Supply and Demand

In the gun control thread which wandered around to other topics after 1000 messages, had this exchange between myself and Percy in Message 1041; ​
(snip remaining political environmental points, since supply and demand have nothing to do with dirt)I think a breakthrough could happen if those on the right and left, (wait a minute, Percy's not on the left) liberals and conservatives, (nope, Percy isn't a liberal) how about pro Trump versus anti Trump? Does that work? The breakthrough could happen if the two sides could come to an understanding about supply and demand. Focusing on this part of what I said; and this part of what Percy said; (bolded mine)Lets work through it sentence by sentence.

quote

---

There is a worldwide shortage and price spike of oil.

---

That's false? There is no worldwide shortage and price spike of oil? Please explain, take all the space you need.

quote

---

Any blockage of transportation or production from ANY one place to ANY other place in the world is going is going to cause an increase in scarcity and price.

---

That's false? Any blockage of transportation or production from any one place to any other place in the world is going to cause a DECREASE in scarcity and price? Or not have any effect? Please explain.

quote

---

In oil or any product.

---

That's false? There would be variations from product to product if production and transportation of it was slowed or stopped? Some products would increase in volume when production of them was slowed or stopped, while other products would stay the same or decrease?Please break it all down and explain why any part of my above paragraph is false.P.S. Anger and vulgar language will be beneficial to the pro Trump side, not the anti Trump side.

You misunderstood. I rhetorically asked why you insist on saying things that are completely untrue, commenting that supply and demand is a simple concept. I was referring to when you said that neither I nor few here could understand supply and demand. Here's the part I was responding to: This topic is unnecessary.The subtopic I thought was beginning to draw the thread off-topic was not supply and demand, which had only been touched on in passing once by you in Message 1036. It was the Keystone Pipeline.--Percy

You're in reverse now, I didn't misunderstand anything. YOU QUOTED THIS PART;

quote

---

There is a worldwide shortage and price spike of oil. Any blockage of transportation or production from ANY one place to ANY other place in the world is going is going to cause an increase in scarcity and price. In oil or any product.

---

If you were not responding to that part, you should not have quoted it, and said it was untrue. I realize that school children understand it, but the following messages (one from the Biden presidency thread, two from the Gun Control thread), show that three of your helpers don't make it to the level of school children. Message 1030
Message 283
Message 1034They clearly said in those messages that the closure of the Keystone pipeline had NO EFFECT on oil prices. That the production / transportation of a product can be cut, and its supply would stay the same. Only? It was touched on by me, and it was grabbed by the throat and lied about by 3 others. Do they need to go back to school and start over?

If I had not quoted that portion anyone reading it wouldn't have known what "it" referred to, that it referred to supply and demand. Here's what you said: "I know you could never understand it, few posters here could, I'm surprised you only got 2 green dots." How would anyone know what "it" meant without the antecedent portion? They wouldn't, hence I had no choice but to include it.My own words made clear the focus was supply and demaind: It must be close to 100% of your posts that you don't understand either the topic or the message you're responding to or both.--Percy

You sir, are an idiot.

There's a math problem likely familiar to many that goes like this: A bat costs a dollar more than a ball, and a bat and ball together costs $1.10. How much is a bat?Many people jump to the conclusion that this is a trivially simple problem and answer $1.00. They're wrong because it isn't a trivially simple problem. It's simple, but not trivially simple. You actually have to do some very simple math in your head, but here it is written out:

• bat = ball + $1.00
• bat + ball = ball + $1.00 + ball = $1.10
• 2 × ball + $1.00 = $1.10
• 2 × ball = $0.10
• ball = $0.05
• bat = ball + $1.00 = $0.05 + $1.00 = $1.05

This problem was mentioned in a recent Scientific American article as illustrative of the kinds of choices people have to make when problem solving or making decisions, like whether a problem is trivial or not. People who jump to conclusions rather than thinking things through are also more likely to accept conspiracy theories or unsupported claims based on how trustworthy they think someone is or how true the claim sounds.--Percy