• 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.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t understand why you refuse to engage in good faith with a person who is just trying to teach you things, but now this conversation is over.