• stonedemoman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wrong. Prohibition increases demand.

    Edit: Based off some replies, I think a lot of people are forgetting some rudimentary aspects of the concept of “demand”, so allow me to help:

    Demand is an economic concept that relates to a consumer’s desire to purchase goods and services and willingness to pay a specific price for them.

    When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “That guy happened to tangentially mention tax so you must’ve been talking about tax, herp derp”

            Edit: Is it really that hard to figure out that I started this whole thread in reference to the topic of prohibition as the title suggests? I’m not talking about taxes. I never mentioned taxes. I don’t care that anyone else is talking about taxes.

      • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Incorrect. Prohibition decreases supply. Supply and demand have an inverse relationship. This is economics 101.

        There exists no accurate data of consumption during prohibition because it was a black market.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Supply and demand do not have an inverse relationship. Demand exists, and when supply exceeds demand, prices fall. When supply does not meet demand, prices rise. You understand they are related but forgot the actual curve on the graph. Supply and demand can both be low, for instance, as is the case with mega yachts. Supply and demand have no direct effect on one another, though low supply does tend to encourage firms to increase supply to try to compete and meet the demand.

          Data during prohibition is irrelevant to this specific discussion, because your claim is that demand goes up when goods are prohibited, which is false, as I showed with my link

          I don’t believe you have actually taken Econ 101, given the things Ive seen you say here.

          • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            When supply does not meet demand, prices rise.

            Thanks for proving my point for me. I appreciate it.

            Your link shows an estimate of alcohol consumption during prohibition based on mortality, but there is. Zero. Accurate. Data. of alcohol consumption during the prohibition.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The important part of that link was not during prohibition, which is irrelevant, because regardless of demand the number of people with access to alcohol was lower, but rather that after prohibition, usage rates did not surpass pre-prohibition levels.

              When supply does not meet demand, prices rise

              This is not an inverse relationship between supply and demand. The supply is not affecting the demand, which is what “inverse relationship” requires.

              • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                usage rates did not surpass pre-prohibition levels.

                How many times do I have to tell you that this is impossible to know based off indirect estimates before you get it? Because this is the third time.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe read to the end of that sentence and it will make more sense. I know it was a long sentence, and that’s scary, but I believe in you.