Thursday, December 26, 2013

Cambridge Machine Operative Denies Law of Supply and Demand

0. Update, 12/27/13.
1. Introduction.
2. Law of Supply and Demand.
3. The Machine Operative’s View of Reality.
4. Final say.

0. Update, 12/27/13.

Caveat, however, these people are involved in all sorts of discussions.

Standing up for reality with regard to the Law of Supply and Demand in no way blesses any one of the various pieces of sophistry they are trying to pass on using whatever will sell anything.

All I am doing is putting the Law of Supply and Demand on record.

1. Introduction.

Easily the biggest problem on the Charles River and elsewhere near Cambridge, MA, USA, is the destructiveness of the Cambridge Machine.

Key to the destructiveness is the flat out lying about reality.

The Cambridge Machine simply defines environmentalism as protecting that part of the environment they are not destroying this week.

And the pious nonsense which dominates the world of the Cambridge Machine is very much a key part of the problem.

The Machine commonly has no use for reality.

But they are oh, so pious about it.

2. Law of Supply and Demand.

I will not bother you with the blather I was responding to in an exchange during the past few days.

Fortunately, in this case, at least one member of the Machine (Robert Winters) has his head in reality. Since outright nonsense has not yet been accepted yet as The Truth, this is not a perfect example of the problem.

But the situation has a normal stench, and [the guilty] has gotten away with this stuff in the past. Here is my response, and, following, without further adieu, the next two.

I have censored the name of [the guilty] because that person is not as visible or as active as Robert Winters who also participated in the discussion. Winters' name is included because he is so visible it would be rather silly not to identify him by name, and the report, clearly, is favorable to him.


I am not positive, but I think that, for once, I agree with Robert Winters.

Basic economics indicates that, if you restrict supply, the price will go up. Basically, those who have the money will outspend those who do not have the money to purchase a scarce resource that both need. I.e., if you have a, b, c, and d, and less supply, the price of a, b, c, and d will go up due to people with money outbidding those who have less.

If you expand the supply, those who have money are much more likely to spend their money on the better alternative that is available. Those who have are much less likely to spend their money on the less desirable options because they can have the more desirable options. i.e., if you start with a, b, c, and d, and add e, f, g, and h, with e, f, g, and h being more desirable than a, b, c, d, you are much less likely to be driving up the price of a, b, c, and d; the richer have no more money but they will spend their money wisely and purchase the better option, leaving a, b, c, and d for the buyers with less money.

Saying that adding to the supply raises the prices of that which is already there is counterintuitive, and, in fact, silly.

This analysis, however, does not allow for the increase in traffic, density and blocked sun on a, b, c, and d. Because f, g, h, and I are thus taking resources from a, b, c, and d, the addition of f, g, h and I [ed: obvious error in repeating list] can make a, b,c, and d less desirable and drive DOWN the price of a, b, c, and d. Reality and common sense economics has a result exactly the opposite of the claim being made.

Thank you.

3. The Machine Operative’s View of Reality.

It is surprising that those who want to dispute my musings on a hypothetical future occurrence that might cause more homelessness do so with absolutely no real data at all, but only opinions.

It is commonly assumed that anyone who wants to prove an argument will do so with facts. Neither Bobs offered any facts or quoted any peer reviewed studies or so it seemed. Most journalists, such as those who wrote the Globe articles in my attachment, quote from peer reviewed studies.

Since only opinions were offered, It seems almost certain that the attachment was not read, nor had any attempt been made to do any independent research on the subject before putting forth an opposite argument. I had only a limited amount of time to gather some articles after reading some Globe articles on homelessness. More research could likely further the argument.

Further in-depth analysis of the causes of homelessness can be found in the New Yorker article on Oct. 28, 2013., although the discussion mentions some causes unique to New York City. It could be the beginning of some research for inquiring minds.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

4. Final say.

My "opinion" is based on a number of college studies in economics, very obvious college studies.

[The Guilty] has a record. I have a record.

I informed folks on this list of the intention of Cambridge and its friends to destroy acres of land in Alewife. [The Guilty] went on this list to say there was no such intention.

Cambridge is now bragging of the destruction it is achieved in its irreplaceable woodlands at Alewife, the destruction that [The Guilty] said would not happen. And total destruction seems the goal.

Mr. Winters published Cambridge's puff piece on the first stage destruction with photos.

Cambridge is bragging of irresponsible destruction that [The Guilty] said "would not happen." Now we are hearing of well established and downright basic economic studies being called unfounded.

By the way, the article cited in this series reported that rents are dropping in Cambridge.

Please, let us live in reality.