Universal Economics (something i'm under the impression i'm making up)

Summary of title terms (my understanding):

The anthropic principle:

"things are the way they are because that's the only way they can be"

Evolution:

"Survival of the fittest"

Economics:

"The strong survive, resources are scarce"

I think all are expressions the same principle, which is "in the now (which is always subjective (a POV is requisite for a 'now' to be established)) remains what survived". Combined with the assumption "it is reasonable to be reasonable" and "an entitity performs its function (seeks the subjective good)", I believe you can formulate the closest possible model of "isness". It seems to me that any economic model you'd try to implement would include this foundation or it would be inherently flawed.

Meh. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious. I was just thinking about this stuff and thought I'd put it out there to see where it goes. I think this is a summary of where my thoughts are with this stuff now and if this is invalid I want to try to push through it.

Please discuss.

I don't see anything wrong with your theory. I believe competition is what makes us stronger. Without competition, we wouldn't evolve.

I can't really identify myself as a Republican, Democrat, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Communist, or anything like that, but if I had to pick a term it would be thus:

MILITANT CAPITALIST

I believe capitalism to be the main reason behind the meteoric rise to power of the U.S.A.

Economics are always in a state of flux. Right now there are at least 3 major economic theories that are driving the worlds economic engines, capitalism, socialism and communism are the three ways that economics are being handled in the majority of the world.That being said they are all trying to get what they can by any reasonable means possible for they are all symbionicly related to each other. They have to each find ways to cooporate not compete as much in todays economic world. True competion is there as to how good a product is made and its life expectancy.

Wes

Just a short response for the moment, because the early outlook indicates it's going to be a longer case to explain . . . . things are the way they are because that's the only way they can beI'm a big advocate of this notion, but on a larger scale. The economics of the human institution slips through the grasp of such an idea merely because it is, in the big picture, an inconsequentially infinitesimal aspect of the Universe.

I tend to look at it from the perspective that, Regardless of how we arrived at the present moment, this is the only way history could have gone, else it would have gone differently.

Within that idea, we might look in history to any number of important nexus in history and speculate on what might have been, but the people who made the decisions, from an emperor to a general to a footsoldier tearing the unborn from the womb, these are the decisions they made and the actions they undertook; and here we are not considering history as a lie agreed upon, but the raw history, the untold history, the reality of what was.

But the present is transitional, and I know that's splitting a hair, but I wish to look to the future and should not skip the present without at least acknowledging it. Because how things are, compared to how they were or will be, bears a special relationship to the past and future. The past is only connected to the future through the present. At the same time the past and future are joined by the common, overlapping moment of the present, so also are they separated by the natural barriers of the present.

In that unique moment that is, we humans can transform what was into what will be.

Things are the way they are because the past has gone the only way it could have; things are the way they are in the present because we do not actively choose to alter the course of how things are, or the image of what is. Thus, if the future appears to be much like the present, there is only so much we can blame on nature, as the rest is left to our remarkable human power to manipulate our environment and thus our relationship to the living factors it presents.

And that relationship to the relevant, living factors presented by the environment that narrows the consideration from the broad generalization I do support despite the aspect of disagreement noted above. That narrowing is where the aspect, accounting for our differences, ceases to apply effectively.

We may be victims of the past, but we are only victims of the future if we choose in the present to be so.Evolution:

"Survival of the fittest"I would assert in general that survival of the fittest is countersocial. We are social creatures, as evidenced by everything from kin and tribal relations on up to New York, Mexico City, Tokyo, &c. At some point, "survival of the fittest" becomes too individualized. Ask the New York Fire Department. Not all of the people who got out of the Towers, inasmuch as we apply natural selection, should have. And some who should have didn't. Even the very morality of the terrorist act gives way to a more neutralized ethical consideration which undermines our outrage as Americans of common identity or mere human beings in the world.Economics:

"The strong survive, resources are scarce" This is actually the first thing that pinged me when I looked at the topic.

In addition to the more abstract points above, I intend to argue that the assertion, "Resources are scarce," is a myth. However, I did not get any serious research done last night; I have to start from notions of limited wealth and resources in the European pre-American imperialist outlook. And then to tie in ideas of scale and applicability, such as the first section of my post; from there to wrap it in a progressive notion suggesting that we have seen in the transition to the industrial/capitalist era, the defeating of an old notion of fixed resources in the world, and that if we simply look off the planet, we'll see that there's plenty for everybody, and just as it was with the spice trade, it's a matter of getting resource A to destination B for use C.

And that's just the start. I have no idea what it's going to transform into when I put it together the first time, but the scarcity of resources is either outright myth or else mere perceptive error, which is only a more neutralized way of saying it's a myth.

Depending on the sample I used, a high school probability experiment showed that a quarter will flip heads either 72% (18/25) or 100% (17/17) of the time. Neither of these predictions, we know, are accurate. Extending twenty-five coin flips to 12 experiments, we got pretty close, around 51-49 over a total of 300 coin flips. That prediction is a little more accurate.

At best, the perception that resources are a myth is a matter of limited data sample; at worst, it's a myth perpetuated consciously by some who feel they have a stake. Now, Wes, this does not necessarily mean you or I or 15ofthe19. Rather, if we look back in history, resource needs play a huge role in human warfare, such as can be found in an assertion appearing in Pramoedya Ananta Toer's article on a 19th-century novel (http://www.stelling.nl/konfront/4e1999/6903.html):For hundreds of years, spices -- clove, nutmeg and pepper -- were the primary cause of religious conflict. Their value was inestimable: as food preservative (essential in the age before refrigeration), as medicine and, at a time when the variety of food was almost unfathomably limited, for taste.In the meantime, I'm left scrounging for an obscure socio-economic idea permeating history, but apparently either rarely quantified, or else described in different terms. I'll get back to you on that point when I find it, as it's the centerpiece of my response to the asserted scarcity of resources.

(Crap ... textbooks ... where the hell are the old textbooks? College US history classes gloss over this point as part of the "precolonial" period somehow defined by the colonization of the American eastern seaboard.)

quickly:

the scarcity of resources is more of a statement of the effort required to process them into useful goods. a resource is scarce because it is not readily available. you have to do something to acquire it.

i had the same objection as you when I first heard the terminology, but after playing with the idea for a while I think the term "scarce" is quite valid. even this conversation requires the expenditure of will, which is a valuable commodity as you know.

I agree wholly that "survival of the fittest" is at least antisocial at face value... but well:

- it's really a restatement of the anthropic principle.
- those that are fit for survival, do
- humans are social creatures, which are collectively fit to survive. so really it's counterintuitive I realize, but it is the fact that they are social creatures that makes them fit, so it is not anti-social. if at the level of the individual, this same realization is present, it is pro-social. note the bit about the "subjective good"

HHMM, could we get an evolutionary biologist in on this?

""things are the way they are because that's the only way they can be""

A book in itself, as Tiassa has started. Why not just say "we are here, so....."

""Survival of the fittest""

In what environment? There is the purely "natural" one, and the myriad ones created by humans. Someone who survives well in a slum might well not survive well in a technocratic utopia. At the moment the world is a mix of many different environments, social, physical and economic.

""The strong survive, resources are scarce""

Sort of. But also, the economic system thrives by reducing scarcity, at least in the short term. Merely saying the strong survive is too individualistic, strong also covers social groups, families, etc, and strength is a relative term. Which means you have to include the idea of cooperation and friendship and "altruism" etc. Remember also that if you have a hunter gatherer type lifestyle, minimal technology etc, you have most of the resources you need to hand and they replenish themselves.

Oh aye, final thing:
*shoots 15 of the 19*

Why not just say "we are here, so....."

The thread "As it should be (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32081)" (which I started) is my expression (and rewording) of this principle.

""Survival of the fittest""

In what environment?

Any. Those that are fit for environment X, thrive in environment X.

""The strong survive, resources are scarce""

Sort of. But also, the economic system thrives by reducing scarcity, at least in the short term.
Reducing scarcity? Hehe.. I would have said "increacing efficiency". Interesting. I think that increasing efficiency is imperative in both the long and short term. Crappy efficiency = wasted resources.

Merely saying the strong survive is too individualistic, strong also covers social groups, families, etc, and strength is a relative term.

I both agree and disagree, I think it is a statement that covers all possible configurations as long as you take into account that part about the profit function being dependent upon "the subjective good".

Which means you have to include the idea of cooperation and friendship and "altruism" etc.

Which is all encompassed by the subjective good.

Remember also that if you have a hunter gatherer type lifestyle, minimal technology etc, you have most of the resources you need to hand and they replenish themselves.

Yes but do you survive? You're right in small numbers, but try to put the current populous (all of them) into a hunter/gatherer scenario and I'd bet you'd lose half in under 5 years.

You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context". Sure, the universe is full of everything we need, but who cares if it's too expensive to retrieve said resources?


Guthrie, I'm wearing my super-terrific-fantastic body armor. I shall meet you in the street at high noon to settle this affair. Prepare to be smote good sir. :D

Hey, I shot you first. *nips off to "www.nuclearsupermarket.com"*

"Reducing scarcity? Hehe.. I would have said "increacing efficiency". Interesting. I think that increasing efficiency is imperative in both the long and short term. Crappy efficiency = wasted resources."

Well, we have howked more resources out of the earth over the past 100 years than all our ancestors put together. Both increased efficiency and better techniques for exploitation, ie more material in circulation, so I think scarcity is perhaps a better way of looking at it in this case. And I do agree with 15ofthe19 about retrieval costs.

"Yes but do you survive? You're right in small numbers, but try to put the current populous (all of them) into a hunter/gatherer scenario and I'd bet you'd lose half in under 5 years."

Precisely. Except that we'd probably lose more like 90% i think.

"as long as you take into account that part about the profit function being dependent upon "the subjective good"."

Fair enough. Then we get into economics and politics, see all the other damn threads for information.

Sure, the universe is full of everything we need, but who cares if it's too expensive to retrieve said resources?

the scarcity of resources is more of a statement of the effort required to process them into useful goods. a resource is scarce because it is not readily available. you have to do something to acquire it

I think the term "scarce" is quite valid. even this conversation requires the expenditure of will, which is a valuable commodity as you know

__________________________________________________ _____________

You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context"And if the present context is itself a myth?Quote:
Originally Posted by 15ofthe19
Sure, the universe is full of everything we need, but who cares if it's too expensive to retrieve said resources?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wesmorris
the scarcity of resources is more of a statement of the effort required to process them into useful goods. a resource is scarce because it is not readily available. you have to do something to acquire it


Quote:
Originally Posted by wesmorris
I think the term "scarce" is quite valid. even this conversation requires the expenditure of will, which is a valuable commodity as you knowIf we look to the idea that the present context is a myth, we see in the concerns about scarcity of resources evidence of that myth.

Yes, resource extraction and implementation is an issue, but human economy depends to a certain degree on inefficiency. If you cut away to the basic industries of life--providing for needs and even some luxury--there are certain ways the resources can be transformed to goods and delivered to the people. Beyond that, though, most of "civilized," "first-world," "modern" economy is based around larding up those processes.

A Buddhist sage whose name escapes me at present once made the point that, while he could not say war was immoral, he did find it supremely inefficient as a means of dealing with suffering and desire and ignorance.

And that's just the thing. Anyone remember the "middle management purge" of the 1990s, as the economy refocused and moved into the Clinton era? While the purge was in search of profits, the fact remains that most of these people were extraneous.

A certain amount of bureaucracy is required, but can we pretend that people haven't been complaining about red tape in America since before I was born?

The efficient retrieval and implementation of extraterrestrial resources is a bit of a challenge, but the rewards are huge. Furthermore, the challenge is complicated by extraneous issues. I look to 15ofthe19's point about expense and would respond, "Ask me again when the human species decides to get serious about the issue."

But that's still a while into the future. The planet can support ten times the population we have if we manage our resources correctly. How "Hotel Tokyo" life would look at that point, how megapolitan, how bland?

It's all a matter of what we choose. Scarcity of resources, even on an earthbound scale, is still a product of our own choosing as human beings.

There's no reason to cram sixty billion people onto the planet before we get off this rock, but in the meantime, feeding six billion is well within our reach.

It's one of the hardest things for me to hear or see someone believing so strongly in something that I think it is extremely probably that they have no [i]real[i] knowledge about that which they speak.
You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context"

The context is "everything". Everything which is lent value by a human psyche, or is of intrinsic value to the survival of something that is alive (in certain cases, these two are at odds, the percieved value and the intrinsic value (the case of the suicidal man)), is a resource. Lending it value, or the "isness" of its value establishes it as a resource. Note that value can only be established from a perspective - even if that of an individual bacteria.

My initial thought was that you are wrong here because of the way I read your statement. However after reading it a few times, I see no evidence that you restricted the definition of "economic". With that consideration, I don't think your comment contradicts mine above. I think economics is relevant to everything. It regards the interaction of value and the omnipresent quest for subjective goodness. Even a suicidal man is acting in what he perceives to be his own best interest.

And if the present context is itself a myth?

The application of the concept of "economics" can be expanded as broadly as one wishes. IMO, economics is the study of how resources are allocated and the associated interactions. I view "anything of subjective value" (edit: i just noticed that 'subjective' and 'value' are really pretty much redundant) as a resource. Are you asserting that "subjective value" is a myth?

If we look to the idea that the present context is a myth, we see in the concerns about scarcity of resources evidence of that myth.

In the context that I've established, I don't they the term "myth" is at all applicable (unless you're asserting you don't agree that it's reasonable to be reasonable, in which case debate is rather pointless). Given that I don't know if I understand what you mean, I'll drop it here until you clarify the point I asked about above, as the rest of your post seems to rest on this assertion.

You lost me Wes. Are you saying that it's wrong to contain your original question within the "present context"?

You lost me Wes. Are you saying that it's wrong to contain your original question within the "present context"?

Hehe, and you lost me with your question.

I was saying that when I read your qualification:


You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context"

- the first time I thought you were talking about economics as in limited to greenspan's type of concerns. With the combination of the three terms as suggested in the title of the thread, I'm expanding the scope of 'economics' to include the definition I posted in the post preceding this one:

The context is "everything". Everything which is lent value by a human psyche, or is of intrinsic value to the survival of something that is alive (in certain cases, these two are at odds, the percieved value and the intrinsic value (the case of the suicidal man)), is a resource. Lending it value, or the "isness" of its value establishes it as a resource. Note that value can only be established from a perspective - even if that of an individual bacteria.

So I thought you'd placed a limit on the considerations of economics with your commented quoted above, but then I realized you hadn't explicitely done that, so your words aren't necessarily contradictory to my own.

You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context". Sure, the universe is full of everything we need, but who cares if it's too expensive to retrieve said resources? I'll start here again, since I was so wonderfully vague the first time around.

The present context of economic viability is what I find mythical in a certain sense. Remember the idea of the consent of the governed; just because there is no state does not mean we do not consent to the madness. Remember that nobody on the face of the planet can tell you what a dollar is worth at any given moment; you need a computer to do it, if at all.

Albert O. Hirschmann opens the first chapter of his book, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph with a very simple idea: At the beginning of the principal section of his famous essay, Max Weber asked: "Now, how could an activity, which was at best ethically tolerated, turn into a calling in the sense of Benjamin Franklin?" In other words: How did commercial, banking, and similar money-making pursuits become honorable at some point in the modern age after having stood condemned or despised as greed, love of lucre, and avarice for centuries past?

The enormous critical literature on The Protestant Ethic has found fault even with this point of departure of Weber's inquiry. The "spirit of capitalism," it has been alleged, was extant among the merchants as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and a positive attitude toward certain categories of business pursuits could be discovered in the writings of the Scholastics.

Weber's question is nevertheless justified if it is asked in a comparative vein. No matter how much approval was bestowed on commerce and other forms of money-making, they certainly stood lower in the scale of medieval values than a number of other activities, particularly the striving for glory . . . . (pg. 9)For my purposes in this discussion, Hirschmann (and Weber; how do you like the natural double-punch of that citation?) might as well be asking, How did the myth of labor and economy transform from one set of virtues to another? How is the pagan sanctified; the tragic become laughable; the demon dwindled to a clockwork toy?

And from that consideration, we might see a bit of the myth exposed. The constant reshaping of a now that becomes then is, on the one hand, exactly how we move from there to here. But it is also purely a cooperative convention despite the amount of friction it brings.

Viewed from a certain degree of removal, it looks a bit like a mosh pit. You can stand safely back in the bar and watch the show from there, or you can wander out onto the floor and risk spilling your drink.

We might look at it with a simple comparison:

• Then - Slay the dragon, save the maiden, get the glory.
• Now - Why slay the dragon when you can trollop through the forest gathering fewments and sell them for their weight in gold?
• Someday? - Are the aphrodisiac qualities alleged of fewments really worth a war?

Part of what's happening in the United States today is directly related to this idea. Coming out of the 1980s, almost anything was for sale. And at some point, Joe Q. Businessman realized that just because he could evict his own mother didn't mean he should. Somewhere in the 90s, people began to tire of serving their economy, though the price of style and prosperity--constant debt--didn't fall completely out of fashion. Instead of reexamining the superficial desires that compel Americans to work so damn hard, people (rightly, nonetheless) looked to the corporate heads--what were the executives doing that interfered with the fulfillment of superficial desire? (As we saw in the Enron instance and others, there were also some vital necessities sacked for the big game.)

So in the now, people look at the then and say, "No, not again." And, of course, they'll do it anyway, but that's beside the point for the moment.

In terms of the scarcity of resources, we might look at the resource challenges that made Arabia such a fierce region. We might also consider the near-genocidal "taming" of the United States in the name of "Manifest Destiny." Obviously, resources were plentiful in the pioneer days, unlike a desert in Arabia, but implementation challenges made the resources expensive, as such.

In an abstract consideration, the idea of harvesting minerals from space certainly does fall under the "expensive" category, but it serves well as an example because it is the future and not the past. In the past, it was the spice trade, and now it's the energy trade.

What is the confusion between the dog-eat-dog ideas of the world and the cooperative human endeavor? Born under the bad sign of Nixon, awakening at the transition from Carter to Reagan, I grew up on the idea that human beings are in competition with one another. And watching that dynamic between people reveals much about the miseries of the world.

We're a cooperative collective bent on internecine competition; one of my favorite taglines is that "Nature should be enough." Weather and climate, geology, microbiology--shouldn't drought and earthquake and flood and the eventual comet or asteroid be enough? HIV, ebloa, cancer? What about the question of whether humanity is obliged to deal with a certain baseline percentage of pedophiles and predators?

In the meantime, we might remember how much of our economy is based in things breaking. I'm not just talking about your auto mechanics and vending machine and copier servicepeople, but also your friendly Microsoft tech support department. These days, software is released well before it's ready. How many recalls would you accept for your car? Of course, our lives and safety on the road is more important to us than the frustration of a collapsed OS, so in a certain way that's understandable. But we also know what that frustration does. (Look at how much "economy" the Y2K scare created.)

Are we the same nation today as we would have been, as we were, for having abandoned the gold standard?

What would happen if we stopped one night and gave every person on the face of the planet a million dollars?

• We'd run out of money? Says who? And why?
• Markets would collapse? For what reason?

The nearest I can figure is that "the rich" would panic at the offset of their comparative wealth. If you have a ten million dollars to Joe's ten-thousand, you have a thousand times more money than he does. But if you have eleven million dollars to Joe's million and change, you're only ten or eleven times richer than Joe. That really seems to be what it's about, and why Star Trek aims toward an ideology in which money is a useless concept.

Think of the days when we get off this rock and start mining the asteroid belts; will we see a replay of American expansion? A new Manifest Destiny? New robber-barons aiming to create a serfdom out of an allegedly free society? Why would we have to? Are we incapable of learning or unwilling to learn? And whether I embrace the world, seek to conquer it, or hide from it in a cave somewhere, while I cannot control what circumstances have come before me, I certainly am responsible for my decisions in response to the relevant factors, as well as being responsible for the internal priorities that make the relevant factors important to begin with. It's easy enough when the process is "duck, someone's shooting!" But when it's how to accommodate a suicidal reliving memories of rape, it's a different story entirely. And it's not exactly a clearly-defined issue when we inflate it to a scale that encompasses humanity and all its quirks.

But the constraints and processes which define the present context of economic viability are as much mythic as patriotism or religion. Certainly, we must deal with the circumstances, but we might look to Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., and, in his own right, George W. Bush. Each of them, in working with the circumstances put before them, chose to invoke new paradigms and strive toward the fulfillment of a new convention among people: Protestantism, civil rights, a new American hegemony.

Economy? Well, Marx had an idea. I like Wilde's take on socialism. But people (Americans, for instance) don't believe in these ideas. They believe in competition, in winners and losers, and choose division and comparison.

But they can choose the cooperative and communitarian any time, and suddenly the scarcity of resources is seen as an opportunity and not a challenge; survival of the fittest becomes about species and not about individuals; and suddenly the way things are is considerably different from the way things were--a new context is chosen and established.

Which all adds up to approximately why I don't think it necessary to qualify the statement that scarcity of resources is a myth according economic viability in the present context.

Or am I on the wrong vein again?

We've been competing for thousands of years. It's in our most primal nature. To deny it is to deny our very dna itself. Man acheives his highest levels of performance because of competition. Without it, we aren't where we sit today.

We've been competing for thousands of years. It's in our most primal nature. To deny it is to deny our very dna itself. Man acheives his highest levels of performance because of competition. Without it, we aren't where we sit today.

We are probably here because we are cooperating. Our complex social structure is probably largely behind our big brain. Not because we were competing with our neighbour.

'survival of the fittest' is a phrase generally used by people who do not understand evolution.

We've been competing for thousands of years. It's in our most primal nature. To deny it is to deny our very dna itself. Man acheives his highest levels of performance because of competition. Without it, we aren't where we sit today.

I think it's a mutually beneficial competition though. I mean, I've lived 34 years and I'm generally healthy and very happy because of society allowing me a place to thrive. Seems pretty cooperative to me, even though it includes competition.

You can't say that "scarcity of resources" is a myth without qualifying your statement with "as long as we aren't talking about economic viability in the present context". Sure, the universe is full of everything we need, but who cares if it's too expensive to retrieve said resources?

The present context of economic viability is what I find mythical in a certain sense.

Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss fundamentals of economics. I think I've come up with a generalized model that is applicable regardless of the details. I'll try to demonstrate why with the rest of your post.

Remember the idea of the consent of the governed; just because there is no state does not mean we do not consent to the madness.

Well okay I would try on that but I have no idea of the relevance. I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously, there is a state.

Remember that nobody on the face of the planet can tell you what a dollar is worth at any given moment; you need a computer to do it, if at all.

That is entirely wrong. You seem to think there is some objective value floating around in the aether somewhere? Sure someone might try to calculate it, but the value of a dollar is so easy to see that you've completely overlooked it. Did your dollar get you a pack of smokes? Subjective value is the only value there is. A dollar is as meaningful as any individual thinks it is. It's that simple.

Albert O. Hirschmann opens the first chapter of his book, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph with a very simple idea: For my purposes in this discussion, Hirschmann (and Weber; how do you like the natural double-punch of that citation?) might as well be asking, How did the myth of labor and economy transform from one set of virtues to another? How is the pagan sanctified; the tragic become laughable; the demon dwindled to a clockwork toy?

Whatever he says, that's fine. Capitalism underlies any purported economic model, regardless of labels. Can you see why? Ultimately, the strong survive - regardless of what they call themselves, regardless of the label of the system they create for themselves. If this conversation were a discussion of the merits of capitalism (which is not the intent, but to discuss the merits of the model), I would say that true capitalism is absolute best possible means to distribute resources so long as each member is cognizant of the following fact: My neighbors satisfaction is in my best interest, second to my own, but an important consideration regarding my profit function. This can be derived from the simple "we seek what is subjectively good" if you define good in a way that really makes sense. Obviously however, no one is really accountable to that definition, so we see a lot of shallow instead of healthy greed. I think shallow greed makes me want to get the most from you, regardless of the consequences to you. I think healthy greed makes me want to make sure that we both get what we want from any situation, since we can help each other get what we want again in the future - thereby increasing our mutual chance for survival.

And from that consideration, we might see a bit of the myth exposed.

I see your point, but I don't think "viability" is the issue here. Viability is a fleeting condition of the summation of all the players, the rules of the system, blah blah. Here I'm discussing the foundation. I think I've summarized a basic nuetral model, which could be utilized (with development for particular scenarios/conditions) for determining the potential viability of any set of parameters. I broke it down damnit. I did. LOL. Okay well it seems that way to me. I suppose viability might be at issue, but only the viability of the model, not the viability of the current economy. That is another thread.

Viewed from a certain degree of removal, it looks a bit like a mosh pit. You can stand safely back in the bar and watch the show from there, or you can wander out onto the floor and risk spilling your drink.

This is nature, what do you expect? Actually, I think there is a problem if you have expectations, as you will taint your analysis. You have to really understand a system before you can attempt to modify it to your expectation. Some systems are of such integration (interconnectedness?) that they are highly sensitive to minute changes.

We might look at it with a simple comparison:

• Then - Slay the dragon, save the maiden, get the glory.
• Now - Why slay the dragon when you can trollop through the forest gathering fewments and sell them for their weight in gold?
• Someday? - Are the aphrodisiac qualities alleged of fewments really worth a war?

Fewments? I don't see the pertinence of your comparison, nor do I see what you're driving at as it stands on it's own.

Coming out of the 1980s, almost anything was for sale. And at some point, Joe Q. Businessman realized that just because he could evict his own mother didn't mean he should. Somewhere in the 90s, people began to tire of serving their economy, though the price of style and prosperity--constant debt--didn't fall completely out of fashion. Instead of reexamining the superficial desires that compel Americans to work so damn hard, people (rightly, nonetheless) looked to the corporate heads--what were the executives doing that interfered with the fulfillment of superficial desire? (As we saw in the Enron instance and others, there were also some vital necessities sacked for the big game.)

What? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems like you're just making shit up. How do you reach this conclusion? As far as I can tell, there is always a mixing swirling interaction of education, bad greed, good greed, blah blah. I'm saying at a given time there are some people like Joe Q. Businessman before his realization, som like him after, some who do a wholly different thing... some who do both depending on their mood... on and on. Every iteration of players can be found within the system. I see that you're just making generalizations about the system at a given time, but I don't see their validity. That doesn't mean they're wrong of course.

So in the now, people look at the then and say, "No, not again." And, of course, they'll do it anyway, but that's beside the point for the moment.

That is so wholly dependent on timing and circumstance that I don't see the validity. You're right that some people do that, but to make it a generalization doesn't hold water to me, as there are so many different configurations of mindset. Could be that I'm not paying as close of attention as I think I am.

In terms of the scarcity of resources, we might look at the resource challenges that made Arabia such a fierce region. We might also consider the near-genocidal "taming" of the United States in the name of "Manifest Destiny."

Oh, so you're criticizing governments. Yeah okay then. That's not really what this was intended to be about, but as you wish.

Obviously, resources were plentiful in the pioneer days, unlike a desert in Arabia, but implementation challenges made the resources expensive, as such.

Resources are only as plentiful as your ability to attain and utilize them. (scarce, see)

In an abstract consideration, the idea of harvesting minerals from space certainly does fall under the "expensive" category, but it serves well as an example because it is the future and not the past.

No tiassa, at the moment it falls under the "impossible" category. It will become possible over time at least within the next 100 years or so I'd imagine.

What is the confusion between the dog-eat-dog ideas of the world and the cooperative human endeavor?

Well, that is a thread in and of itself. Coorporations behave the way they do for good reason I think. Sounds like a good conversation. If you start a thread, please provide a link. My opinion is that corporations often sell-out to the bottom line in cash only evaluation because there is no broader profit function to go by. Their investors generally invest to make money, not to improve the world, so the board of the corporation feels responsible to providing exactly that - cash profit. I think that is wholly short-sighted, but hard to avoid without intervention or proper education.

Born under the bad sign of Nixon, awakening at the transition from Carter to Reagan, I grew up on the idea that human beings are in competition with one another. And watching that dynamic between people reveals much about the miseries of the world.

So you think the bum on the street has survived as long as he has because of this horrific escalation of competition?

We're a cooperative collective bent on internecine competition; one of my favorite taglines is that "Nature should be enough." Weather and climate, geology, microbiology--shouldn't drought and earthquake and flood and the eventual comet or asteroid be enough? HIV, ebloa, cancer?

You completely ignore that what is "good" is wholly subjective. Some people surely think that my death would/will be good. I beg to differ. This subjective inherently introduces friction into the system, and is exactly part of nature. I suppose there are aspects of "good" that are general. Like that which benefits us as organisms for the most part, it's good to fix a broken leg or you won't be able to walk, etc. I think most things that affect the overall value of "i think this is worth that" however, is wholly subjective. Rather, just because it's valuable to everyone, that doesn't mean that is really more than the subjective value. It's just that most people have a few subjective things in common... like being people for instance.

What about the question of whether humanity is obliged to deal with a certain baseline percentage of pedophiles and predators?
Oh I see you've taken it under consideration sort of at least. Hmm.. yes what about that indeed? Best possible solution is to reach a consensus on acceptable behavior and attempt to maintain accountability for said behavior.

In the meantime, we might remember how much of our economy is based in things breaking. I'm not just talking about your auto mechanics and vending machine and copier servicepeople, but also your friendly Microsoft tech support department. These days, software is released well before it's ready. How many recalls would you accept for your car? Of course, our lives and safety on the road is more important to us than the frustration of a collapsed OS, so in a certain way that's understandable. But we also know what that frustration does. (Look at how much "economy" the Y2K scare created.)
Don't see the relevance.

Are we the same nation today as we would have been, as we were, for having abandoned the gold standard?

I dunno.

What would happen if we stopped one night and gave every person on the face of the planet a million dollars?

The individual would see the value of what other people consider a dollar to be worth, plummet hugely.

• We'd run out of money? Says who? And why?
• Markets would collapse? For what reason?

You can print as much money as you want, doesn't mean shit if people don't value it. Markets would collapes because people would lose confidence in their ability to gauge value. They'd likely recover in some time once they absorbed the new value estimates, but all in all you'd end up with about the same scenario as when you started. See the antropic principle.

The nearest I can figure is that "the rich" would panic at the offset of their comparative wealth. If you have a ten million dollars to Joe's ten-thousand, you have a thousand times more money than he does. But if you have eleven million dollars to Joe's million and change, you're only ten or eleven times richer than Joe.

You've pitched this idea before. Found yourself a pulpit eh? As you wish. Let's think about it some then shall we? Okay: Everyone gets a million dollars - prices on everything shoot up through the roof overnight. The foundation of the value of money is totally shot - your cigarettes are of different value to the person who sold them to you yesterday. Everything is of different monetary value than it was the day before, so like I said, the markets go crazy because the established cash value of everything goes to shit. Eventually, the fray settles down... cash value is re-established and everyone still has to work, because we have to attain and utlize the resources to provide things that people value. So your idea is nothing but forced wealth re-distribution, which I think is redundant to a healthy economy.

That really seems to be what it's about, and why Star Trek aims toward an ideology in which money is a useless concept.

I see, you're still on the premise of limitless resources. Nice, but wrong. Note that star trek is a fantasy. Love the show, love the idea, but it's entirely impractical as value exists today. Your resources would have to be actually limitless as a foundation for such a society, and I don't think you'd like what would happen if resources were actually limitless. At this point, negative greed is limited by means. This would not be the case if resources were not fundamentally scarce.

Think of the days when we get off this rock and start mining the asteroid belts; will we see a replay of American expansion? A new Manifest Destiny?

Probably (sadly).

New robber-barons aiming to create a serfdom out of an allegedly free society?

Depends on if it is allowed, under what terms - and the values of the individuals undertaking the endeavor.

Why would we have to? Are we incapable of learning or unwilling to learn?

You speak as if your expectation is relevant. I don't mean that as rude, I mean that your expecation is irrelevant. One can either change the system not to allow it or hope things work out. The ideal scenario is that you motivate people to help their brothers rather than trod on them. You motivate people to trod on them and trod they will - at least some of them. Expectation be damned.

And whether I embrace the world, seek to conquer it, or hide from it in a cave somewhere, while I cannot control what circumstances have come before me, I certainly am responsible for my decisions in response to the relevant factors, as well as being responsible for the internal priorities that make the relevant factors important to begin with. It's easy enough when the process is "duck, someone's shooting!" But when it's how to accommodate a suicidal reliving memories of rape, it's a different story entirely. And it's not exactly a clearly-defined issue when we inflate it to a scale that encompasses humanity and all its quirks.

Figure out a way to motivate people to improve each other, rather than destroy each other, then instill that into the system. You do end up with a bit of a problem though, in that whole "subjective good" thing. If you for instance, think I am improved by learning macrame and I disagree, we have a bit of an impass eh? How do we resolve it? According to your perspective, we should "learn" from it eh? Who is supposed to learn what? Who says what is "good"? Should we all turn to you for our lessons? Are you sure they are good? What if my good disagrees with yours? Should you just scold me into thinking your good is good? You think that's gonna work? Isn't that a violation of what you just said about learning? The only possible way is to motivate me to understand that what I've considered to be good up till now, can be left by the wayside.. and give me reason to adopt a new good. Give me something irrifutable, something beautiful (as I see it) and I'll follow. Scold me and I'll just kick you in the nutz. At least that's a generalization of how I see psychology playing into this.

But the constraints and processes which define the present context of economic viability are as much mythic as patriotism or religion. Certainly, we must deal with the circumstances, but we might look to Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., and, in his own right, George W. Bush. Each of them, in working with the circumstances put before them, chose to invoke new paradigms and strive toward the fulfillment of a new convention among people: Protestantism, civil rights, a new American hegemony.

Saying it doesn't mean anything. Do it and you're making progress. Be careful though, that you're not unwittingly working to the detriment of that which you value.

Economy? Well, Marx had an idea. I like Wilde's take on socialism. But people (Americans, for instance) don't believe in these ideas. They believe in competition, in winners and losers, and choose division and comparison.

You seem to think they should. What if the ideas are just wrong (I don't know what wilde's take on anything is, so I have no idea)? Maybe they're right, but people can't relate to them. If people can't relate to them, why would they believe them? Personally, I think socialism is a horrible, terrible, sick thing, founded it idealistic retardation. Healthy capitalism, where your satisfaction is part of my profit function is the only viable economic foundation in my opinion... rather, it's inherently most efficient. Healthy competition is the thing. It allows the most satisfaction for the least cost, as people are free to pursue what they want and are motivated not to pursue it if they turn out to be bad at it. That keeps people who are good at doing what they do, doing what they do, which is generally what they want to do - because they're good at it. Basically, if you don't know how to cook a pizza, step aside and I'll show you, if you still can't figure it out, or if you spend all of your pizza money on cocaine, you really shouldn't be in the pizza business. Get out so someone else can give it a go. That is competition, and that is freakin beautiful from my perspective.

But they can choose the cooperative and communitarian any time, and suddenly the scarcity of resources is seen as an opportunity and not a challenge; survival of the fittest becomes about species and not about individuals; and suddenly the way things are is considerably different from the way things were--a new context is chosen and established.

So now you've abandoned your theory that resources aren't scarce? It could be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said.

Which all adds up to approximately why I don't think it necessary to qualify the statement that scarcity of resources is a myth according economic viability in the present context.

The statement is simply false to begin with, so qualification is unnecessary.

Or am I on the wrong vein again?

You have basically said that resources are limitless, which is in total disregard to having been corrected as follows:

Originally Posted by wesmorris
the scarcity of resources is more of a statement of the effort required to process them into useful goods. a resource is scarce because it is not readily available. you have to do something to acquire it

- You have not at all IMO shown that you understand this, or addressed it.

A resource is not scarce if I can think of it, it appears immediately before me and that is the entire deal. Otherwise, someone has to jack with it. That person has a limited amount of time (x hours per day for their adult working life) in which to jack with aquiring it. What is their motivation to do it? Do you think you'll be more motivated if I offer you a bigger sandwich for lunch? What about a steak dinner? A house? Are you gonna be my friend if I help you out? What if I don't like you nor want your friendship? That should be enough? Why don't you get the resources yourself? Oh you don't know how? Well I do, so how are you gonna motivate me to action? I might be motivated if you're gonna die if I don't act, but are you gonna die if you don't get your smokes? Eh? You think socialism solves this problem? :rolleyes: IMO, it just makes it worse.

Why????

Because socialism tries to pretend there is "good" that everyone agrees upon, rather than letting the system come to it's own balance. Why? Because value is subjective.

Well, I'm talking in generalization above really. A tinge of socialism is desirable, depending on how you define it. It's my belief that for a society to consider itself "modern" or "responsible", the basics should be accessible to anyone in need of them. food, shelter, clothing and medical attention should be available to anyone who needs them (of course all of them excepting medical attention being wholly modest accomodations). Less than that is barbaric. If you note, that is basically the way things are right now though some people refuse it due to mental illness or whatever. Lots of paranoids on the street you know, mostly because their condition makes them wholly unreasonable, even in seeking medical treatment. The point here was that anything more than the basics, you should earn.

Crap I'm rambling and I have to get some work done.

North Korea vs South Korea.

One country has a thriving, vibrant economy and has hosted the Olympics in recent memory.

The other cannot feed its citizenry.

Competition is bad?

When are the asshats of the world going to get the memo?

Capitalism works. Communism failed.

I love being succint.

North Korea vs South Korea.

One country has a thriving, vibrant economy and has hosted the Olympics in recent memory.

The other cannot feed its citizenry.

Competition is bad?

When are the asshats of the world going to get the memo?

Capitalism works. Communism failed.

I love being succint.

North korea is not a communist country.

You have basically said that resources are limitless, which is in total disregard to having been corrected as follows:

Originally Posted by wesmorris
the scarcity of resources is more of a statement of the effort required to process them into useful goods. a resource is scarce because it is not readily available. you have to do something to acquire it

- You have not at all IMO shown that you understand this, or addressed it. Hmm ...If we look to the idea that the present context is a myth, we see in the concerns about scarcity of resources evidence of that myth.

Yes, resource extraction and implementation is an issue, but human economy depends to a certain degree on inefficiency. If you cut away to the basic industries of life--providing for needs and even some luxury--there are certain ways the resources can be transformed to goods and delivered to the people. Beyond that, though, most of "civilized," "first-world," "modern" economy is based around larding up those processes . . . .

. . . . The efficient retrieval and implementation of extraterrestrial resources is a bit of a challenge, but the rewards are huge. Furthermore, the challenge is complicated by extraneous issues. I look to 15ofthe19 's point about expense and would respond, "Ask me again when the human species decides to get serious about the issue."

But that's still a while into the future. The planet can support ten times the population we have if we manage our resources correctly. How "Hotel Tokyo" life would look at that point, how megapolitan, how bland?

It's all a matter of what we choose. Scarcity of resources, even on an earthbound scale, is still a product of our own choosing as human beings.

There's no reason to cram sixty billion people onto the planet before we get off this rock, but in the meantime, feeding six billion is well within our reach.Gesundheit.

It's just that, regardless of your opinion of whether or not I understand it, I have addressed it.

• FoodFirst. "The Myth of Scarcity." See http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/w98v5n1.html
• Rojas, Robinson. "Notes on economic theory: assuming scarcity." See http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/scarcity.htm
• Gray, John. "Wars of want." Guardian Unlimited, August 21, 2001. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4242526,00.html
• Bruggeman, Walter. "The liturgy of abundance, the myth of scarcity." Christian Century, March 24, 1999. See http://www.stewardshipoflife.org/Resources/brueggemann.htm (Note! For amusement, only. You might chuckle at the bit about Pharoah.)
• Woodman, Ian. "Abstract - Wars of Scarcity; Myth or Reality? An Examination of Resources Scarcities as a Cause of Conflict in the Sub-Saharan Africa." Royal College of Defence Studies (UK), Seaford House Papers, 2002. See https://da.mod.uk/RCDS/Home/Information/Library/ResearchPapers/Seaford2002/Woodman (Note! I wish I could find the actual paper, as the Commandant's Forward for the 2002 Seaford House Papers (https://da.mod.uk/RCDS/Home/Information/Library/ResearchPapers/Seaford2002/CommandantsForward2002) notes that, "Mr Woodman in his paper on ‘Wars of Scarcity: Myth or Reality’ effectively challenges the conventional wisdom . . . he concludes that dramatic claims of the likelihood, indeed inevitability of inter-state conflict due to resource scarcities in sub-Saharan Africa have been exaggerated.")

Part of the myth of the present context is also found in a short paragraph I don't see addressed:In an abstract consideration, the idea of harvesting minerals from space certainly does fall under the "expensive" category, but it serves well as an example because it is the future and not the past. In the past, it was the spice trade, and now it's the energy trade.There's plenty and there always has been. In the past, legitimate technological challenges presented difficulties to the implementation of resources. The modern era, however, chooses the scarcity that comes in our economy is a byproduct of the economic paradigms we prefer.Under the third heading, the history of commerce, or the causes of the slow progress of opulence, Adam Smith dealt with 'first, natural impediments, and secondly, the oppression of civil government'. He is not recorded to have mentioned any natural impediments except the absence of division of labour in rude and barbarous times owing to the want of stock. But on the oppression of civil government he had much to say. At first governments were so feeble that they could not offer their subjects that security without which no man has any motive to be industrious. Afterwards, when governments became powerful enough to give internal security, they fought among themselves, and their subjects were harried by foreign enemies. Agriculture was hindered by great tracts of land being thrown into the hands of single persons. This led at first to cultivation by slaves, who had no motive to industry; then came tenants by steelbow (metayers) who had no sufficient inducement to improve the land; finally the present method of cultivation by tenants was introduced, but these for a long time were insecure in their holdings, and had to pay rent in kind, which made them liable to be severely affected by bad seasons. Feudal subsidies discouraged industry, the law of primogeniture, entails, and the expense of transferring land prevented the large estates from being divided. The restrictions on the export of corn helped to stop the progress of agriculture. Progress in arts and commerce was also hindered by slavery, as well as by the ancient contempt for industry and commerce, by the want of enforcement of contracts, by the various difficulties and dangers of transport, by the establishment of fairs, markets and staple towns, by duties on imports and exports, and by monopolies, corporation privileges, the statute of apprenticeship and bounties. (Cannan (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN0.html), Preface to Smith's Wealth of Nations, 1904)Thus we see that the scarcity of resources, even inasmuch as we choose to include the expenditures of processing and implementation, is long-known to be a byproduct of human priorities. Wes, I'm 100 years behind Cannan, and 228 years behind Smith on this one.

From the McGraw-Hill Online Learning Center, "Understanding Business, 6e":A. GROWTH ECONOMICS AND ADAM SMITH .

1. ADAM SMITH advocated creating wealth through entrepreneurship.
- a. Rather than divide fixed resources, Smith envisioned creating more resources so that everyone could be wealthier.
- b. In 1776, Smith wrote a book called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS in which he outlined steps for creating prosperity.
2. Smith believed that FREEDOM was vital to the survival of any economy.
3. Also, he believed that people will work hard if they have INCENTIVES for doing so.
4. Smith is considered by some to be the FATHER OF MODERN ECONOMICS. (Nickels, et al. (http://www.mhhe.com/business/busadmin/nickels_6_ub/student/olc/ch02els.mhtml))This is actually the very idea I've been missing. Turns out I was looking three or so centuries too early. I have no idea how Smith slipped my mind.

At any rate, even by your extended definition of scarcity, which, while it does invoke a broad range of resources, still seems insufficient as it does not account for the relationship between the resources. I mean, I see what you're getting at, but even that scarcity is artificial in the present.

Just a couple of random notes on other stuff:No tiassa, at the moment it falls under the "impossible" category. It will become possible over time at least within the next 100 years or so I'd imagine.We have moon rocks.

It's just that getting them is really, really expensive.• (I don't know what wilde's take on anything is, so I have no idea)?
• You think socialism solves this problem?To the latter, the answer is obvious. No, else I would be a Socialist.

However, Wilde puts it very simply: The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.

Really, it's a simple concept.So now you've abandoned your theory that resources aren't scarce? It could be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said.Yes, you have misunderstood. You're being a little too exacting. Try looking at it like this:Economy? Well, Marx had an idea. I like Wilde's take on socialism. But people (Americans, for instance) don't believe in these ideas. They believe in competition, in winners and losers, and choose division and comparison.

But they can choose the cooperative and communitarian any time, and suddenly the scarcity of resources is seen as an opportunity and not a challenge; survival of the fittest becomes about species and not about individuals; and suddenly the way things are is considerably different from the way things were--a new context is chosen and established.That how many Christians believe that Jesus saves them in the afterlife does not change the fact that it's a myth. That so many people accept the scarcity of resources does not change the fact that it is a myth. But that myth permeates so deeply that pretty much all economic theories account for it. (See Rojas link (http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/scarcity.htm), offered above.)

For me, it's the possibility of the advent of a major paradigm shift, not a retreat from the idea that scarcity is a myth. When scarcity is undertaken as an opportunity, the possibility arises that the myth of scarcity can be seen clearly.

At present, when we fail, the burden of scarcity, the challenge to progress is often a contributing factor. At present, when we succeed, it can be said to be a "victory" against scarcity. By a different paradigm, however, we can succeed and see from that perspective that the most preciously scarce resource in the formula is human will.

White Noise

Viagra, Levitra, Enzyte.
Artificial teats and
a sound system that plays
nothing but ambient static.
Bacon, eggs, and browning apple
dumped into the trash because
we're late to the marina to
sail in the regatta for opening day.
But something's wrong with the car;
no worries, we have two others.
It's just a matter of time while
moving gear to the sedan
and I can't help but notice my father,
whispering to himself in disgust because
he can't find the spare batteries
for the camera or the laptop.
And I can't help but wonder
what the number is today:
"We subscribe to the principles of the 'right to food'."
Bertini, Diouf & Bage--sounds like a law firm.
And maybe that's for the best:
Eight hundred fifty million people daily,
deprived of their right.

I'll take another look through and give the rest a try; as far as I can tell, the issues I've included above (editorial verse notwithstanding) are just some of the stumbling blocks to communication regarding the topic ideas. We have to settle some of these things before we can even get back toward the topic assertions.

Lastly--Scold me and I'll just kick you in the nutz. --calm down, Beavis. Don't make me smack you.

:cool:

[font=trebuchet ms]Hmm ...Gesundheit.

Much ass of the grassy persuasion.

It's just that, regardless of your opinion of whether or not I understand it, I have addressed it.

Ah, I think I see. Pardon, it doesn't seem that you have as you did not refute the whole thing about resource acuistion being the main point of the term scarcity.

• FoodFirst. "The Myth of Scarcity." See http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/w98v5n1.html

It seems obvious to me that quantity isn't the problem. In this facet of the economy I think it mostly logistics and corruption.

• Rojas, Robinson. "Notes on economic theory: assuming scarcity." See http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/scarcity.htm

I'm sorry but reading that was freakin annoying. It seemed as if the guy was intentionally avoiding the science of economics. What he seems to miss is specifically as follows: The scope of economic consideration is generally put in terms of finance because it simplifies the problem. The actual scope of economics (IMO, it is all inclusive from the perspective of POV X) is SO much broader than this but is generally ignored as it unduly (as deemed by assessment of the effectiveness of the simplified models in question (practicality) and the considerations of the resources required to develop more complicated models for the percieved nominal gain in accuracy) complicates analysis. The term "opportunity cost" is not required to justify the notion of 'profit', it is a resultant of it which is entirely logical. Would you argue with the notion "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"? That is a full decription of the notion of opportunity cost. Your source hates capitalism (as is easy to see from the article), which signifies to me that he is at odds with nature. IMO, there is zero merit to his argument.

• Gray, John. "Wars of want." Guardian Unlimited, August 21, 2001. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4242526,00.html

"We need to confront the root causes of scarcity - in the distortions of the global free market and overpopulation"

Did you even read it? That statement in no way supports the idea that resources are not scarce and in fact supports the realization of the need to address the problems that leave such huge innefficiencies (like that some people starve) in the global distribution of resources. IMO, corruption and value clash are probably the two most pervasive facets of the system which kink it up.

• Bruggeman, Walter. "The liturgy of abundance, the myth of scarcity." Christian Century, March 24, 1999. See http://www.stewardshipoflife.org/Resources/brueggemann.htm (Note! For amusement, only. You might chuckle at the bit about Pharoah.)

THE MAJORITY OF the world's resources pour into the United States

The fact that the opening sentence opens with an obvious spin to the leftist slant does not bode well for the content, but I haven't gotten there yet so...

*reads*

...

"We hardly notice our own prosperity or the poverty of so many others. The great contradiction is that we have more and more money and less and less generosity--less and less public money for the needy, less charity for the neighbor."

I didn't get very far before being further disheartened by the same slant above. The first paragrash is geralized tripe that attempts to sell itself as fact.

*reads*

Dude, I couldn't do more that skim it, as after reading the next few paragraphs... well, if you think there's a point in there, feel free to argue for yourself but I'm not reading that apparently propagandic trash.


• Woodman, Ian. "Abstract - Wars of Scarcity; Myth or Reality? An Examination of Resources Scarcities as a Cause of Conflict in the Sub-Saharan Africa." Royal College of Defence Studies (UK), Seaford House Papers, 2002. See

https://da.mod.uk/RCDS/Home/Information/Library/ResearchPapers/Seaford2002/Woodman (Note! I wish I could find the actual paper, as the Commandant's Forward for the 2002 Seaford House Papers (https://da.mod.uk/RCDS/Home/Information/Library/ResearchPapers/Seaford2002/CommandantsForward2002) notes that, "Mr Woodman in his paper on ‘Wars of Scarcity: Myth or Reality’ effectively challenges the conventional wisdom . . . he concludes that dramatic claims of the likelihood, indeed inevitability of inter-state conflict due to resource scarcities in sub-Saharan Africa have been exaggerated.")

And that is simply ridiculous. This in no way refutes the concept of scarcity, but an iteration of it and only then that it was exagerated, not "a myth".

I don't think any of your links support the idea that scarcity is an invalid concept. Certainly there are innaccuracies in its reporting, but that is not because the concept is flawed, but because it is to the subjective good of the individuals writing the bullshit to spin the facts to the advantage of supporting their egos and pocketbooks, as was so clearly shown by at least one of the links you quoted (the bible one).

Part of the myth of the present context is also found in a short paragraph I don't see addressed:There's plenty and there always has been.
There is "plenty" in the sense that it exists, but IMO you seem to completely ignore that most of the consideration of "scarce" in regards to "resources" is the effort required to procure and process them into something useful. It's the bulk of the equation. In fact, the only reason "scarce" is applicable to the resources behind the "plenty" that you speak of is because many of those resources are actually capped in terms of rate of extraction. After thinking about it through this discussion, it seems to me that resources are generally limited by maximum efficient/effective extraction rates. So regardless of existence, "plenty" is always limited by "how much ya got for me?".

In the past, legitimate technological challenges presented difficulties to the implementation of resources.

Implementation? As far as I know you don't "implement" resource, you utilize or allocate them. I suppose you can implement the subset of them that are plans or policies at the like. Maybe you're using the word in a manner to which I'm just not accustomed. Regardless, techological challanges are not in the past, nor will they ever be unless we simply stop advancing, which is possible but seemingly unfathomable to me at this time.

The modern era, however, chooses the scarcity that comes in our economy is a byproduct of the economic paradigms we prefer.

That is just spin. The reality is that every system has scarce resources, how scarce is a matter of individual wealth. If people aren't so wealthy, or there weren't so many of them, there would be less resource drain... but also (most likely at least) a proportional decrease in that whole maximal rate of extraction thing.

Thus we see that the scarcity of resources, even inasmuch as we choose to include the expenditures of processing and implementation, is long-known to be a byproduct of human priorities.
It is the rate of consumption, not the fact that there is a rate. My point in regard to this thread has nothing to do with a socio-economic state of affairs, but rather an analysis of the systems that underlie what yields that state. I think you are unnecessarily politicizing this topic.

Wes, I'm 100 years behind Cannan, and 228 years behind Smith on this one.
I don't see your point. Are they two of the folks you quoted? I'd say that since none of them supported a point pertinent to the topic, (except maybe in analysis much further on in the conversation (not in the context of "resources aren't really limited", which is simply factually incorrect)) there's no point to bringing up the timeline.

From the McGraw-Hill Online Learning Center, "Understanding Business, 6e":This is actually the very idea I've been missing. Turns out I was looking three or so centuries too early. I have no idea how Smith slipped my mind.

Light hearted sarcasm?

At any rate, even by your extended definition of scarcity, which, while it does invoke a broad range of resources, still seems insufficient as it does not account for the relationship between the resources.
How do you reach that conclusion? I don't see that you've addressed it either. Please correct me again if I'm mistaken.

I mean, I see what you're getting at, but even that scarcity is artificial in the present.

:bugeye:

Perhaps you'll reconsider as that is obviously mistaken.

Just a couple of random notes on other stuff:We have moon rocks.

Certainly.

It's just that getting them is really, really expensive.

And today, at the time you're reading this - extracting enough to be useful is literally impossible. Not "expensive", impossible. That could be rectified if necessary and with enough time, but nothing that any person on the planet could do no matter how rich, no matter how powerful, would be solve that problem by tomorrow. It's simply impossible at this point in time.

Have you considered that expensive is bad? Surely you recognize that at some point you break the bank if you don't get a return on your investment? You can't work for free (all of time) because you've got to put food on the table right? Well, if you spent enough money to have a reasonable shot at harvesting space stuff mined, processed and stuffed into our collective coffers before two years from tomorrow... it'd likely be putting all the earth's eggs into one highly flammable basket, setting a match to it and hoping for the best. Sure, if that's your last resort... you do what you have to do but for chrissake there's no reason to do it if can be avoided - as the potential downside is more steep than could be willingly tolerated (e.g., extinction (worst case)). Maybe I could have come up with a better example, but surely you see the point.. you have to produce or you die, it really boils down to that. We are dependent on one another to provide things that will keep us alive. You are basically insisting you know what people should consider to be their standard of living (level of wealth) which is fundamentally silly IMO, as the very term explains the problem and its momentum, which is unstoppable in the short term (except via global catastrophe or the likes). People think of "living" as "what they've become used to" which is wholly inclusive (in general) of their creature comforts, their aesthetic, etc. So their 'living' in their own experience becomes 'standard' from their perspective. So yeah. All that then.

To the latter, the answer is obvious.

No, else I would be a Socialist.

Seem that to argue the concept of scarceness as mythical is a pretty decent endorsement of the fundamental socialist values.. but hell even a socialist is really a capitalist with a fetish for generic brands so welcome aboard. ;)

However, Wilde puts it very simply: The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.

I said the same thing in my prior post (worded quite differntly) and you didn't quote me. Whassup?

Really, it's a simple concept.

Why would you say that there? You seem to be implying that I don't get it when I came to it without wilde's help. I even told you above:

"It's my belief that for a society to consider itself "modern" or "responsible", the basics should be accessible to anyone in need of them. food, shelter, clothing and medical attention should be available to anyone who needs them (of course all of them excepting medical attention being wholly modest accomodations). Less than that is barbaric."

I suppose wilde did say it more eloquently, but it's the same simple concept.

Yes, you have misunderstood. You're being a little too exacting.

Perhaps.

Try looking at it like this:That how many Christians believe that Jesus saves them in the afterlife does not change the fact that it's a myth.

:D Yes you're right, but that holds no bearing on the topic at hand.

That so many people accept the scarcity of resources does not change the fact that it is a myth.

LOL. It is no myth. There are mythical notions about it, but the fact that they are limited is irrefutable.

But that myth permeates so deeply that pretty much all economic theories account for it. (See Rojas link (http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/scarcity.htm), offered above.)

Sounds like conspiracy theory.

For me, it's the possibility of the advent of a major paradigm shift, not a retreat from the idea that scarcity is a myth.

Well, a retreat from the idea of scarcity should remain a myth unless we want to increase ignorance, which I generally try to avoid but does have occassional advantages. The possibility of the advent of a major pardigm shift is already 100%. It will happen, it's a matter of time. Seems to me that in historic terms, it's right around the corner. Quite likely some serious major shifts in our lifetime, depending on the ability of the status quoe to regulate the pace of technogical advance. I do believe that it is wise to keep a regular pace, as any major pardigm shifts put the stability of the system at severe risk... thus placing the species in peril... well, i suppose if you limit the scope of the paradigm you're speaking of some might consider such upheaval a good thing. I tend to disagree per the reasoning behind the anthropic principle. Then again, in the most fundamental of senses, all is truly as it should be... so... as much as equilibrium (of an unbalanced system) finds us, we seek it. Our actions, no matter what we choose, place us there.

When scarcity is undertaken as an opportunity, the possibility arises that the myth of scarcity can be seen clearly.

But wasn't your whole argument in support of the idea that it doesn't exist? If so, why undertake a myth? For the same reasons of christianity? How does that work? I actually agree with this statement, but in the sense that this moment is always an opportunity, regardless of our respective comprehension of economics.

At present, when we fail, the burden of scarcity, the challenge to progress is often a contributing factor. At present, when we succeed, it can be said to be a "victory" against scarcity.
Scarcity is not something you are victorious over really. Hmm, well your 'comfort level' is your level of victory against scarcity i suppose, but even that is subjective, as 'comfort' has a common base (survival) but diverges quickly once the base level is established.

By a different paradigm, however, we can succeed and see from that perspective that the most preciously scarce resource in the formula is human will.

LOL. Hardly. The scarcity you're thinking of is "people who define 'good'" in the same way you do. Really, you're the only one. Same here for my definition.

I'll take another look through and give the rest a try; as far as I can tell, the issues I've included above (editorial verse notwithstanding) are just some of the stumbling blocks to communication regarding the topic ideas.

Maybe you're right.

We have to settle some of these things before we can even get back toward the topic assertions.

Allright then.

Lastly----calm down, Beavis. Don't make me smack you.

I HAVE NO TP!

Did you even read it? That statement in no way supports the idea that resources are not scarce and in fact supports the realization of the need to address the problems that leave such huge innefficiencies (like that some people starve) in the global distribution of resources. IMO, corruption and value clash are probably the two most pervasive facets of the system which kink it up.Very simply:

• The "scarcity" you refer to is artificial. It is as chosen by people as religions.

Beyond that, if you're so annoyed by politics as to write off a source because you perceive it to "hate capitalism," I would ask you to at least.Dude, I couldn't do more that skim it, as after reading the next few paragraphs... well, if you think there's a point in there, feel free to argue for yourself but I'm not reading that apparently propagandic trash.What? I said for your amusement. Lighten up, Wes.Quote:

Wes, I'm 100 years behind Cannan, and 228 years behind Smith on this one.
I don't see your point. Are they two of the folks you quoted? I'd say that since none of them supported a point pertinent to the topic I'm going to borrow a line from you, Wes: It's one of the hardest things for me to hear or see someone believing so strongly in something that I think it is extremely probably that they have no real knowledge about that which they speak.

I mean, I really can't believe you're having an economic discussion about an anthropic principle and the scarcity of resources and you don't think Adam Smith's considerations of obstacles to the progress of opulence are pertinent?

Here, let's try it again:Under the third heading, the history of commerce, or the causes of the slow progress of opulence , Adam Smith dealt with 'first, natural impediments, and secondly, the oppression of civil government'. He is not recorded to have mentioned any natural impediments except the absence of division of labour in rude and barbarous times owing to the want of stock. (Cannan (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN0.html))Specifically, do you not see the pertinence of Smith's general lack of natural impediments to opulence aside from a specific symptom of "human nature"? I mean, there's your scarcity right there. Buried long before the beginning of the 20th century, before Smith's time in the late 18th, buried in the past, and still, in that rude and barbarous past, it was not independent on the human condition. It has existed inasmuch as "scarcity of resources" contributed greatly to the ferocity of preindustrial cultures. I mean, we could presume that Cannan, the author of the preface to the 1904 edition of one of the cornerstones of modern economics, could be discussing something that has nothing to do with the venerable work he's allegedly discussing. But I assure you the presumption would be untrue; I thought I was doing you a favor by using an early 20th-century expression of it instead of dragging you through an 18th century economic treatise.But on the oppression of civil government he had much to say. (Cannan)And following that is a list of artificial interferences with the progress of opulence.

What puzzles me is whether or not you intentionally quoted only part of a paragraph and then asked a question that would have been answered had you included that paragraph.

You quoted me: "Wes , I'm 100 years behind Cannan, and 228 years behind Smith on this one."

Your responded: "I don't see your point. Are they two of the folks you quoted? I'd say that since none of them supported a point pertinent to the topic . . . ."

(1) Of course you don't see the point: you omitted it from the quote: Thus we see that the scarcity of resources, even inasmuch as we choose to include the expenditures of processing and implementation, is long-known to be a byproduct of human priorities. Wes, I'm 100 years behind Cannan, and 228 years behind Smith on this one.(2) Are you serious? (See above point; seriously ... you're trying to have this discussion and you don't recognize the name Adam Smith?)

(3) The nearest I can conclude is that the only thing that's pertinent to the topic, then, is to simply nod and say yes, you're so wise. You seriously don't think Adam Smith, a man often referred to as the "grandfather of modern economics," discussing the slow progress of opulence is pertinent to a discussion of the alleged scarcity of resources?Scarcity is not something you are victorious over really. Hmm, well your 'comfort level' is your level of victory against scarcity i suppose, but even that is subjective, as 'comfort' has a common base (survival) but diverges quickly once the base level is established.Go back and read the Cannan quote about the slow progress of opulence, please. There is a viable context in which we can take "scarcity" to be something you cannot ever overcome, but you've already dismissed that citation as sounding like a conspiracy theory, and furthermore that scarcity is dependent on the idea that "the condition that human wants are forever greater than the available supply of time, goods, and resources."Light hearted sarcasm?No, not at all. I was looking a couple centuries at least too early. Somewhere around the demarcation of the Atlantic.How do you reach that conclusion? I don't see that you've addressed it either. Please correct me again if I'm mistaken.Human resources are worth different values under different conditions. With artificial scarcity affecting those values, the limitations we perceive even in human resources are, in the scope of this discussion, chosen.And today, at the time you're reading this - extracting enough to be useful is literally impossible. Not "expensive", impossible What natural condition forced us to stop building the rockets to get us there and back?

That "impossibility" is a choice.Seem that to argue the concept of scarceness as mythical is a pretty decent endorsement of the fundamental socialist values.. but hell even a socialist is really a capitalist with a fetish for generic brands so welcome aboard. Welcome aboard what?

In the meantime ... what's that about an endorsement?I said the same thing in my prior post (worded quite differntly) and you didn't quote me. Whassup?You noted in that prior post, "(I don't know what wilde's take on anything is, so I have no idea)?"

Please excuse me for answering the question.Why would you say that there? You seem to be implying that I don't get it when I came to it without wilde's help.Because it really is as simple as that.Yes you're right, but that holds no bearing on the topic at hand.Given your response to Cannan's summary of Adam Smith, I question that judgment. It's a comparative example.There are mythical notions about it, but the fact that they are limited is irrefutable.So you say.Well, a retreat from the idea of scarcity should remain a myth unless we want to increase ignorance, which I generally try to avoid but does have occassional advantages.My first reaction is ... what?

But on second thought, if I read you right, I think you might need to support the "increase ignorance" part.The possibility of the advent of a major pardigm shift is already 100%. It will happen, it's a matter of time. Seems to me that in historic terms, it's right around the corner.I would agree.I do believe that it is wise to keep a regular pace, as any major pardigm shifts put the stability of the system at severe risk... thus placing the species in perilThe system is already at severe risk; the species is in peril without a paradigm shift.well, i suppose if you limit the scope of the paradigm you're speaking of some might consider such upheaval a good thingTrue. The removal of artificial manipulation of the standard of living will generally be helpful, but it must be undertaken carefully.I tend to disagree per the reasoning behind the anthropic principle.Your statement of it in the topic post seems analogous to inertia. Which would fit a pattern of humanity being lazy in a certain way that actually increases the workload. There are easier, better ways to do things, but it takes too much effort to get from A to B. This of course must account for human diversity, which returns us to the risks posed to stability, which brings us around to the idea that we must undertake the shift carefully.Our actions, no matter what we choose, place us there.Yes, but combined with the inertia of the anthropic principle, what is the compulsion or incentive to change course?

Perhaps there's an unexpressed issue that I had thought apparent throughout my responses; I don't find the theory viable, largely for the myth of scarcity. However, if we apply an anthropic principle, that things are the way they are because that's the only way they can be, what happens to the idea of choice?

(Hence the hair-splitting of my first response to the topic--"I tend to look at it from the perspective that, Regardless of how we arrived at the present moment, this is the only way history could have gone, else it would have gone differently.")But wasn't your whole argument in support of the idea that it doesn't exist? That's a separate issue. The text you're asking about is part of our discussion of Socialism. It might be helpful here to consider that when you asked if that meant Socialism was the answer, I said no.

I would ask you here if you accept the assertion that, "The most basic assumption of the prevalent customized economic theory is the so called principle of "scarcity", except that you've already dismissed the assertion as something that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

However, that's why I said "no," about Socialism being the answer. Socialism, too, starts from the presumption of scarcity. It simply responds to that perceived scarcity differently than, say, capitalism.If so, why undertake a myth? For the same reasons of christianity? How does that work?Well, originally because the myth profits someone. But after a while it becomes ingrained, a natural presumption that few question:The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilizations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitudes of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.

The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities. (Emir Ali Khan)I won't say this one's simple. It's simple to say, simple to quote, but it's tough to figure.LOL. Hardly. The scarcity you're thinking of is "people who define 'good'" in the same way you do. Really, you're the only one. Same here for my definition. A curious condition that can bring us to a natural impasse.

tiassa:

Are you intentionally avoiding the point?

I assert that you are intellectually dishonest as you have now repeatedly ignored the entire premise of my post(s). You didn't notice the following theme:

Why would you ignore this (for instance (and to keep it short and to the point which you keep ignoring))?:

There is "plenty" in the sense that it exists, but IMO you seem to completely ignore that most of the consideration of "scarce" in regards to "resources" is the effort required to procure and process them into something useful. It's the bulk of the equation. In fact, the only reason "scarce" is applicable to the resources behind the "plenty" that you speak of is because many of those resources are actually capped in terms of rate of extraction. After thinking about it through this discussion, it seems to me that resources are generally limited by maximum efficient/effective extraction rates. So regardless of existence, "plenty" is always limited by "how much ya got for me?".

IMO, the above is simply irrefutable and you completely ignore it in your post.

The concept of scarcity is a recognition of the limitations on the procurement and utilization of resources, and you have ignored that thus far. Address it directly please, or I believe your "natural impasse" has been reached.

Tiassa:
This is actually the first thing that pinged me when I looked at the topic.

In addition to the more abstract points above, I intend to argue that the assertion, "Resources are scarce," is a myth. etc etc

I read through the entire thread hoping for an illustration or an explanation that would clarify this assertion. I found none. That is it possible as you suggest to feed 6 million people is quite correct, but it is impractical if some like to gorge themselves. The entire foundation of the notion of scarcity in resources is based on the fact that resources are unequally divided. As wesmorris has already indicated, there is just a subjective good, and in that subjective, Mr. Johnson might not give a shit about Kinshare suffering from Rickets because of a vitamin D deficiency. Mr. Johnson may enjoy sipping expensive champagne and staying in the presidential suite at the Hyatt. For Mr. Johnson to enjoy these services intrinsically implies that there exist an unequal sharing of available goods, and hence resources. Demand determines the availability of resources. From an economics viewpoint, resources must always trail demand for there to be an increasing value of the resources.


Wesmorris:
I think all are expressions the same principle, which is "in the now (which is always subjective (a POV is requisite for a 'now' to be established)) remains what survived". Combined with the assumption "it is reasonable to be reasonable" and "an entitity performs its function (seeks the subjective good)", I believe you can formulate the closest possible model of "isness". It seems to me that any economic model you'd try to implement would include this foundation or it would be inherently flawed

You are quite right in the now. It is quite possible that the humans might be able to reach a stage when good is not exactly subjective, or that pleasure or reward might overextend demand, however it is quite unlikely. It seems more correct to suggest that even in the state when resources and the like match demand and the attainment of these resources are ubiquitous, man will still seek the resource of exclusivity.

As wesmorris has already indicated, there is just a subjective good, and in that subjective, Mr. Johnson might not give a shit about Kinshare suffering from Rickets because of a vitamin D deficiency. Mr. Johnson may enjoy sipping expensive champagne and staying in the presidential suite at the Hyatt. For Mr. Johnson to enjoy these services intrinsically implies that there exist an unequal sharing of available goods, and hence resourcesThe myth of scarcity underlies modern, customized economic theories, but if you look even at the cornerstone of modern economy, we see that scarcity results from artificial conditions.From an economics viewpoint, resources must always trail demand for there to be an increasing value of the resources.Right. We choose an economic paradigm that demands poverty, that demands "winners and losers" for reasons that, at their roots, depend solely on themselves and a lack of human innovation.

I can't believe I'm having a discussion of economics with people who won't acknowledge Adam Smith. This is a little like having a discussion of Christianity without mentioning the Bible or its contents. A little like discussing American freedom without mentioning the Constitution or what it says. Actually, quite a bit like.

Sorry, it just blows my mind. I mean, if you want, I'll even give you a counterpoint, but it's by Lyndon LaRouche, who considers "Why Adam Smith is Worse Than Karl Marx." It is, of course, one of LaRouche's tantrums, especially by the time you get down to the Clockwork-Orange decay.

If you don't think my repeated citation of the idea that scarcity is a presumption, that it is artificial, relevant enough to the assertion that scarcity is a myth to respond to, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Are you intentionally avoiding the point?

I assert that you are intellectually dishonest as you have now repeatedly ignored the entire premise of my post(s). You didn't notice the following theme:

Why would you ignore this (for instance (and to keep it short and to the point which you keep ignoring))?:
Quote:

Originally Posted by wesmorris
There is "plenty" in the sense that it exists, but IMO you seem to completely ignore that most of the consideration of "scarce" in regards to "resources" is the effort required to procure and process them into something useful. It's the bulk of the equation. In fact, the only reason "scarce" is applicable to the resources behind the "plenty" that you speak of is because many of those resources are actually capped in terms of rate of extraction. After thinking about it through this discussion, it seems to me that resources are generally limited by maximum efficient/effective extraction rates. So regardless of existence, "plenty" is always limited by "how much ya got for me?".Are you intentionally being rude?

(1) There is "plenty" in the sense that it exists, but IMO you seem to completely ignore that most of the consideration of "scarce" in regards to "resources" is the effort required to procure and process them into something useful.

• If you doubt the Cannan summary, you're welcome to compare it against the text of Adam Smith's An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

However, I think the Cannan summary suffices, and serves to note that the primary causes of scarcity (e.g. "slow progress of opulence") are artificial.

Additionally, a page you dismissed offhandedly quotes economics textbooks to demonstrate the presumption of scarcity. As noted in the Cannan summary, the natural scarcity (e.g. "natural impediments" to the "progress of opulence") is reserved to a rude and barbarous time, rather high-minded language for a condition that advancing knowledge and technology reduces dramatically. We cannot get a proper sense of what natural scarcity exists because of the artificial impediments.

Now, if you disagree, that's fine. But to say I'm ignoring your issue? That's just downright rude. I believe you invoked the phrase, "intellectually dishonest." Why would you do that?

(2) It's the bulk of the equation.

And I think we see that bulk of the equation represented by artificial complications of procurement and processing.

I mean, you complained--As far as I know you don't "implement" resource, you utilize or allocate them. I suppose you can implement the subset of them that are plans or policies at the like. Maybe you're using the word in a manner to which I'm just not accustomed.--and then reiterate your point-- IMO you seem to completely ignore that most of the consideration of "scarce" in regards to "resources" is the effort required to procure and process them into something useful.I refer you to Roget's II: The New Thesaurus (http://www.bartleby.com/62/49/I0784900.html): 3. To put into action or use: actuate, apply, employ, exercise, exploit, practice, use, utilize.

Idioms: avail oneself of, bring into play, bring to bear, make use of, put into practice, put to use. (link (http://www.bartleby.com/62/49/I0784900.html))At any rate ....

(3) In fact, the only reason 'scarce' is applicable to the resources behind the 'plenty' that you speak of is because many of those resources are actually capped in terms of rate of extraction.

Accounting for the idea that you're not familiar with the word "implement" in its form synonymous to "utilize" or "make use of," I look back to that post:That is just spin. The reality is that every system has scarce resources, how scarce is a matter of individual wealth. If people aren't so wealthy, or there weren't so many of them, there would be less resource drain... but also (most likely at least) a proportional decrease in that whole maximal rate of extraction thing.First of all, you're referring to the opulence discussed in the Cannan summary. Also, your point relies on the presumption that the "maximal rate of extraction thing" reflects in reality an existing balance between faculties, labor, and extraction. A diversely useful and important question: Is the best we have really the best we can do? Are "human resources" being exploited to their maximum efficiency? (Here's an ironic twist: if we account for the human cost in the scarcity of resources inasmuch as we choose to include the expenditures of making something useful out of an available resource, it can be safely said, with "unemployment" all over the planet, that there is at least one resource that is quite demonstrably not scarce.)

So here, in response to point (3) listed above, we might look to repeat my discussion of the artificial caps on extraction and productivity. Just some highlights:
• I mean, I see what you're getting at, but even that scarcity is artificial in the present.
• The "scarcity" you refer to is artificial. It is as chosen by people as religions.
• And following that is a list of artificial interferences with the progress of opulence . . . .
• With artificial scarcity affecting those values, the limitations we perceive even in human resources are, in the scope of this discussion, chosen.
• What natural condition forced us to stop building the rockets to get us there and back?
• The removal of artificial manipulation of the standard of living will generally be helpful, but it must be undertaken carefully.I refer you again to the Cannan summary, or else Smith's Wealth of Nations itself regarding natural and artificial impediments.

Are those caps on extraction natural or artificial? What are those caps?

(4) After thinking about it through this discussion, it seems to me that resources are generally limited by maximum efficient/effective extraction rates.

Would you consider the "maximum" a true optimization or a maximum in the face of caps? Well ... look down at your keyboard. How does an individual type? How fast does an individual type? I am the fastest typist I know, even among people who get paid for it. I've never watched a friend of mine do her redrafts, though, so I have no idea how fast she can crank out a book once all the edits are made. But I'm not the fastest typist in the world, and I don't even use the most efficient method. At some point, I can't type any faster; I can claim natural limitations, or if it's really that important to type faster, I can explore at least one method that can put words to a page faster than the average reader can read them. Is the fastest I go the fastest I can go? Hardly. But I'm not about to spend however long familiarizing myself with a whole new set of repetitive motions; this method works well enough. However, nobody's starving from the scarcity of my typing speed, so it's not nearly as vital a question whether or not I change methods as it is whether or not people examine the "scarcity of resources" and start identifying the artificial causes of that scarcity in order to consider the benefits of changing some basic presumptions about the way we view human economy, both independently and in relation the the economy of the Universe.

(5) So regardless of existence, "plenty" is always limited by "how much ya got for me?"

Um ... when I provided a source noting the same, you dismissed it as sounding like a conspiracy theory.

However, yes. "Plenty" is limited by an irrational standard, an irrational desire.

Which ... sort of leads back to my point that scarcity is a myth. Now then .... IMO, the above is simply irrefutable and you completely ignore it in your post.I consider this downright disrespectful, Wes.The concept of scarcity is a recognition of the limitations on the procurement and utilization of resources, and you have ignored that thus far. Address it directly please, or I believe your "natural impasse" has been reached.What about using classic economic theory (e.g. Cannan summary of Smith) and citations from economics textbooks to argue that the limitations on procurement and utilization of resources are artificial equals ignoring your point?

So, what's up, Wes? Why are you being so damn rude?

I consider this downright disrespectful, Wes.

I did not intend to be disrespectful, I intend to communicate that I'm more than positive that you are in error. It is not a suspicion, it's a fact.

Resources are limited in accessability, leading to the term scarce.

That is all.

Not "how much" or "who has more", but the fact that it is not infinity (which implies directly they are limited). (consider that even given a large amount of an existing resource (which is obviously not infinity), the rate of accessibility is ultimately limiting (even if it seems very high to you))

This means that resources are scarce, regardless of whatever political message you're trying to parlay. I'm not talking politics, I'm talking the fundamentals of existence.. or at least I would be if we weren't hung up on this point.

This is irrefutable via common sense. IMO, to ignore it is much more disrespectful than to point out that you seem to have missed it.

If you do not concede the point that resources are not infinite, you are simply unreasonable or ignorant. I'm trying to help you overcome the latter.

It is not a suspicion, it's a fact.So you say. That and a buck fifty still won't get you a latte. You haven't done much to show that error.Resources are limited in accessability, leading to the term scarce.

That is all.And as I have argued, from econ textbook citations to Adam Smith himself, is that the limitations on resources are artificial.Not "how much" or "who has more", but the fact that it is not infinity (which implies directly they are limited).The who doesn't matter. See the "outline quote" from McGraw-Hill's Understanding Business 6-e in a post above. It addresses directly the question of finite resources. You're welcome to go raiding Adam Smith for the longer form anytime you want.(consider that even given a large amount of an existing resource (which is obviously not infinity), the rate of accessibility is ultimately limiting (even if it seems very high to you))Ultimately limiting compared to what? An objective need? Hardly. A subjective desire? Yes.This means that resources are scarce, regardless of whatever political message you're trying to parlay. I'm not talking politics, I'm talking the fundamentals of existence. Why would you think I'm talking politics, Wes?This is irrefutable via common sense.You keep saying things like that while failing to address my points that refute your point.IMO, to ignore it is much more disrespectful than to point out that you seem to have missed it.Keep whining, Wes. The record is clear.If you do not concede the point that resources are not infinite, you are simply unreasonable or ignorant.The limitations on resources are artificial.

Everything looks nice in a freeze-frame, Wes. The problem is what happens when we put the ideas into motion. There is a finite amount of resources within a finitely-defined region over a finitely-defined period. In history, humanity has gone through similar transitions before (hint: remember when I was looking three centuries too early for a concept, that's because I was looking smack in the middle of the transformation and not for the actual description of it that I should have remembered at the outset is from Adam Smith.I'm trying to help you overcome the latter.Perhaps this is an occasion on which your generosity would better serve us if you took some to spend on yourself.

The perception of scarcity of resources does not rely on objective standards. It is, rather, invested in subjective human desires and standards whose only justifications are asserted a priori.

[font=trebuchet ms]Keep whining, Wes.

I would have to start whining in order to continue doing it.

If you would step outside your grudge for a moment, you'd see that this is so simple that there is no refuting it without questioning the base of logic itself. Please, in your own words, as briefly as possible, summarize why you think the following is untrue:

If a number if less than infinity, it has a discernable value, we'll call it y. If that number represents a quantity (like lbs or cubic meters) of some resource (we'll call it x), then by direct inference, that is the limit (total amount) of the number (itself, a finite number is its own limit) (y is the limit (total amount) of x, whatever its value, even if unknown at a given time there is y of it). The fact that there is exactly y of x is the concept of scarceness. Eventually, (and it maybe take a long, long time) you run out of x. Further, x can only be acquired at some rate r. r times the amount of time you've been producing at r is the amount of x you have at that time.

y(t,x) = [r(t,x) dt](integrated from 0 to t) (making in a function of x to denote a different r(t) depending on what x is, maybe that's improper notation?)

This is how much of x you can can have at any given time. certainly y is always changing, and r is always changing, but either way, there is still always a finite amount of a resource at any given time dependent on the value of r at and preceding that time.

If I shuck corn, there will be a limit on how fast I can do it (even if I automate the process). That limit (which is the maximum rate of aquisition of the resource "corn that is shucked") tells you how many you have at the end of the day.

Any student who can answer basic questions in algebra can solve for how far you've gone given the rate of travel and time spent doing so. This is exactly analagous to that problem. If I"m making 15 an hour (i know because I'm writing it down and all), that means after 8 hours I have 120 done. There is the limit. At any given time for any given resource there exists a rate at which it is being refined or processed for use. Those rates describe the limit the outcome of the process. Add that up over time (as is expressed in the integral above) and you'll have exactly how much of x you [i]could possibly produce[i] in total at that time.

I haven't mentioned the rate of consumption (we'll call it c) yet, so really it's more like:

y(x,t) = (r(x,t)-c(x,t)) dt (integrated from 0 to t)

The record is clear.The limitations on resources are artificial.

As artificial as 2 + 2 = 4.

Tiassa,
The myth of scarcity underlies modern, customized economic theories, but if you look even at the cornerstone of modern economy, we see that scarcity results from artificial conditions.
No, that is quite incorrect. Even in your suggestions of interstellar resource mining, it is only through artificial conditions that this is possible.

Firstly, let's accept that domestication and agriculture are in themselves, artificial conditions in that they are man-made; but this is merely to cover certain tracks in the case that you were thinking of going there. In the scenario that people were given the choice of leisure as opposed to long days in an oxygen suit digging holes on an asteroid, I'm sure most, if not all, would choose leisure. I bring that illustration to demonstrate the point that in the management of resources or in the acquisition of resources, one needs further resources. In the scenario so presented, that scarce resource is labor, and skill. In the acquisition of the attributes that define the resource of labor, there exist limitations and variations in the abilities of man and machine. There exist a scarcity in resources. One must understand that in the case that a material/thing is abundant enough to be readily available to anyone, it becomes not a resource, but a luxury. Sand is a luxury as a "resource" in that demand lags behind supply. But then again, it is contextual. Salt was once an expensive trading resource. The location/context where one resides determines the level of scarcity in the resource they seek, thereby, resource is a scarcity because there is always a resource one needs that one does not readily have. Hence, trade.

Right. We choose an economic paradigm that demands poverty, that demands "winners and losers" for reasons that, at their roots, depend solely on themselves and a lack of human innovation.
This makes absolutely no sense. We choose an economic paradigm that ensures that we get the most out of our resource. In this goal of self-betterment and profit, lies the source of innovation.

I can't believe I'm having a discussion of economics with people who won't acknowledge Adam Smith. This is a little like having a discussion of Christianity without mentioning the Bible or its contents. A little like discussing American freedom without mentioning the Constitution or what it says. Actually, quite a bit like.
No, it is not like having a discussion on Christianity without mentioning the bible. The bible is the primary/sole documentation behind Christianity. Smith is not. And besides, I do not need to mention his name, most of what is being discussed here was first talked about by him.

Sorry, it just blows my mind. I mean, if you want, I'll even give you a counterpoint, but it's by Lyndon LaRouche, who considers "Why Adam Smith is Worse Than Karl Marx." It is, of course, one of LaRouche's tantrums, especially by the time you get down to the Clockwork-Orange decay.
Morality is not the issue here Tiassa. Sure I'd like many things changed in the current economic hellhole that exists, but that is scarcely the point.

If you don't think my repeated citation of the idea that scarcity is a presumption, that it is artificial, relevant enough to the assertion that scarcity is a myth to respond to, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Scarcity is a presumption that, it assumes its factuality. To relate the consumption and production of goods as a science implied certain presumptions, yes. That it is a presumption does not imply it is a myth or incorrect. Were scarcity a myth, we wouldn’t need interstellar exploration to get more of the resources we need. In the eventual, or in the long run, one can suppose that man can acquire all the resources he may need, but within that assumption lies the ever important point that, the availability of resources must therefore trail demand. Thus, scarcity.

Even in your suggestions of interstellar resource mining, it is only through artificial conditions that this is possible.It is only through implementation of resources that this is possible. Let's take a real-world example: you have a resource, you have the means to utilize it. Now, do you have a business permit? Have you accounted for all interstate regulations? No, you can't export your product to this nation because of sanctions, or to this other one because of a trade agreement. While you're having a drink to e