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.
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).
What do manufacturers do when the supply shrinks?
they’re agents with free will. they can decide anything at all, including to destroy their existing inventory.
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.
production Will continue at the same levels regardless of what I buy
Categorically untrue, there is no demand without consumers.
but production happens without demand
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?
that’s not what I said. it’s a strawman.
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).