7 ms·

I know that, but the OP didn't seem to. He claimed consumption "has to" match production.

Dylan16807 12y ago
It does, in the same way that effects have to match causes. The only time production can run free with "no consumption" is when someone personally bankrolls extra production, and in that case they're actually the consumer.
- authatheist 12y ago
  So you're telling me that if I produce a bunch of shit-sandwiches and no one wants them, for whatever mysterious reason, then if I produce some more anyway, suddenly I'm the sole consumer of said sandwiches? How does that make sense, considering no one has even eaten (=consumed) one?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    If you're making them while knowing you won't sell them, you're not actually putting them on the market. You're making them for yourself. So either the production should be completely ignored when talking about producer/consumer, or you're the real consumer here. You don't have to eat them, you're a collector. But that's just closing a minor loophole. People do not often intentionally produce market products with no intent to sell, and it'll make them run out of money. The overall rule is pretty solid even if you don't close the minor loophole.
    - authatheist 12y ago
      Sure, I may produce something just for myself, but that's completely irrelevant to the general claim that consumption "has to" match production. That's a straightforward claim with straightforward implications: either something compels people to consume everything that's produced, or something compels producers to refrain from production that would go unconsumed. Otherwise the general claim is false. It is obvious nonsense, no matter how much nonsense you try to wrap around it. As a simple counterpoint to yours, for all you know, I could be on a sacred mission to provide everyone in the world with a shit-sandwich and then I can't be considered the consumer
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      >or something compels producers to refrain from production that would go unconsumed Yeah, they run out of money. The rest is a rounding error. >I could be on a sacred mission to provide everyone in the world with a shit-sandwich You're not a producer in the market sense then. Consumption is a market term, it doesn't mean anyone has to eat the sandwich. To put it simply: The original statement was "consumption has to match production with very few exceptions". Zealotry outside of markets is one of those few exceptions; it's very rare. Otherwise market forces compel them to match.
      - authatheist 12y ago
        This is stupid. The guy said consumption "HAS TO" match production as if it's a law of nature or something. If you stop producing because you run out of money, that's not the same as consumption having to match production. Consumption didn't match your production until that point either, because otherwise you'd still be producing. So no, it didn't have to. Furthermore, when you stop producing because you can't anymore, that's more like production matching consumption. If you want to claim something like "consumption tends to roughly match production", that's fine. But that's different from the original claim. It's also worth noting that production comes first. For something to be consumed, it has to be produced first. But there's no magical force that makes the two match, there are just people acting. Let's call it a day.

It does, in the same way that effects have to match causes. The only time production can run free with "no consumption" is when someone personally bankrolls extra production, and in that case they're actually the consumer.

authatheist 12y ago
So you're telling me that if I produce a bunch of shit-sandwiches and no one wants them, for whatever mysterious reason, then if I produce some more anyway, suddenly I'm the sole consumer of said sandwiches? How does that make sense, considering no one has even eaten (=consumed) one?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  If you're making them while knowing you won't sell them, you're not actually putting them on the market. You're making them for yourself. So either the production should be completely ignored when talking about producer/consumer, or you're the real consumer here. You don't have to eat them, you're a collector. But that's just closing a minor loophole. People do not often intentionally produce market products with no intent to sell, and it'll make them run out of money. The overall rule is pretty solid even if you don't close the minor loophole.
  - authatheist 12y ago
    Sure, I may produce something just for myself, but that's completely irrelevant to the general claim that consumption "has to" match production. That's a straightforward claim with straightforward implications: either something compels people to consume everything that's produced, or something compels producers to refrain from production that would go unconsumed. Otherwise the general claim is false. It is obvious nonsense, no matter how much nonsense you try to wrap around it. As a simple counterpoint to yours, for all you know, I could be on a sacred mission to provide everyone in the world with a shit-sandwich and then I can't be considered the consumer
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >or something compels producers to refrain from production that would go unconsumed Yeah, they run out of money. The rest is a rounding error. >I could be on a sacred mission to provide everyone in the world with a shit-sandwich You're not a producer in the market sense then. Consumption is a market term, it doesn't mean anyone has to eat the sandwich. To put it simply: The original statement was "consumption has to match production with very few exceptions". Zealotry outside of markets is one of those few exceptions; it's very rare. Otherwise market forces compel them to match.
    - authatheist 12y ago
      This is stupid. The guy said consumption "HAS TO" match production as if it's a law of nature or something. If you stop producing because you run out of money, that's not the same as consumption having to match production. Consumption didn't match your production until that point either, because otherwise you'd still be producing. So no, it didn't have to. Furthermore, when you stop producing because you can't anymore, that's more like production matching consumption. If you want to claim something like "consumption tends to roughly match production", that's fine. But that's different from the original claim. It's also worth noting that production comes first. For something to be consumed, it has to be produced first. But there's no magical force that makes the two match, there are just people acting. Let's call it a day.