In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times.
> >> > > > Prior
> >> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> >> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> >> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy
> >> > > > their
> >> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own
> >> > > > actions?
> >> I
> >> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
> >> independent
> >> > > > of my actions.
> >> > >
> >> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
> >> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
> >> but
> >> > > significant in principle.
> >> >
> >> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
> >> > was demonstrated.
> >>
> >> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
> >> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent
> >> change.
> >
> > In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
> > for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
> > ratio of 1:1 is false.
>
> I said 1:1 is theoretical, a supply curve can't work that way.

Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
agreeing.

> > Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
> > dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem of
> > theoretical constructions.
>
> There's no problem with the principle, if demands drops by a perceptible
> amount for a single production cycle then production targets will be set
> based on that level. That's where your impact is felt.