ok, and "Irish disenfranchisement is basically all areas of british life" would be the government intervention i'm talking about.

how the fuck is denying Irish land owners the right to leave a whole tract of land to their eldest an intervention on the grain market?!

it's not, but it IS an intervention in the market itself.

the market isn't just one item, or even a set of items.

it's everything taken together.

and anytime the government pokes at any of it problems always crop up.

what fucking invisible hand superstitious horseshit is this? One of the pros of bringing in American corn meal is that it wasn't in the same market as british grain, and therefore wouldn't affect prices

and the EC guys talking about how there was any sort of "free market" going on there is just plain wrong when the people in question had been forced into some of this situation by the government's past interventions.

that was what EC said the guy hoped, but the "grain" market may as well have been the "food" market.

you know that right? if bringing grain for food would drive down prices, why would bringing in any other kind of food not drive down the same prices?

if anyone's espousing an ideology in this context its you, dude. you're throwing about a bunch of contexts that the video didn't even mention and you're just assuming that's because they're trying to omit or something I can't fucking tell what you're on about anymore.

When you said free market I didn't realise you meant the god damn libertarian deified conceptualization of the term

ok lets assume all of what you just said it totally true,
what does it change when the question i'm listening to tall this again is "why ARockRaider doesn't trust the EC people and what the potato famine series said that lead to part of that?"

what do you call a free market then?

lack of government regulation, capitalism, individual investors. the disenfranchisement of the Irish was absolutely more about ethnic and religious sectarianism, not the fucking market

all of those things have an effect on the market.

ANY market, not just food or houseing markets.

that's fucking invisible hand pseudoscience

how is it pseudoscience?

it's supply and demand taken to it's logical extreme sure, but that doesn't make it pseudoscience.

distinct market industries with no competitive connection whatsoever are not affected by one being artificially altered

that's just not fucking measurable

that's quantum theory, not economics

That is the case for some industry though

I can agree that it's not clearly measurable, and that is the very reason that government should try to stay out of everything it isn't ment to mess with.

Like gasoline/oil or other sorts of 'universal impact' industry. Food is one that will leave a mark in that sense because higher food prices mean less capital available to spend on non-essentials, save, or otherwise invest in general, esp. when there's not a lot of money to go around

ah, thankyou very much Hexidecimark, I was trying to think of something off the top of my head while also still watching these vids.

food cost will impact all other cost in some way because that is one of the base needs for peoples survival.
and the cost might not even be the price of the good in question changeing, it could be all the other goods changeing price while that one stays the same.

Although I didn't pick up much ideology pushing from them in that one; I think they just came to their conclusions and reported on those

If the nazis in my vidya video is any indication, subtlety is not their strong suit

oh sure they might not be pushing an ideology, but that doesn't change what I do and don't trust about them.

then that still doesn't refute my claim that their history series is sufficiently objective

I don't have to refute said claim, I said "I don't trust them"

when compared to their video game analysis series

I don't trust them on either anymore, as i said if I can't trust them with their video game analysis why would i trust them with the much more complen and incompleat records of history?

because those subjects aren't comparable

and someone pointed out that there is even a presedent for such additudes in law? didn't know of that myself.

much like two discreet and non-conjoined markets

they are to me, and again we are talking about my trust or lack thereof in EC.

except I was only talking about their history series being objective

and again, I don't agree that it is objective