Coconut milk fruit smoothy

[brimstoneSalad]

Do they supplement the animal product producing industries though?

Yes, but not very much. The main profits are the primary products. The other stuff is just sold off as a way of getting rid of it and making a little extra money. The effect of making extra money is the degree to which it reduces the cost of the primary product and increases demand at that price. The same is true whether something is in food, in tires, in the road, etc.

You get into territory of variables so small that it's not clear that you're doing good by avoiding these products, because there are other, stronger market forces at work.

The downside to avoiding those ingredients, other than convenience, is that being nitpicky will put other people off from being vegan. So, I guess I have to realize which is more significant.

And even from a cost perspective, people going vegan makes meat more expensive, and decreases demand even among carnists.
And companies realizing there's a vegetarian market for foods, thus leaving out major products like milk, eggs, and traces of overt meat, has a much larger effect than them thinking vegetarians are impossible so not worrying about how much animal product is in food.

"Mom and dad, would you mind picking me up at _______? I'm going to leaflet there afterschool for this cause that you hate. Is that fine?"
Yeah, that'd go over swell! Unless I lie. Hm.

What are your experiences leafleting (if you've been)?

You can get a ride from somebody, I'm sure. Are there any local activist groups in your area?

Leafleting, it's mostly just standing on the street and handing things out... not much to tell. Sometimes somebody comes back to ask questions, and then you get a bit of conversation (and maybe somebody changing his or her behavior).

[EquALLity]

Yes, but not very much. The main profits are the primary products. The other stuff is just sold off as a way of getting rid of it and making a little extra money. The effect of making extra money is the degree to which it reduces the cost of the primary product and increases demand at that price. The same is true whether something is in food, in tires, in the road, etc.

You get into territory of variables so small that it's not clear that you're doing good by avoiding these products, because there are other, stronger market forces at work.

Ah, thanks.

And even from a cost perspective, people going vegan makes meat more expensive, and decreases demand even among carnists.

I hear some people argue the opposite. They say that veganism isn't impactful because the meat industry just lowers their prices so that more people buy their products.
So, that's wrong?

And companies realizing there's a vegetarian market for foods, thus leaving out major products like milk, eggs, and traces of overt meat, has a much larger effect than them thinking vegetarians are impossible so not worrying about how much animal product is in food.

I've heard that before too. Yup, I agree.

You can get a ride from somebody, I'm sure. Are there any local activist groups in your area?

Hm. Not that I know of. Is there a way I can find out?
Like a website where I can type in my area, and if there is an activist group, it will show up?

Leafleting, it's mostly just standing on the street and handing things out... not much to tell. Sometimes somebody comes back to ask questions, and then you get a bit of conversation (and maybe somebody changing his or her behavior).

Ah, alright.
Have you had any particularly interesting leafleting experiences?

[brimstoneSalad]

I hear some people argue the opposite. They say that veganism isn't impactful because the meat industry just lowers their prices so that more people buy their products.
So, that's wrong?

It's not just wrong, it reveals a complete misunderstanding of economics and a profoundness of ignorance of the highest order on the subject.

The meat industry can not "just lower their prices"; that's not how money works.

They are already in a competitive market place, and they already sell meat as cheaply as they can to increase demand while still making enough profit to motivate people to enter the industry (and provide return on investment).
If meat were sold cheaper, it could only happen because they are cutting into profits, which is not an economic possibility. That's how industries crumble.
If profits were reduced, large companies would no longer be interested in producing meat, there would be no more investment into it, and they'd move onto something else that actually made money.
That would be the best possible outcome for animal rights, because the entire industry would fall apart, and investment would pour into meat alternatives.

But in reality, when that happens it simply decreases supply a little bit, which limits the market to people who are willing to pay more for the meat, which increases the price, increases profits again, and reaches a new point of stability somewhere between the old and new numbers- with slightly less meat being sold for slightly more money per unit. But the important point is that there's slightly less meat being sold.


It is true that for products with a fixed supply, some people buying less of it just reduces the price at which it is sold, and the same amount is still sold. Oil is close to this kind of product (but not exactly).
Advertisement is also sort of like this. If you don't buy advertising space, the price will just go down and somebody else will buy it, because the space is there and will be sold, regardless of the price.

Meat is not even remotely like that, but functions in the exact opposite way. It's nearly a perfect example of scalable production (both up and down). Not only is it scalable in production, but the MORE that is produced, the LESS it costs per unit.

See: Economies of scale

This is due to factory farming in centralized locations decreasing production costs in terms of labor and logistics, purchasing feed in bulk, transportation, and even retail space (based on turnover).

When fewer people demand meat, not only is less meat sold in linear proportion to the decrease in demand (due to the scalable nature), the remaining meat that is sold becomes more expensive resulting in still less meat being sold simply because it costs more and fewer people want to pay for that.

Study economics a bit, and you'll be able to school these fools so severely that they'll walk funny for a week.

Hm. Not that I know of. Is there a way I can find out?
Like a website where I can type in my area, and if there is an activist group, it will show up?

I think the face book is usually used for these things. Sorry, I'm a bit out of touch on the social networking stuff.

Have you had any particularly interesting leafleting experiences?

Not particularly, no. Sorry, it's usually not that eventful. Not hurting animals is actually pretty non-controversial, so you won't get in a lot of fights, just a very rare snide comment. More people encouraging you than mean, and most just ignoring.

I've had more interesting experiences on the other side, arguing with anti-choice protesters and such.

[EquALLity]

If meat were sold cheaper, it could only happen because they are cutting into profits, which is not an economic possibility. That's how industries crumble.

If what is cutting into profits? Vegans and vegetarians?
Cutting into profits means hurting them, right?
When you say that's not an economic possibility, do you mean it's literally impossible or just highly undesirable?

See: Economies of scale

I'll read this after I finish writing this and my next response to ya.
UPDATE- Actually, I'll do that now.

Study economics a bit, and you'll be able to school these fools so severely that they'll walk funny for a week.

Hahaha! I don't encounter this argument often.
I've heard while browsing YA! and YouTube comments, so I suppose I had it coming.

Sorry, it's usually not that eventful.

That's cool, I was just curious about it.

I've had more interesting experiences on the other side, arguing with anti-choice protesters and such.

Ever convince any of them?

[brimstoneSalad]

If what is cutting into profits? Vegans and vegetarians?
Cutting into profits means hurting them, right?

It's like this:

You sell a widget for $10. It costs you $6 to make the widget (this is cost). $4 is your profit.

Now, if nobody is buying the widgets, they might be too expensive. So, in order to make them cheaper, you can only make the widgets more cheaply (cut costs), or sell them closer to cost (cut into your profits).

Meat is already produced as cheaply as possible. That's where a large part of the cruelty to animals comes in. The factory farming. They can't reduce the price anymore, they're at the bottom of the barrel. They're already hiring illegal aliens and not giving them healthcare or proper wages. They're already packing the animals so tight they're all mutilating themselves. There's nothing else to give.

So, the only way they can reduce the price of meat is to cut into their own profits.

But profit margins (that's the amount of profit you make on the meat after cost) are not high on meat.
This isn't a $10 widget with a $6 cost and $4 profit. It's more like a $10 widget with a $9.90 cost and a $0.10 profit (profit margin of 1% is pretty typical).

Why?

Well, meat is a competitive industry. They don't have any patents. There's no copyright on cows. Cost of entry is pretty low. Regulatory standards are minimal.
Producing meat makes just barely enough money, as it is, for the owners to see viable dividends.

So, in investment there's something called ROI. That's Return on Investment.

You're a millionaire, or billionaire perhaps. Or a hedge fund manager.

If Company A says they'll give you a 200% annual ROI
And Company B says they'll only give you a 150% annual ROI

Who do you invest in?

Company A, of course. Company B can't get money. Not from you, not from anybody. Their ROI (depending on the economy at the time), is under the typical return from any number of freely available investments.

This is the beauty (and terror) of capitalism. If you offer a percentage point of return lower than the next guy, he gets all the money, and you get nothing (unless your risk is lower; those cases have to be seen as comparable risk).

The animal agriculture industry, like any industry, is accountable to its owners and investors.
If they cut into profits in order to drop the price of meat, their ROI goes down, and the industry basically crashes due to lack of investment. Everybody pulls their money out and sells stock from these companies.

The absolute minimum ROI you can conceivably get money for is equivalent to FDIC insured bank interest, and farms barely make that. Anything less than that isn't investment, it's charity.

How many people do you know who consider slaughter houses and meat packing plants to be high priority charities?

When you say that's not an economic possibility, do you mean it's literally impossible or just highly undesirable?

They're not allowed to do it, their investors won't let them. But if they did, they'd lose all of their money. You can't cut into profits like that in a competitive industry with such low margins.

There ARE situations where you want to cut into your profits temporarily to do something.

For example, there are two widget producers in the country. Your competition is harsh, but you've been in the business longer, and you have some savings. You cut into profits for a few months and sell your widgets At cost, or even below cost (giving them away and losing money), which puts your competition out of business. They go bankrupt, you buy their company, then you start selling widgets at a premium (ten times cost!) because you're the only widget maker in town now and you control the market through a monopoly.

Aggressive business practices like that. There are no normal situations where you would want to cut into your profits. And most of those are illegal today anyway. You need to be able to offer as high an ROI as possible to get investment. And in a competitive industry with low margins, you just can't afford to do it. You get ahead by cutting costs, not cutting into profits.

Anyway, even if they lost all of their profits, meat would be a few cents cheaper. So, yeah, there's a real limit to the amount that is even literally possible.

The argument is really fractal wrongness:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

It's wrong on every conceivable level and scale.

Ever convince any of them?

Not on the spot, but you can make them think, and leave them with some lingering questions they'll never be able to really answer, which might help fix them a few months or years down the line.

[EquALLity]

I'm pretty sure I understand this...

Meat cannot be sold cheaper without cutting into profits of the meat industry, because to do this they can only make meat more cheaply (and then sell it cheaper and get the same amount of money) or just reduce the price without producing it for less (which would cause them to lose money). They can't make the meat cheaper because it's already sold as cheaply as it can be. Evidence is cruel conditions for workers and animals.

They don't want to lose money, because then people won't want to invest, but they also can't produce meat cheaper. So they can't reduce the cost of meat.

So their only option is to raise prices and produce less meat.

Is that right?
-
-
-
P.S. It's just called Facebook. Weird how you know so much about all these different topics, but when it comes to this... Hahaha.

[brimstoneSalad]

Yep, that's right.

[EquALLity]

Ah, ok.

[brimstoneSalad]

P.S. It's just called Facebook. Weird how you know so much about all these different topics, but when it comes to this... Hahaha.

Oh, the facebook, no space between face and book right? Is that like the twitters?

I don't do much social networking.

[EquALLity]

Oh, the facebook, no space between face and book right? Is that like the twitters?

LOL.