hot dogs. I've had soy hot dogs. They're disgusting.)

Without establishing that a "vast majority" of meat eaten is a product of this flavorless process, your point is nothing but air. I just wanted to see if you could back it up with anything, or if it was just emotional hyperbole.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it matters immensely, its what determines the elasticity of supply.

I don't know how to respond to this at this point. The elasticity matters in the short run but not the long run.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In most economic analysis, capital is included as a cost, so "normal profit" doesnt appear. We refer to economic breakeven instead. when a producer has the ability to earn a return above cost based on ownership of a factor like land, that is land rent. It is NOT profit, economically speaking. Profit occurs when a particular producer can earn, by luck or skill what other producers cant earn with the same factors of production. Your confusion about this is apparently leading to your confusion about the result, since you are not seeing that its specifically the marginal producers who earn zero rent, and thus whose costs must equal price.

I have a degree in economics and a degree in business okay. The terminology differs depending on whether you are talking to a business person or an economist. But that shouldn't matter if you understand both. By the term "normal profit" I mean profit that a producer earns that is equal or greater than what they could earn elsewhere.

That said, I don't know what the misunderstanding is here. I will say that I thought that you would agree that no producers would stop their operations due to a short run decrease in price. I went from there and said that the price would increase when demand increased.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I have a degree in economics and a degree in business okay.

And you've demonstrated the uselessness of both.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And you've demonstrated the uselessness of both.

Except for the advantage of being able to tell how stupid you really are.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ok, the price WILL increase due to increase in population.


Yes

Don't you think that the grain farmers would otherwise increase their production of grain in anticipation of increased demand and population? Don't you believe in price signals? If the tastes never had changed the price of grain would have increased, so the profits would have increased and so the production would have increased.

I think the suppy is relatively inelastic, so they wont increase production that much.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I have a degree in economics and a degree in business okay. The terminology differs depending on whether you are talking to a business person or an economist. But that shouldn't matter if you understand both. By the term "normal profit" I mean profit that a producer earns that is equal or greater than what they could earn elsewhere.

That said, I don't know what the misunderstanding is here. I will say that I thought that you would agree that no producers would stop their operations due to a short run decrease in price. I went from there and said that the price would increase when demand increased.

econ vs business terms

yeah, I know. But we're discussing the changes in prices due to shifts in demand, not analyzing a farmers financial statements. I thought it was clear that economic terms were what was called for here. Business/accounting terms are simply confusing on this issue.

And Im not clear on the misunderstanding, precisely because im not clear what i originally said that you disagree with and why. I stated that a shift in consumer tastes away from meat, would, ceteris paribus, mean lower grain prices, and would reduce hunger (though I dont venture to quantify how much) Im still not clear if you disagree with that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think the suppy is relatively inelastic, so they wont increase production that much.

Again. It's not about elasticity in the long run. It's about costs. It depends on what their costs would be to increase their production.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Again. It's not about elasticity in the long run. It's about costs. It depends on what their costs would be to increase their production.

Grrrrrrr! A statement about elasticity of supply IS a statement about costs!!!!

Elasticity of supply is simply a statement about the shape of the supply curve. The supply curve is derivable from the production functions of the producers. The production function IS what determines costs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And you've demonstrated the uselessness of both.

*cough*

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I stated that a shift in consumer tastes away from meat, would, ceteris paribus, mean lower grain prices, and would reduce hunger (though I dont venture to quantify how much) Im still not clear if you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree that the price of grain will remain low because of a decrease in the demand for beef. My position is that in the long run the price will not be determined by demand but by the cost of production.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Grrrrrrr! A statement about elasticity of supply IS a statement about costs!!!!

Elasticity of supply is simply a statement about the shape of the supply curve. The supply curve is derivable from the production functions of the producers. The production function IS what determines costs.

First before I can address this do you realize that there is a difference between the long run supply curve and the short run supply curve and do you know what that difference is.