Message from @Hexidecimark
Discord ID: 672678426217283595
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
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
Nothing is totally objective by default
because it doesn't adhere to your extreme fucking reach of how literally every market affects each other?!
We're talking reasonably objective, because total objectivity is just as useless a metric as perfection
fair
nope, that was just one point where i stopped trusting them, and I don't see useing such clear words as what they clearly mean to be extreme.
Most people look at 'free market' and the default reaction is just 'a market that is not excessively regulated' i.e. "free" as pertaining to a relative meaning rather than an absolute one
exactly
Most people will for example consider prevention of scams and theft to be restrictions that do not inhibit 'freedom' of the market
ok i can understand that to an extent, but i'm not gonna give that ground.