The anthropic principle, evolution and economics. [Archive]

Tiassa

02-16-04, 04:46 PM

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.)

wesmorris

02-16-04, 05:08 PM

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"

guthrie

02-16-04, 05:09 PM

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*

wesmorris

02-16-04, 05:22 PM

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.

15ofthe19

02-16-04, 05:32 PM

guthrie

02-16-04, 05:40 PM

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.

wesmorris

02-16-04, 05:48 PM

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

__________________________________________________ _____________

Tiassa

02-16-04, 06:35 PM

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.

wesmorris

02-17-04, 12:12 AM

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.

15ofthe19

02-17-04, 12:31 AM

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

wesmorris

02-17-04, 12:45 AM

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.

Tiassa

02-17-04, 05:55 AM

15ofthe19

02-17-04, 08:13 AM

spuriousmonkey

02-17-04, 08:40 AM

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.

wesmorris

02-17-04, 08:45 AM

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.

wesmorris

02-17-04, 12:24 PM

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.

15ofthe19

02-17-04, 11:35 PM

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.

spuriousmonkey

02-18-04, 03:45 AM

Tiassa

02-18-04, 04:17 AM

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:

wesmorris

02-19-04, 11:47 PM

[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!

Tiassa

02-20-04, 09:56 AM

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.

wesmorris

02-20-04, 11:02 AM

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.

thefountainhed

02-20-04, 12:51 PM

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.

Tiassa

02-20-04, 05:42 PM

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.

Tiassa

02-20-04, 07:05 PM

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?

wesmorris

02-20-04, 07:48 PM

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.

Tiassa

02-21-04, 01:34 AM

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.

wesmorris

02-21-04, 02:25 AM

[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.

thefountainhed

02-21-04, 12:12 PM

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.

Tiassa

02-21-04, 05:44 PM

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 ease the frustration of the paperwork, a conversation reveals that the pleasant fellow next to you is subsidized by the government--paid specifically to not produce something. In the meantime the farmer sitting on the other side of him gets money for letting his crop expire--mountains of unused grain left to decay instead of shipping it abroad. (Why not give him money to ship surplus food abroad?) Look at any business ledger and figure how much is natural impediment (e.g. obtaining raw resource, processing, manufacturing) and how much is artificial (e.g. regulation, policy, law). You'll notice that you're not considering the interstellar bureaucracy in your example.

And then apply the anthropic principle as expressed in the topic post. All of a sudden, the absurdity of the way things are is naked to the world.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.That is an abstract theory that does not reflect in reality.

Would you assert that The best we have is the best we're actually capable of? That is, has humanity chosen to organize itself in a way that is the most efficient, or has humanity chosen to organize itself and call that way the most efficient?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.I mean, in addition to arguing a point that supports the idea that scarcity is a myth ("The entire foundation of the notion of scarcity in resources is based on the fact that resources are unequally divided") you said that you read through the entire post hoping to find clarification of the notion that scarcity is a myth and found none; yet apparently Adam Smith's reflections on the scarcity of resources (impediments to progress of opulence) in the natural and artificial contexts--which considers a tremendous and temporal imbalance between the natural and artificial--isn't helpful. As such, I really don't know what to tell you.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.I was just hoping you'd see the absurdity of the counterpoint to Smith's discussion of scarcity. It was, as I mentioned then, a LaRouche tantrum, after all.Scarcity is a presumption that, it assumes its factuality.Scarcity in economics is a bit like god in religion that way, isn't it?Were scarcity a myth, we wouldn’t need interstellar exploration to get more of the resources we need.If getting off this rock weren't an eventual part of human evolution and propagation, why bother coming down from the trees? Or out of the ocean in the first place?

At present, we don't need interstellar exploration to support our resources. So ... why are we jumping off the rock in order to learn how to leave it? Because cooperative society, conventional economy, and other such myths actually serve the species. We shouldn't evolve in order to support our idea of economy, but rather our idea of economy should support our evolution. That difference is one of the effects of the myth of scarcity.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.And that scarcity is chosen. Just because people adhere to a myth doesn't mean it's not a myth.

guthrie

02-21-04, 06:14 PM

AS for Smith- I go a copy of the first 3 books of wealth of nations today. The thing to remember is that whilst Smith and Ricardo are fundamental, their work is a bit out of date in todays globalised world, with multinationals and gvts playing a large role in things.
I think also that the discussions of scarcity are related to the idea of sufficiency. I actually have a sufficiency of goods when all i have is a hut, an axe and some clothes. However, enough people want more that what they have is not enough. Therefore, theoretically, their demand for goods causes a scarcity, which is then filled by someone rushing in. etc etc. But what happens when there is a sufficiency? Or people are happy with what they have?

Tiassa

02-22-04, 01:11 PM

Guthrie

I welcome a discussion of Smith and how his work relates to the present. I just don't think it's fair to call Smith (as some have) impertinent to the considerations at hand and then complain that a point is being ignored.

As to the question of sufficiency, it's generally unconsidered. Economics generally presumes scarcity. Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism ... all depend on the presumption of scarcity.

wesmorris

02-22-04, 02:06 PM

I just don't think it's fair to call Smith (as some have) impertinent to the considerations at hand and then complain that a point is being ignored.
Your repeated appeal to authority is fallacy. It is also amusing and simultaneously aggrivating, as you apparently fail to see the difference between arguing about the flavor of your drink and the existence of that drink. You're all hung up on the flavor when it has never been the issue. YOU MADE IT THE ISSUE, though it is not relevant to establishing the reality of the condition of scarcity.
As to the question of sufficiency, it's generally unconsidered.
Sufficiency would be inferred from a the calculations in the formula I spelled out above.
Economics generally presumes scarcity.
An economic model or system must presume scarcity to represent a reasonable model of reality. To ignore it would be analagous to ignoring gravity in a model of interacting galaxies.
Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism ... all depend on the presumption of scarcity
Perhaps it's simply your notion of scarcity that's the problem. You apparently, after having been corrected many times, fail to understand that rates of extraction/processing and rates of consumption being non-infinite basically defines scarcity. The conversation at this point is in regards to the notion that scarcity is an inescapable condition of reality, regardless of how that condition is politicized.

guthrie

02-22-04, 02:21 PM

"fail to understand that rates of extraction/processing and rates of consumption being non-infinite basically defines scarcity. The conversation at this point is in regards to the notion that scarcity is an inescapable condition of reality, regardless of how that condition is politicized."

Ahhh, so I assume you are getting all meta on us all?
Basicaly, that statement is correct if taken over a sufficently long time period, like a billion years. So perhaps it is the time dimension we are missing here. However, can you not see that there is a condition of not scarcity, involving the use of renewable resources within their renewable periods? But the way society etc is structured just now means that is not desirable.

thefountainhed

02-22-04, 02:59 PM

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 ease the frustration of the paperwork, a conversation reveals that the pleasant fellow next to you is subsidized by the government--paid specifically to not produce something. In the meantime the farmer sitting on the other side of him gets money for letting his crop expire--mountains of unused grain left to decay instead of shipping it abroad. (Why not give him money to ship surplus food abroad?) Look at any business ledger and figure how much is natural impediment (e.g. obtaining raw resource, processing, manufacturing) and how much is artificial (e.g. regulation, policy, law). You'll notice that you're not considering the interstellar bureaucracy in your example.
While a resource is being "wasted" or deliberately not produced, another resource is; the bugger sitting next to me is growing acres of peanuts. The issue here Tiassa, is that the "interstellar bureaucracy" would exist to serve the goal of personal satisfaction-- profit wise. The notion of a selfless world where all cater to a greater good is the true myth in this discussion. With the myriad of resources and their constantly changing demand, it would be impossible to cultivate all the resources necessary to satisfy world demand. Some would in that scenario, invariably have to suppress certain demands for resources in other to achieve a greater goal, the suppressed desire or demand for said resource, means it is scarce-- it cannot be had in the now.

And then apply the anthropic principle as expressed in the topic post. All of a sudden, the absurdity of the way things are is naked to the world.
You keep bringing morality into a suggestion where it does not belong; it is absurd.

That is an abstract theory that does not reflect in reality.
Would you assert that The best we have is the best we're actually capable of? That is, has humanity chosen to organize itself in a way that is the most efficient, or has humanity chosen to organize itself and call that way the most efficient?
Not humanity but rather, humans- individual humans have chosen to choose paths that best satisfies their aims-- within the context of available goods and demand. There is no greater will or humanity. The notion of "humanity' is in actuality what does not reflect in reality.

Quote:
I mean, in addition to arguing a point that supports the idea that scarcity is a myth ("The entire foundation of the notion of scarcity in resources is based on the fact that resources are unequally divided") you said that you read through the entire post hoping to find clarification of the notion that scarcity is a myth and found none; yet apparently Adam Smith's reflections on the scarcity of resources (impediments to progress of opulence) in the natural and artificial contexts--which considers a tremendous and temporal imbalance between the natural and artificial--isn't helpful. As such, I really don't know what to tell you.
How can you equate "based on the fact that resources are unequally divided" to a support of your stance? If resources are unequally divided, the implicit logical progression therefore becomes that some have more of a resource than others, and in the extreme, some will lack the resource they need. In that projection, resource becomes a scarcity. Economics as wesmorris originally pointed out, must be in the subjective, else it fails to make sense. It is I, not them. And no, Smith is not, does not, suggest that scarcity is a myth in the sense you suggest.

Scarcity in economics is a bit like god in religion that way, isn't it?
It entirely depends on what angles and connotations one attaches to that comparison. Economics is a science, and it is practical in the physical. The presupposition of a scarcity of resources is essential to develop economic theory; it is a postulate in the sense that it is the governing paradigm of economics. Economics makes no sense without a scarcity of resources.

If getting off this rock weren't an eventual part of human evolution and propagation, why bother coming down from the trees? Or out of the ocean in the first place?
This is absurd. The destiny of man is an unknown. We could have simply come out of the ocean or trees to sightsee.

At present, we don't need interstellar exploration to support our resources. So ... why are we jumping off the rock in order to learn how to leave it? Because cooperative society, conventional economy, and other such myths actually serve the species. We shouldn't evolve in order to support our idea of economy, but rather our idea of economy should support our evolution. That difference is one of the effects of the myth of scarcity.
I laugh at the notion that the USA or Russia left the earth for space with the sense of a cooperative society of humankind as their aim. It was conflict, competition that precipitated those efforts.

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.

And that scarcity is chosen. Just because people adhere to a myth doesn't mean it's not a myth.

No. The assumption is that man can acquire all the resources he may need . Until that eventual is reached, resources are scarce.

wesmorris

02-22-04, 03:00 PM

Ahhh, so I assume you are getting all meta on us all?

I'm not sure what you mean so I don't know.

Basicaly, that statement is correct if taken over a sufficently long time period, like a billion years.
No it is correct regardless of the time period in question.

So perhaps it is the time dimension we are missing here.

Who is we? I have been talking about it since tiassa first introduced the notion that scarcity is mythical.

However, can you not see that there is a condition of not scarcity, involving the use of renewable resources within their renewable periods?

Can you not see that regardless of whether or not a resource is renewable, it is still scarce because it can only be gathered at some rate, which limits the available quantity of that resource at a given time.

wesmorris

02-22-04, 03:06 PM

While a resource is being "wasted" or deliberately not produced, another resource is; the bugger sitting next to me is growing acres of peanuts. The issue here Tiassa, is that the "interstellar bureaucracy" would exist to serve the goal of personal satisfaction-- profit wise. The notion of a selfless world where all cater to a greater good is the true myth in this discussion. With the myriad of resources and their constantly changing demand, it would be impossible to cultivate all the resources necessary to satisfy world demand. Some would in that scenario, invariably have to suppress certain demands for resources in other to achieve a greater goal, the suppressed desire or demand for a resource means said resource, means it is scarce-- it cannot be had in the now.

Very well put.

Tiassa

02-22-04, 04:27 PM

Your repeated appeal to authority is fallacy I disagree. It's part of several pieces of evidence offered, all of which you rejected for reasons entirely your own.

If Adam Smith was all there was to the argument, and I asserted that because Adam Smith says so, then it must be true, then you might have a complaint. But claiming a fallacy in this case is outright false, Wes.

In the meantime, I owe you an apology, Wes. It is my error that I have not until now realized that you did not wish to discuss an applicable economic theory, but rather one to remain entirely in abstraction.

I'm reading back through one of your responses and I can't believe I missed it the first time around.

No wonder you're ignoring my point.

Sorry about that.

wesmorris

02-22-04, 11:25 PM

I disagree. It's part of several pieces of evidence offered, all of which you rejected for reasons entirely your own.

- What other reasons would I reject your evidence for?
- As I mentioned the first time you put them out there, they do not address the issue. That indicates that you are false, or that you still don't understand the issue you're trying to address.
- You have yet to address the validity of my objections, but seemingly pleaded that other people's cases should be taken into account, even though they do not apply at all to the specifics of the case in point.

If Adam Smith was all there was to the argument, and I asserted that because Adam Smith says so, then it must be true, then you might have a complaint.

Perhaps it is an unfair characterization. I thought of it that way because of this stuff:

I can't believe I'm having a discussion of economics with people who won't acknowledge Adam Smith

from econ textbook citations to Adam Smith himself

yet apparently Adam Smith's reflections on the scarcity of resources

I cut and paste all of your posts in this thread that preceded my accusation that you are appealing to authority into a word file and found you'd mentioned his name "smith" 33 times. Maybe I mistook abundance for an appeal to authority.

But claiming a fallacy in this case is outright false, Wes.

Maybe so, I'm not so sure. I think that given those types of comments and the frequency of name droppage, that is a strong basis for a case that you're pleading authority. It certainly seemed to me that you were touting his name like some sort of talisman of authority. It is not as such "outright" false, as to me there is reasonable evidence to support that allegation.

In the meantime, I owe you an apology, Wes.

You owe me a number of apologies by my count, tiassa, but offering them for the wrong reasons does little to convey sincerity. I really don't believe you're at all sorry.

It is my error that I have not until now realized that you did not wish to discuss an applicable economic theory, but rather one to remain entirely
in abstraction.

So without the merit of discussion or consideration, you deem the priciples outlined in the opening post to be wholly abstract? You have not yet attempted to implement the ideas, you have only misunderstood the term "scarcity" (as I've defined it) so poorly that your your comments up to this point have been intirely devoid of relevant material. Actually, some of it might be relevant to further discussions and fits nicely into the framework I'm trying to establish... it seems you are refuting some definition of scarcity that you have stuck in your head, rather than what I've defined. If you'd like to join the discussion, please stick to the definitions that are supplied, expand on them or show why they are invalid. You have not addressed the concept of scarcity as I've repeatedly explained it to you. You continually address what you think I mean, rather than what I mean and you have up until this point completely ignored my attempts to rectify the problem, in favor of accusing me of being rude and whining.

*takes a deep breath*

So please, go back to the beginning, open your mind a little and search for the point you're missing. It's right in front of your face but you can't see it.

I'm reading back through one of your responses and I can't believe I missed it the first time around.

You're still missing stuff as far as I can tell.

No wonder you're ignoring my point.

Your point might be relevant to a different definition of the term, or if it were blind faith, or if we had gotten to trying to discuss how people gauge scarceness, or under what is likely a number of circumstances other than "is scarcity real" which makes no sense in the context I've established. I defined it as real, as it is simply representive of a the finite nature of items of value.

Sorry about that.

I don't believe you, as I think your apology is basically sarcasm.

15ofthe19

02-22-04, 11:56 PM

I run to Florida for a few days of hardcore fishing and come back to find a complete and total threadjack in progress on one of the few threads worth dealing with on this site. That's frustrating.

Here is the deal: Scarcity of resources is a real concept governed by the irrefutable laws of supply and demand. Prattling on about mythical scarcity and such is ridiculous. It's indeed background noise thrown out there in the hope that it will distract from the obvious. I stand by all of my original statements on topic within this thread. Ultimately this world and its events are determined by market economics. It has always been this way. Whether or not you deem it to be "fair" or "right" is irrelevant to this thread. That's an entirely different discussion.

Who told you life was fair? It's most certainly not. As long as Rizzle has the Shizzle in my Hizzay, rizzle is applicizzle, and mythizzal is irrelavizzle. Fuh Shizzle?

Tiassa

02-23-04, 04:34 AM

What other reasons would I reject your evidence for?The ones you did.

You rejected one as sounding like a conspiracy theory, and called it "hostile" to your chosen political alignment.

You ignored the discussion of Adam Smith entirely.

You said that a statement about confronting distortions in the global free market (e.g. artificial impediments) in no way supported the idea that scarcity of resources was a myth. (That an issue of artifice causing scarcity in no way supported the idea that scarcity is a myth.)

You got cranky about an article that was noted up front to be for your amusement only.

You dismissed a thesis from the Royal College of Defense Studies as "simply ridiculous."- As I mentioned the first time you put them out there, they do not address the issue. That indicates that you are false, or that you still don't understand the issue you're trying to address.That you repeatedly say they do not address the issue without demonstrating how indicates that you are false.Maybe I mistook abundance for an appeal to authority.Yes, you did. All I really want is for you to explain to me how Adam Smith discussing natural and artificial contributers to the appearance of scarcity is impertinent to the discussion of the assertion that scarcity is a myth.

And I'm very disappointed that you're refusing that consideration.Maybe so, I'm not so sure. I think that given those types of comments and the frequency of name droppage, that is a strong basis for a case that you're pleading authority. Wes, since the frequency of the name's appearance comes in response to your repeated refusals to consider the issues, I think it rather disingenuous of you to raise such an argument.It certainly seemed to me that you were touting his name like some sort of talisman of authority. It is not as such "outright" false, as to me there is reasonable evidence to support that allegation.Frankly, I don't see it, and I think you're just being insulting and provocative for the hell of it.

Why are you going out of your way to be so rude, Wes?You owe me a number of apologies by my count, tiassaAnd perhaps one day you will support your argument with some evidence.I really don't believe you're at all sorry.That's up to you.So without the merit of discussion or consideration, you deem the priciples outlined in the opening post to be wholly abstract?Where in the hell do you get this, Wes?

Seriously, why do you go so far out of your way to be rude? Why do you ask questions that have no foundation in fact?You have not yet attempted to implement the ideas, you have only misunderstood the term "scarcity" (as I've defined it) so poorly that your your comments up to this point have been intirely devoid of relevant material.So you say.

Imagine that you write a book review for Booklist. You say some things about the author's perspective and inadequacies. In the next issue there appears several letters to the editor asking how you arrived at that opinion, and offer citations from the book you're reviewing to assert that the language and writing of the book was not inadequate. And so "the critic responds"; you respond by simply reiterating your original position, not even offering a page number for the questioning parties to look to in order to see an example. And then you criticize the questioning parties for not paying attention to your argument.

In other words, Wes, you're not doing a very good job of explaining whatever your problem is. The only way I can see through that mess to figure out where you have a valid point is if I draw everything to a freeze-frame; at no time do your issues seem to consider reality. You wish to establish a definition of scarcity that you're welcome to, but becomes a moot issue once you set the freeze-frame into motion.

I have considered my entire participation in this post under the influence of your statement of the anthropic principle, my comments on the anthropic principle, and the presumption that we were seeking a functional, applicable idea.

That last idea is clearly wrong.

If I stop, remove this discussion from any consideration of applicable reality, and deal solely in abstraction, you start to have the appearance of a valid concept.

But you don't seem to be seeing what the presumption of scarcity does. When applied a priori within an economic system, the presumption of scarcity demands scarcity in order for the system to function. One of the problems of everybody having plenty is that it screws up the market. Now ... as an editorial aside, I think that's a rather perverse situation when humans exist for the benefit of the economic paradigm and not vice-versa.If you'd like to join the discussion, please stick to the definitions that are supplied, expand on them or show why they are invalid. Now that's just downright rude, Wes. I've been arguing that scarcity is a myth and that the limitations upon which your definition is dependent are artificial. I have been trying to show the invalidity, but you've just been ignoring that.
So please, go back to the beginning, open your mind a little and search for the point you're missing. It's right in front of your face but you can't see it.Whatever, Wes. You may be out to pick a fight, but I'm not wasting my time with that.You're still missing stuff as far as I can tell.But that's all you ever wanted to believe in the first place, , so what makes that opinion of yours significant in any way?Your point might be relevant to a different definition of the term, or if it were blind faith, or if we had gotten to trying to discuss how people gauge scarceness, or under what is likely a number of circumstances other than "is scarcity real" which makes no sense in the context I've established. I defined it as real, as it is simply representive of a the finite nature of items of value.You defined it, in other words, according to an inapplicable theoretic state. This is, in fact, what I'm apologizing for missing, but you don't seem to want to see that.I don't believe you, as I think your apology is basically sarcasm.That is entirely up to you.

In the meantime, this is all it is, Wes:

•*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 focused on the word applicable, and did not give enough attention to the phrase, regardless of the details. It seems to me that where we're hanging up on scarcity is that you wish to assert a definition that operates in an abstract void while I've been insisting on considering scarcity from an applicable standpoint.

Something about your persistence did finally cue me into it. You accused me of disregarding a statement: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 itNow, personally, I thought and still think I've addressed it; obviously you disagree though you're having a hard time telling me why and have rejected as sarcastic my recognition of one possible route to that disagreement. Consider this statement of yours.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.You even argued from a perspective that supports the idea that scarcity is a myth:[b]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?".This is the first time I started considering a question that would be resolved by the very issue I've addressed in my apology.

• Capped in terms of rate of extraction: I argue the counterpoint that the caps are artificial. I think this is relevant to the question of whether or not scarcity is a myth. You apparently do not.
• Resources limited by maximum efficient/effective extraction rates: This is well and fine for theory and abstraction. However, and here's the important thing--those limits are artificial. Again, I see this as relevant and apparently you do not. In an abstract theory, applying the anthropic principle, those resources are purely limited by the maximum extraction rates. However, once we set that abstraction into motion, we must address a question: If the way things are represent the only way they can be, can we say we have achieved maximum extraction? This question only exists, however, if we choose to apply the abstract theory considered.

In either case, it would seem that our misunderstanding--what you consider ignoring and I consider addressing the point--seems rather invested in the difference between whether the idea remains an abstraction or is applied in life.

And I must admit, that's a pretty silly thing for us to be getting worked up over.

So ... sorry dude. If that's not good enough for you ... well, there's not much I can do beyond that.

wesmorris

02-23-04, 10:27 AM

• Capped in terms of rate of extraction: I argue the counterpoint that the caps are artificial.

This simply blows me away, and is the root of my opposition to your words thus far. Honestly this makes me think you are completely insane and have no real understanding at all about how goods are produced. I gave the example of shucking corn earlier. One player can shuck x amount of corn in t amount of time. Add up the number of players and account for their individual rates (or just calculate it when you're done to see how fast they went) and you'll see the cap. It's not an abstract, it's not fantasy, it's straight fact. If I start walking home right now, it'll take a while before I get there. That's a fact. The "while" that it takes will depend exactly upon the rate at which I move in the desired direction. The same is absolutely, irrefutably true about any resource. It might be that the rates are astronomically high or very low, that depends on a number of issues. Regardless the number that corresponds to rate of production is finite, and thusly scarce per the the point I've been hammering at you this entire time. You seem almost receptive, but for some reason still cannot see the simple truth of this. It's not at all, not remotely, not in any way abstract but as simple as the fact that time apparently exists and doing something (anything) takes time.

I think this is relevant to the question of whether or not scarcity is a myth.

But it's not correct, so it isn't relevant.

You apparently do not.

That is correct.

• Resources limited by maximum efficient/effective extraction rates: This is well and fine for theory and abstraction.

It is also well and fine for practical application, as it is as I just mentioned, a recognition of the time dependence of 'doing stuff'.

However, and here's the important thing--those limits are artificial.

Maybe the limits that you hear touted by this or that are articial, but regardess of your repeated attempts to moralize or politicize this conversation, the simple algebra thing I mentioned a while back doesn't go away because you think it's just pretend. Time, doing stuff, rate->limit. Not fake.

Again, I see this as relevant and apparently you do not.

Again, you are correct because what you apparently see as relevant is FALSE. Not false as in misleading, false as in you're saying 2 + 2 = oranges. It's disturbing that you are so out of touch in this regard. You think "the man" just isn't turning his machine up all the way? Maybe he lied about the number of gold coins he cranked out last month? DOESN'T MATTER... the rate still exists, though distorted by the man. IMO, "the man" could be accounted for in model based on the foundation I've presented, as he sees it in his subjective good to take home the coins or keep the machines running at half speed. In either case, there is a good reason in the mind of the accused. In the first case, regardless of the reason he's a thief.. in the second however, there may be good damn reason that the machine never gets turned up to 11. Surely you can see this.

In an abstract theory, applying the anthropic principle, those resources are purely limited by the maximum extraction rates.

Okay.

However, once we set that abstraction into motion, we must address a question: If the way things are represent the only way they can be, can we say we have achieved maximum extraction?

Well, you would ask that question based on demand and as a function of the total available raw materials I'd think but okay.

This question only exists, however, if we choose to apply the abstract theory considered.
Uhm.. I'd think it pertinent regardless of theory, since if you really need whatever it is they're cranking out... you're not getting it if you're over their limitation.

In either case, it would seem that our misunderstanding--what you consider ignoring and I consider addressing the point--seems rather invested in the difference between whether the idea remains an abstraction or is applied in life.

Nope, it's that you think limits are artificial and you're wrong.

And I must admit, that's a pretty silly thing for us to be getting worked up over.

If that were the case, yeah. In this case, I'm worked up because you're still not getting it. I must say though that it does seem semi-promising, so I'm a little more calm now. Perhaps you should re-consider your assumptions regarding the realism of rates. You either don't understand something very fundamental, you're insane, or you're so far out in left field that you've started speaking japanese or something.

So ... sorry dude. If that's not good enough for you ... well, there's not much I can do beyond that.

Aight. Please, explain to me how I can shuck infinite corn so I can get rich? Perhaps you should keep it to yourself and you get rich. Good for you.

Tiassa

02-23-04, 03:47 PM

Honestly this makes me think you are completely insane and have no real understanding at all about how goods are producedLook, whatever, Wes. If you're just going to be rude and ignore the point, there's not much discussion to be had. Please, explain to me how I can shuck infinite corn so I can get rich? Perhaps you should keep it to yourself and you get rich.Getting rich is an artificial concept.

:rolleyes:

wesmorris

02-23-04, 04:01 PM

Look, whatever, Wes. If you're just going to be rude and ignore the point, there's not much discussion to be had.

AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, YOU HAVE NO RELEVANT POINT TO IGNORE.

You just did it AGAIN, it was a short post, only one real request: Explain to me how the shucking of infinite corn works.

Note that again, you did not at all adress the repeated request to just explain what it is about the difference between finite and infinity that you don't understand.

Getting rich is an artificial concept.

That depends on how you define it. Generally, "rich" is a comparative term of available resources. If I could shuck infinite corn, I would be comparatively "rich" to someone who can only shuck 203 ears/hour. You're insisting that the corn, the shucking and the person doing it is "artificial" to which I say, "wha?"

Perhaps you define value in some bizarre manner that I do not. Regardless, you have not directly disputed it and I have summarized it as wholly subjective as is obvious to me since for instance, your opinion on this topic thus far has been of zero value to me. Value is fundamentally defined by the individual and is the basis for demand.

:rolleyes:

:mad: :mad:

Please, address this:

If a resource is not infinite, by my definition is it "scarce".

In that capacity, the term "scarce" is perfectly defined and always applicable, as it is not possible to have infinity of something by the nature of the term infinity.

Tiassa

02-23-04, 04:58 PM

Reverend Wes:AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, YOU HAVE NO RELEVANT POINT TO IGNORE.So you keep saying. So you are still incapable of demonstrating.You just did it AGAIN, it was a short post, only one real request: Explain to me how the shucking of infinite corn works.Explain to me how the shucking of infinite corn is relevant.Note that again, you did not at all adress the repeated request to just explain what it is about the difference between finite and infinity that you don't understand.And note that again, your perceived lack of an relevant response derives solely from your refusal to consider one. I can put an elephant before you but if you keep demanding that you want an elephant and not a cat, there's nothing I can do except remind you that you are, in fact, looking at an elephant.That depends on how you define it. Generally, "rich" is a comparative term of available resources.Like all your other definition (scarce), you seem to be applying a very narrow and specific definition customized to suit your assertion. By your standard, living in a cardboard box in the shanty slum outside Rio de Janeiro is "rich" as long as you don't actually starve to death.

This is the problem I have with the abstraction, the reason why I was trying to tie the question of resource scarcity to applicable considerations, and complicated by the circumstance you have dismissed as sarcastic.

Fine: let's define "rich" in a way to include sweatshop employees among the wealthy. Let's define scarcity according to a moot, two-dimensional point.

Very well, Wes. You have your scarce resources, you have your world full of rich people. It's the way it has been and therefore the only way it can be.

What the hell is valid or applicable about your economic system?

Take it out of the two-dimensional freeze-frame and apply it in life.

Sounds like religion to me.

15ofthe19

02-23-04, 05:10 PM

Can't we have one, just one goddamned discussion without having to go to fantasy land where there is an infinite supply of everything? That world only exists in books. Get it. Deal with it. That's not reality.

Here's reality. West Texas still has a shitload of oil in the Permean Basin. Why are towns like Odessa and Midland not booming like they were in the early 80's? The price of oil isn't high enough to justify pumping it out of the ground. That's how shit works. Like it or leave it. Most people figure that concept out well before their 18th birthday. A select few refuse to on the basis of God only knows what, and damn they are annoying.

Tiassa

02-23-04, 05:32 PM

Why are towns like Odessa and Midland not booming like they were in the early 80's? The price of oil isn't high enough to justify pumping it out of the ground. That's how shit works.So ... there you go.

The price of oil isn't high enough to justify" retrieval.

Sounds pretty artificial to me.

thefountainhed

02-23-04, 05:52 PM

Tiss,
A response to my post?

Tiassa

02-23-04, 07:05 PM

Head

Sorry, it seemed to me that you were ignoring the point.While a resource is being "wasted" or deliberately not produced, another resource is; the bugger sitting next to me is growing acres of peanuts. Why peanuts?The issue here Tiassa, is that the "interstellar bureaucracy" would exist to serve the goal of personal satisfaction-- profit wise.Just as it has in the past and the present, as with the spice and energy trades.The notion of a selfless world where all cater to a greater good is the true myth in this discussion.Only because we choose otherwise.With the myriad of resources and their constantly changing demand, it would be impossible to cultivate all the resources necessary to satisfy world demand. This is because of arbitrary political differences that we can choose to live without.Some would in that scenario, invariably have to suppress certain demands for resources in other to achieve a greater goal, the suppressed desire or demand for said resource, means it is scarce-- it cannot be had in the now.What determines the value of that greater goal?You keep bringing morality into a suggestion where it does not belong; it is absurd.Demonstrate the moral assertion, demonstrate the absurdity.Not humanity but rather, humans- individual humans have chosen to choose paths that best satisfies their aims-- within the context of available goods and demand.Are we going to assert that humanity--inasmuch as we examine individual humans--have optimized their priorities, thought process, and labor performance? Are the only challenges to human efficiency directly derived from nature?

Hardly. The fact is that humans--individually and collectively--choose inefficiency.There is no greater will or humanity. Which undermines any sense of economic theory short of looking at the world and citing the anthropic principle as expressed in the topic post: This is the way it is. This is the only way it can be.

Of course, your point also reinforces the notion that scarcity is a myth, inasmuch as economic theories focusing on anything more than one individual are based on what you would seem to consider a false premise, a "collective" humanity intextricably bound to itself by its natural and living associations.The notion of "humanity' is in actuality what does not reflect in reality.Why argue against the existence of species?How can you equate "based on the fact that resources are unequally divided" to a support of your stance?A very simple question will illustrate the point: Resources are unequally divided in relation to what?

If they are merely divided over the earth itself, the notion of natural scarcity must be examined in the context of whether the caps on extraction and implementation are natural (lack of other necessary resources imposed by nature) or artificial (lack of other necessary resources resulting from a human choice.)If resources are unequally divided, the implicit logical progression therefore becomes that some have more of a resource than others, and in the extreme, some will lack the resource they need.And this assertion remains trapped in an abstract void: You have a point if the assessment of resources focuses on the individual and not the collective. Staring at the individual, we are left with an economic idea that focuses on a single human being, non-viable in the maintenance of species. This is a rather shaky foundation--an economic paradigm recognizing the nonviable individual over the viability of the species.

It is, in fact, a symptom of human irrationality.

Think about it this way: You are marooned on an island. You discover an abandoned military warehouse and are able to base your survival on the rations and equipment left in the warehouse and available on the island. When you count it up, you find that you would have to live 300 years to consume the standing reserves and be required by a functional scarcity to tap the natural resources outside the warehouse--e.g. fruit, fish, &c.

Now, according to the theory put before you, with more resources than you will ever use, the idea I'm arguing against seems to assert that you would be living in a condition of scarcity. How? All needs are met. Scarcity results from two issues:

• Effort. Apparently resources are scarce if you have to get out of your chair, walk to the next room, grab a MRE, and open the thing.
• Finite quantity. Though a moot point insofar as the human served by the economic outlook will die naturally before consuming all the goods and will not replace itself in the relationship through reproduction, and therefore a surplus will decay in accordance with the laws of nature, there exists in the individual's life a condition of scarcity merely because the actual quantity of available resources in the warehouse is finite. Economics as wesmorris originally pointed out, must be in the subjective, else it fails to make sense.Perhaps you could explain to me how this point is intended to contribute to the argument that scarcity is not a myth?And no, Smith is not, does not, suggest that scarcity is a myth in the sense you suggest.I doubt your perception of the sense I suggest. However, part of what is so contentious about the Adam Smith discussion is that a discussion of the natural and artificial impediments to opulence (e.g. natural and artificial scarcity) is somehow impertinent to a discussion of the myth of scarcity. Hell, we have to get past the objection that Adam Smith discussing scarcity is irrelevant to a discussion of scarcity before we can get into the implications.This is absurd. The destiny of man is an unknown. We could have simply come out of the ocean or trees to sightsee.Nature is not extraneous.

If you're going to be flippant, you might wish to consider what that says about your lack of a supporting argument.

Please show me anything from the scientific record suggesting that species are intended to use the resources in their local habitat and then just die off.

At that point, I will consider your assertion of absurdity.I laugh at the notion that the USA or Russia left the earth for space with the sense of a cooperative society of humankind as their aim. It was conflict, competition that precipitated those efforts.I attempted to consider such notions at the outset, though Albert Hirschman° has been ignored outright.° No. The assumption is that man can acquire all the resources he may need . Until that eventual is reached, resources are scarce. And until we account for the artificial factors imposing that scarcity, we cannot say that scarcity is inherent. Scarcity must be presumed in the economy; economic theories depend on it, but their functionality comes apart when applied should reality include a condition of abundance.

The only truly scarce resource I can think of is knowledge among humans, and I haven't yet seen an economic theory that puts a price on knowledge without imposing an artificial scarcity.

You're arguing what is very nearly a religion.

Notes:

° Albert Hirschman - I previously misspelled his name "Hirschmann". I have no idea why.
° ignored - In reality, it has at least been addressed insofar as someone went to the effort of citing it in a quotation and pretending to respond to it. However, by the standard of what seems to constitute "ignored" in this discussion, yes, we can say that I'm wearing a grin as I see you coming around to a point that I'm already, quite obviously considering. The Hirschman point is still helpful, however, despite being ignored; it explores the transformation of ideas and the balance between what we want and what we need as well as considering implicitly the idea of whether or not humanity just stumbles through its existence. The idea is right there in the title of the book, too: the balance between "The Passions and the Interests," takes place on all levels of human existence. In the case of the economics we discuss in this topic, that balancing act is part of the problem that arises when we move from the freeze-frame into four dimensions and set the theory to life.

wesmorris

02-24-04, 01:03 AM

tiassa,

This explains our problem nicely. Note that my assertion was the first definition which is deemed self-evident. I have made no assertions as to the second, nor was I attempting to, but you have been arguing that scarcity is invalid because of it.

Scarcity at a given point in time or temporal scarcity. Scarcity is a
function of the limits on satisfaction of all wants at a given point in time
giving rise to differentials in costs among economic choices.

Scarcity over time or intertemporal scarcity. Increasing scarcity over time
is a function of declining stocks of raw materials available for extraction
giving rise to an increase in resource prices because of increasing marginal
costs of extraction as the resource is depleted.

The first definition of scarcity is an eternal problem the second definition
is simply a rough statement of the Hotelling Theorem (1931) of the optimal
path for scarcity rent over time for an exhaustible resource.

We take the first definition as a given or self-evident.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4834/scarce.txt

Another:

Scarcity
The limited nature of society's resources (pg. 1)

http://lms.thomsonelearning.com/hbcp/glossary/glossary.taf?gid=2&start=s

Economic Scarcity
Economic scarcity is the concept that there is only so much of anything. There is only so much real estate in a city, and some parts are "better" than others. There are a finite number of miles of beach front. There is only so much food grown. There is no "free lunch".

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/eagles/305/scarcity.html

I wish you could see that you're refuting stuff that I never implied nor claimed, nor does it result from the definition. It is just a recognition of the nature of time more than anything. That is why your rants are not relevant.

Tiassa

02-24-04, 03:22 AM

Sounds like a religion to me.

wesmorris

02-24-04, 09:50 AM

Sounds like a religion to me.

Then you are hearing what you please, rather than what is said.

You would have to consider "to be reasonable" a matter of religion for that to be true.

You are confused tiassa.

You mistake your definition of the word "scarce" for the supplied definition.

Seems like yours says 'scarcity' means "there's not enough to go around".

The other says "what is, regardless of abundance - is finite".

The first one is the political message you think you heard and have been arguing against. The second one is a truism established by science, common sense, basic logic. It is not on the table for discussion, as there is little to discuss unless you wish to argue about the nature of time, which is really a whole different thread. I believe zonabi started a thread about that a few weeks ago, in which I stated what I believe to be an interesting perspective on the nature of time.

I have never argued the former, but you have argued against it exclusively for this entire thread. That is why your comments are not relevant yet. They might be later, but you have not allowed the conversation to progress past your mistaken perception of the meaning being conveyed.

How about this then, since you are so against the word "scarce" or its derivatives we'll just throw it out. Instead, we can just say "any activity (such as gathering, processing or distributing resources, or smoking a bowl, or taking a dump, or well, any activity) takes time". It'd be easier if we had a label for that condition. You can choose one if you'd like since you have a problem with the term I used for it.

Tiassa

02-24-04, 05:42 PM

Seems like yours says 'scarcity' means "there's not enough to go around".That's exactly the problem with the myth of scarcity. The abstract, conditional definition presumed as fact in economic theory is so important that the economic systems come unhinged if natrual abundance or surplus is utilized. If you feed the world and give everybody "enough," the economic associations by which people, nations, and the world functions comes apart. Is it a natural condition that abundance should cause scarcity?

This is why I say your theory looks fine in two dimensions but doesn't work in four. It's a great freeze-frame, but its presumptions don't hold up as accurate when applied to a real and working circumstance.

Resource utilization is interdependent, resources are intertwined inasmuch as it requires the utilization of a minimum number of resources (at least two--people and time) in order to utilize another. This much is evident. But presuming a deficit of resources does not allow the system to account for the event of an abundance.

The issue I'm referring to is so basic that it appears in children's books (http://www.mskreul.com/bookreviews/balloons.html).

As an absolutely neutral consideration, I understand why people have trouble seeing the issue clearly (see Emir Ali Khan quote).

Scarcity was not always a presumption. One of the things that bugs me so badly about your ignoring Adam Smith is that inherent in that discussion is the issue of whether or not Smith was premature in reserving the natural impediments to opulence to a rude and barbarous time of the past. It is sometime between then and now that humanity has come to acquire the capacities to render scarcity a myth, and perhaps in the twentieth century. Just as "evolution" didn't catch on with people until the scientific process rendered the world in a manner that was simply irreconcilable to certain religious presumptions, so will this time of international turmoil and resource wars reveal of scarcity, that it is a dead and dying presumption. Certes, it will always have a better chance of standing up to scrutiny; just as God can choose to show up and reinforce the Creationist myth, so, too, can nature reimpose scarcity in the form of a cataclysmic disaster. The difference between the old and new is that we have enough to meet human need, and the means to utilize the resources; only artificial challenges (transnational issues, reverence for greed, &c.). Presuming that supply must trail demand is a huge problem. Sure, I'm among a circle of people who joke that we wouldn't survive without our computers and high-speed connections, but the scarcity of my computer depends on my desire. Making this scarcity, dependent on extraneous desires, so central to the economic function means that other, more necessary resources will be disrupted in their implementation. I understand that scarcity, especially when a company with vested interest in the computer industry stalls its production of components it licenses to its competitors in an effort to disrupt their market progress. But look at how much pretense and bullpucky is involved in establishing the scarcity of my iMac. Now take a handful of raw grain. In the eastern half of Washington, and also I'm told in farming centers around the nation, massive quantities of food go to waste; awaiting a buyer, the produce goes bad and has to be destroyed or left to rot. Little is ever done to distribute surplus resources like this because there is incentive to not go to the effort. This is a huge artificial barrier to the utilization of resources. This scarcity is chosen.

Humanity lives under the yoke of scarcity much as it has existed for ages under the yoke of god.

wesmorris

02-24-04, 06:02 PM

The problem tiassa, is that I've been telling you that I'm using a different defnition of the word than you're used to for this entire time, and you've been telling me that I'm wrong because the word is a myth. That is the entire source of frustration. The only reason I even mentioned scarcity is from my economic understanding of it which does not at all mean "not enough to go around", though you seem to insist that it does. Argh.

So you didn't come up with a word, and you are apparently still refuting something that I never said, though you don't seem to be holding me accountable for it at least.... FINALLY, thank you.

I'd say you're wrong though that supply must trail demand, but for ultimately simplistic reasoning. If you don't know you want something, you can't already have it. Supply must trail demand only in that you have to walk across the room to get something or whatever. It doesn't have to trail by much but it's one of those things where for instance, there is a millisecond delay before the words I'm thinking come out my fingertips and onto this screen. Demand is recognized, then logistics brings supply to meet it. It's that the logistics is smashed in there that permanently makes supply trail demand, if only by a smidge.

guthrie

02-24-04, 06:19 PM

Tiassa

02-24-04, 07:42 PM

Action is a choice.

A body at rest tends to remain at rest. A body in motion tends to remain in motion. Action is the force that alters the state of inertia.

At the abstract degree you're working in, demand is a choice. Resources are exchanged and utilized throughout the Universe; the only difference between a binary star system and a human association is the façade of will.

wesmorris

02-24-04, 08:59 PM

"It's that the logistics is smashed in there that permanently makes supply trail demand, if only by a smidge."

And that is also one of the reasons economics is only an approximation of relaity, since it generally assumes perfect information and communications.

Okay uhm, did you know that "physics" or "biology" or "your reflection in the mirror" or "your perception of the stuff that happened during the day" are all approximations of reality?

In any model of a system, you can make assumptions as you see fit. That is generally done as a means to increase the accuracy of the outputs from your model (which you hope to be somewhat realistic).

But since you get neither in real life, the market doesnt clear perfectly, and imbalances are introduced to the system.

perfect information and communication are just facets of a model if you account for them. if you don't, then they don't introduce anything into your model. more importantly, economics is from a certain perspective a system of describing imbalances and the resultant limitations - so "introducing them into the system" might be a good thing, depending on the nature of the "reality" of the system.

wesmorris

02-24-04, 10:15 PM

Action is a choice.

Action is the force that alters the state of inertia.

So which is it? You think a choice is "the force" that alters the state of inertia? Inertia of what?

A body at rest tends to remain at rest. A body in motion tends to remain in motion. Action is the force that alters the state of inertia.

If you think you have a point perhaps you'll restate it, since many other things besides choice alter states of inertia. In fact on the universal scale, choice is (as known to a human anyway) probably an extremely miniscule portion of the "things that effect inertia".

At the abstract degree you're working in, demand is a choice.

Any thought put to this end (even if you're doing it) is abstract. Demand is a choice about subjective good. Something whimsically comes to mind.. say a new bike? Sure I'd like a new bike. That's smooth. It is now in my subjective good to have a new bike. Hmmm.. I have the 500 bucks, but I like whores more than bikes. Hell I might have to suck up the opportunity cost of going bike free to get whores. Maybe I should go whore free in favor of this dandy bikes? Since I only have resources for one at this time, I choose to deem it in my subjective good to choose the bike. That choice created demand. The choice to type these words did the same, but the supply chain is pretty damned short at this point. If I were a quadraplegic, the supply chain might be a bit lengthier.

Resources are exchanged and utilized throughout the Universe;

I agree, but they are only really a resource if a POV places value on them right? There is no value in a binary star system unless projected there by a POV (unless there is some manner in which that binary star system is its own POV).

the only difference between a binary star system and a human association is the façade of will.

Whether or not 'will' is a facade is pretty much moot, but that is a long conversation that is not really relevant to this thread but that hasn't stopped you until now eh?

Remember this?:

"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."

Which is it T? Facade or just scarce? :rolleyes:

Oh and you said "the facade of human will", but you also said "action is choice". You can't really have a choice if will is a facade right? Does that mean there is no action?

Tiassa

02-25-04, 04:32 AM

Which is it T? Facade or just scarce?I don't see that the two conditions are mutually exclusive.I agree, but they are only really a resource if a POV places value on them right? There is no value in a binary star system unless projected there by a POV (unless there is some manner in which that binary star system is its own POV)You have it exactly. I just don't see what's so hard to grasp from there about the idea that scarcity is a myth.Any thought put to this end (even if you're doing it) is abstract.True. I was referring more to the difference between the freeze-frame version of the theory and what happens when you try to apply it to a model that is in motion. Whether or not 'will' is a facade is pretty much moot, but that is a long conversation that is not really relevant to this thread but that hasn't stopped you until now eh?Wes, I think it's a really dumb argument to simply dismiss everything that disagrees with you as irrelevant, especially when you are so utterly incapable of demonstrating that irrelevance.

It's your topic. If it's so easy to explain, then do so. For once.

wesmorris

02-27-04, 01:54 AM

I don't see that the two conditions are mutually exclusive.
So to you "exists" and "doesn't exist" are the synonyms?

Facade: "illusion created to distract or entertain -> an illusion is something doesn't actually exist"
Scarce (via your usage): "not very much of something -> something that exists".

I just don't see what's so hard to grasp from there about the idea that scarcity is a myth.

Not much in the way you use it. I was way ahead of you. In fact, as soon as I realized you meant something different by the word than I did, I tried to straighten you out. Using it in the way you mean does nothing to test my intended purpose. I even rewrote it for you:

any activity (such as gathering, processing or distributing resources, or smoking a bowl, or taking a dump, or well, any activity) takes time

Which you never refuted, but instead continued:

Seems like yours says 'scarcity' means "there's not enough to go around".

That's exactly the problem with the myth of scarcity. The abstract, conditional definition presumed as fact in economic theory is so important that the economic systems come unhinged if natrual abundance or surplus is utilized. If you feed the world and give everybody "enough," the economic associations by which people, nations, and the world functions comes apart. Is it a natural condition that abundance should cause scarcity?

I highlighted what I suspect might have been your attempt to address it... but I have no idea what you mean by it. Which conditional fact?

Let's break it down like you like it:

- That's exactly the problem with the myth of scarcity

You haven't established it to be a myth. I said "(paraphrasing) in my context I use the term scarcity as "any activity takes time"". A direct consequence of that is that there is a finite amount of resource R at a given time, as I demonstrated with:

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

.... which you did not dispute either, so there is nothing to quote you on, having ignored it completely.

- The abstract, conditional definition presumed as fact in economic theory
1) Any definition, conditional or not, is abstract.
2) Every model has boundary conditions.
3) If you're actually addressing it in the terms I've mentioned, how do you propose that you pretend that it takes no time to produce a soy patty? Do you think that pretending that you have infinite of them increases the accuracy of your model somehow? Do you not pay attention to your surroudings to that degree? If I need to make a steak, but it takes fifteen minutes - I can't make it in ten. Dig? If I need air to survive and I don't have any, I die. It is an observation, not a presumption. I state it forthright because it's power is IMO, a facet of the anthropic principle. perhaps preceding it. Perhaps the anthropic principle is the first corollary of scarcity (per my definition).

- is so important that the economic systems come unhinged if natrual abundance or surplus is utilized.
You have not established the cause. What you speak of is simple prudence. Stores result from projected requirements. Depending on the nature of the good, a store of it is prudent to the supply chain for reasons of accounting for potential supply chain failures. If it's oh, food for instance, what happens if there's only enough to eat for today at your house, and no food available for a month because the train broke down in idaho?

Further, why do you insist "amount" is the problem? It is sometimes, but "amount" is just a consideration along with logistics issues, which are fundamental. Plenty of food is shipped to countries in need. There is plenty of food in the world that is not surplus. It simply gets intercepted on its way to who should get it. Not much you can do about it without wars and such, and look what happened in somalia right? Do you keep putting your money into a broken vending machine? You still don't get food out of it unless you break the glass, and that is simply impractical for the most part due to the whole politics thing eh? I mean, that is part of the benefits of invading Iraq. Less people there will starve because he's not there to take their food and sell it to someone else for arms.

Lastly, it really pisses me off to be still talking about "scarcity" as in the sense I defined it, arguing about it without directly demonstrating the flaw is simply juvenile, as "stuff takes time" is IMO, unquestionable. We are at an impass and it seems to me you put us there on purpose. It's difficult to say what with all the apparent mental illness happening in your neck of the woods. You seem determined to fight and I'm goddamn sick of it.

- If you feed the world and give everybody "enough," the economic associations by which people, nations, and the world functions comes apart.

LOL. Who decides what is enough T? YOU apparently? How do you presume the authority? Are you mad because no one cares what you think is good? How have you contributed to the economy? Why is your "good" more pertinent than mine? If I contribute more, should my impression of "good" be increased proportionally?

Regardless of your assertions, individuals establish value remember? It's the subjective good that matters. Maximizing the ability of as many people as possible to attain their subjective good is the profit function of the model, regardless of your opinion. It's interesting to me how individual profit functions add up to make the whole, and how different system give different individuals the power to influence the constraints of the model.

I was referring more to the difference between the freeze-frame version of the theory and what happens when you try to apply it to a model that is in motion.

How much money do you have in your pocket? Count it and you get a freeze frame version. If I had a function, or model to describe what you've had in your pocket over a week, I could answer a variety of types of questions about your pocket, like trends, how much you'd have at any time t, etc. So you see a "free frame version" like the equation I offered, is a powerful tool for understanding the boundary conditions, statics and dynamics of the scenario it is built to model.

Now that I read it a gazillion times, you sentence actually makes no sense. The difference between X and what happens when you try to apply X to something? X is still X.

Wes, I think it's a really dumb argument to simply dismiss everything that disagrees with you as irrelevant
LOL. I agree. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd think you'd stop doing it since you point it out as such. I see you seem to be blaming me for your problem, but you have yet to actually refute what I've said, so you have yet to disagree with was is on the table, or if as I couldn't tell if you implied above, you think "stuff does not take any time", then we are at an impasse and I agree to disagree. You are irrelevant exactly because you have not refuted the stated definition.

, especially when you are so utterly incapable of demonstrating that irrelevance.

to me, this proves that capability:

You mistake your definition of the word "scarce" for the supplied definition.

Seems like yours says 'scarcity' means "there's not enough to go around".

The other says "what is, regardless of abundance - is finite".

The first one is the political message you think you heard and have been arguing against. The second one is a truism established by science, common sense, basic logic. It is not on the table for discussion, as there is little to discuss unless you wish to argue about the nature of time, which is really a whole different thread. I believe zonabi started a thread about that a few weeks ago, in which I stated what I believe to be an interesting perspective on the nature of time.

I have never argued the former, but you have argued against it exclusively for this entire thread. That is why your comments are not relevant yet. They might be later, but you have not allowed the conversation to progress past your mistaken perception of the meaning being conveyed.

How about this then, since you are so against the word "scarce" or its derivatives we'll just throw it out. Instead, we can just say "any activity (such as gathering, processing or distributing resources, or smoking a bowl, or taking a dump, or well, any activity) takes time". It'd be easier if we had a label for that condition. You can choose one if you'd like since you have a problem with the term I used for it.

I suppose if it's under a thousand words it can't be proof to you or... ?

Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to why it doesn't sway you. Please be as brief as possible.

It's your topic.

Actually you've pretty well thread-jacked eh? Oh well it didn't seem like it was going anywhere anyway so at least I got to see your performance. Bravo, you've shown you're willing to take the premise "I refuse to communicate" to a new level. Yay you.

If it's so easy to explain, then do so.
You know what's weird is that I'd swear I have, yet you swear I haven't. That is just straight funky.

For once.

LOL. That's like asking me to get my pet rock to read bed-time stories to the kids. It doesn't really matter what I say to it, it will never know what the hell I'm talking about.

Tiassa

02-27-04, 05:27 AM

So to you "exists" and "doesn't exist" are the synonyms?

Facade: "illusion created to distract or entertain -> an illusion is something doesn't actually exist "
Scarce (via your usage): "not very much of something -> something that exists ". And?I was way ahead of you.So you say, now.I tried to straighten you out.And what an effort that was.

Sincerity has never been one of your strong points, Wes. "Straightening me out" by ignoring what I'm posting and then complaining that I'm ignoring your point is a dubious way of looking at it.Which you never refuted, but instead continued I didn't see how it was relevant.Which conditional fact?Honestly, Wes? You know those times I take stabs at your reading comprehension? It's things like that, dude. Seriously.

There is a scarcity that is presumed in economic theories that is much like the one you've painstakingly defined. And, like your definition, the presumption when applied causes the human benefit of the economic organization to somehow collapse in times of abundance. And whether it is Capitalism or Socialism or Marxism, the major economic paradigms share that sense of scarcity inasmuch as diverse religions all share notions of God or alternate reality. The problem with the presumption of scarcity when applied is that periods of abundance actually screw up the human endeavor because of the economic paradigm.You haven't established it to be a myth. I could have guessed you would say that. I don't see how your retort is relevant inasmuch as it doesn't matter according to the sentence you're responding to and what it communicates.I said "(paraphrasing) in my context I use the term scarcity as "any activity takes time"" I don't see how this is relevant.y(x,t) = (r(x,t)-c(x,t)) dt (integrated from 0 to t)

.... which you did not dispute either, so there is nothing to quote you on, having ignored it completely. Nor this. That's why I let it go without comment. Flip a coin, Wes, and it really doesn't matter. Heads, you're upset. Tails, you're upset. I think you're just looking for a reason to be pissed off.1) Any definition, conditional or not, is abstract.
2) Every model has boundary conditions.
3) If you're actually addressing it in the terms I've mentioned, how do you propose that you pretend that it takes no time to produce a soy patty? Do you think that pretending that you have infinite of them increases the accuracy of your model somehow? Do you not pay attention to your surroudings to that degree? If I need to make a steak, but it takes fifteen minutes - I can't make it in ten. Dig? (1) And?
(2) Those boundary conditions are generally presumed. Sometimes they are incorrect. This latter point is what you seem to be having great difficulty with.
(3) Yeah, I dig. I just think you're splitting hairs beyond any sense of applicability. For instance, who says you need a steak? The problem is that the economic presumption centers on desire, not necessity. There's also the bit about evolution not intending human beings to stay still for all time. I mean ... dude! Air is scarce? I didn't realize that life was such a burden, Wes. When it's microwaving a freaking burrito, I think you're just being lazy. When air is scarce because of the natural requirement of breathing ... well, you're just being ridiculous.It is an observation, not a presumption. Its significance is a presumption.

Help me out with something, Wes ... now, let's pretend for a moment that you crystallize your economic theory and present to the world some absolutely genius treatise that is a great sell for people and helps humanity understand its place in nature. Just ... just so I can get a better picture in my head, how many bureaucrats will be quantifying the air?

Look: Blood is not scarce for the demand of a heartbeat. The nail was only scarce because there was a war afoot. (1 (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/Nailrhyme.html), 2 (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/todd-rundgren/138221.html))You have not established the cause. For someone who hates to read my posts, you sure want to see a lot of words from me. I mean, really, why prices and with them functioning economies collapse in times of abundance is its own topic. I'm sure we'll get around to it.If it's oh, food for instance, what happens if there's only enough to eat for today at your house, and no food available for a month because the train broke down in idaho?If I'm so remote as that, I'm sure I'll find a reason to own a rifle. Just such an occasion, it would seem.as "stuff takes time" is IMO, unquestionable And, at the level you're invoking, a ridiculously self-centered standard.We are at an impass and it seems to me you put us there on purpose.No, as I read the topic, you inserted your own context into a discussion I was having that might well have eventually resolved these issues. And then you refused to consider what I put before you and refused to make a coherent demonstration of why that material was impertinent. Now you're down to splitting hairs in order to avoid the issue you chose to pursue.It's difficult to say what with all the apparent mental illness happening in your neck of the woods.Are you really out of arguments?You seem determined to fight and I'm goddamn sick of it.Don't make your hatred such an issue. Hell, whatever your problem is hit me completely from left field, Wes. I still don't get where the attitude is coming from. Oh, right. You hate me.LOL. Who decides what is enough T? YOU apparently?Wow. Are you really that bitter? I would think feeding and housing the mouths we have is a decent start.How do you presume the authority? Are you mad because no one cares what you think is good? How have you contributed to the economy? Why is your "good" more pertinent than mine? If I contribute more, should my impression of "good" be increased proportionally?You need to start looking at these issues a little more rationally. Your hatred is clouding your perspective.Regardless of your assertions, individuals establish value remember? It's the subjective good that matters. How that argues against the notion that scarcity is a myth is still beyond me, but if you insist ... well, yeah.Maximizing the ability of as many people as possible to attain their subjective good is the profit function of the model, regardless of your opinion.Again, how you think that argues against the notion that scarcity is a myth is beyond me.It's interesting to me how individual profit functions add up to make the whole, and how different system give different individuals the power to influence the constraints of the model.Yes. And it's all contrived to describe something that escapes our full perception and understanding.Now that I read it a gazillion times, you sentence actually makes no sense. The difference between X and what happens when you try to apply X to something? X is still X.Ask Christians about X in the case of Matthew 25 in history. What they have done and failed to do unto others does not change X--in this case, what is written in Matthew 25.

It doesn't change X at all, Wes, but I don't see how that's important. X can be what it always has been and still be wrong.I'd think you'd stop doing it since you point it out as such. I see you seem to be blaming me for your problem, but you have yet to actually refute what I've said, so you have yet to disagree with was is on the table, or if as I couldn't tell if you implied above, you think "stuff does not take any time", then we are at an impasse and I agree to disagree.Well, if you really want to break the impasse, you can try going through this topic honestly and responding to what is in front of you. Calling it impertinent and offering no explanation of what you mean is just rude.You are irrelevant exactly because you have not refuted the stated definition.I'd post it again, but you didn't care the first time.Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to why it doesn't sway you. Please be as brief as possible.Short words, so as not to confuse you, just like you requested:

• It does not sway me because it is still false.
• It does not sway me because it is not applicable.

(Sorry about the four-syllable word.)Bravo, you've shown you're willing to take the premise "I refuse to communicate" to a new level. More hyperbole without any real substance.You know what's weird is that I'd swear I have, yet you swear I haven't. That is just straight funky.Crying that things are irrelevant or impertinent when you have no better response does not constitute explaining anything, Wes.LOL. That's like asking me to get my pet rock to read bed-time stories to the kids. And only you can make it so absurd.It doesn't really matter what I say to it, it will never know what the hell I'm talking about.And that's still your problem, Wes.

You can go around treating people like rocks, and all it would accomplish is explaining why you ducked the issues you chose to highlight.

Tiassa

02-27-04, 05:43 AM

Wes

Just something I'm reading through at the moment. Thought you might find it ... well, either useful or impertinent. I'll leave that judgment up to you.The most fundamental axiom of economics is the objective reality of scarcity. Productive resources are limited, yet human desires are virtually unbounded. Resources have thus been scarce since time immemorial and will continue to be so for all eternity.

From that simple, self-evident fact a corollary hypothesis has arisen: as population and economies grow, resource depletion accelerates until physical limits are reached and resource exhaustion occurs. Such a corollary would hardly strike one as radical. After all, if resources are fundamentally scarce, it stands to reason that increased demand for them hastens the day when they will disappear from the planet . . . .

. . . . Contrary to popular belief, energy stocks of all kinds, both fossil and nonfossil, have been increasing steadily and dropping in price. We face unprecedented abundance, not scarcity . . . .

. . . . An examination of the price of 13 metals and minerals (aluminum, antimony, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc) shows a net 31 percent decline in real prices from 1980 to 1990. When indexed to wages, those price declines are even more dramatic. "Most of the minerals and metals at the turn of the century were five to ten times more expensive than they are today in terms of numbers of hours of work needed to purchase them." . . . .

. . . . Examination of ultimately recoverable mineral resources indicates that we have only begun to tap the rich veins of the earth's abundance . . . . 99.9 percent of all mineral demand is for metals virtually inexhaustible over any conceivable time horizon . . . .

. . . . Simply increasing the efficiency of water use in developing nations could provide enough advances in productivity to support a global population of 35 billion to 40 billion people, between seven and eight times the current population of the world . . . .

. . . . The fear that mankind is rapidly deforesting the globe has arisen on and off ever since the 18th century. Yet precious little evidence, other than anecdotes, has ever been advanced to support that lamentably widespread belief . . . .

. . . . Yet declining resource scarcity is a long-term trend, evident from the beginning of human society. Without exception, every material resource imaginable has become more abundant during the course of civilization. Whether measured in terms of proven reserves or prices relative to income, a graph of the relative abundance of virtually every resource looks like the population graphs we have seen so many times before: long-term, steady growth in resources with an exploding, exponential increase in resource availability over the last 200 years . . . .

. . . . Virtually every year since 1800 a book, study, report, or commission has pronounced the imminent depletion of this or that resource on the basis of indices that examine current trends and known reserves. Yet every one of those pronouncements has been not only wrong but spectacularly and embarrassingly wrong. More efficient technologies that require fewer resource inputs, advanced extraction and harvesting technologies that allow far greater access to resource deposits, and material substitutions that replace scarce resources with far more abundant resources are just a few of the routine advances that mark the entire march of human civilization.

The fundamental flaw in the conservationist paradigm is the premise that global resources are created by nature and thus fixed and finite. Not a single material resource has ever been created by "nature." Human knowledge and technology are the resources that turn "stuff" into useful commodities. What we think of as resources are actually certain sets of capabilities. As De Gregori points "Humans are the active agent, having ideas that they use to form the environment for human purposes….Resources are not fixed and finite because they are not natural. They are a product of human ingenuity resulting from the creation of technology and science."

Two hundred years ago petroleum was just a useless ooze that actually drove down property values. Human creative endeavor, knowledge, and technology, however, turned the ooze into a valuable resource. Likewise, sand has never been considered a resource, but the revolution in telecommunications and man's expanding technological capacity have turned sand into a valuable commodity-the basic resource from which computer chips and fiber-optic telecommunication devices are made.

"Since resources are a function of human knowledge, and since our stock of knowledge has increased over time, it should come as no surprise that the stock of physical resources has also been expanding," observes Osterfeld.

The free, competitive marketplace is the most efficient engine of resource creation and conservation because it is the most explosive engine for intellectual and technological advance. Technological advance, the heart of resource creation, depends heavily on the competitive free exchange of ideas, entrepreneurial activity, investments in capital and labor, and a profit mechanism. (Taylor (http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html))
• Taylor, Jerry. "The Growing Abundance of Natural Resources." Market Liberalism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century. Edited by David Boaz and Edward H. Crane. Cato Institute, 1993. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html

wesmorris

02-27-04, 09:45 AM

(pompous, pretentious, pointles stupid shit)

For a minute I thought my emotional reaction to your assenine behavior all around this site, which I parlayed to you in the Lou thread was maybe a bit much.

Thank you for vindicating me, you piece of shit.

Now fuck off, cunt.

You are despicable.

wesmorris

02-27-04, 09:55 AM

Wes

Just something I'm reading through at the moment. Thought you might find it ... well, either useful or impertinent. I'll leave that judgment up to you.
• Taylor, Jerry. "The Growing Abundance of Natural Resources." Market Liberalism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century. Edited by David Boaz and Edward H. Crane. Cato Institute, 1993. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html

The guy has good points. Too bad you're incapable of understanding them, or applying them to what I have said. If you weren't a complete fucknut, you'd notice that what he has said in no way contradicts the point(s) I've made.

But since you are a stupid cunt, you have little choice but try to stick everything into your dirty twat. Fuck you, fuck off.

15ofthe19

02-27-04, 12:14 PM

Holy shit. Tiassa citing the Cato Institute? Isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse? This reminds me so much of arguing with nico. She always winds up supporting my arguments by trying to argue against them. It's comical. T. This article is typical conservative rhetoric that gets pimped out to justify wanton, reckless destruction of habitat in the name of progress. Ever notice how Buckethead Limbaugh is always screaming about how there are more trees in the U.S. right now than there were 200 years ago, as if that's some sort of moral justification for clear-cutting virgin timber? I think we can all agree that Buckethead wouldn't know old growth timber if it was shoved up his azz, but that doesn't stop him from decrying all conservationists as Wacko Environmentalists. He doesn't know shit about the issue and he exposes his ignorance every time he goes on a rant about it.

This article is no different. This asshat singles out 13 minerals and points to a decrease in price over ten years as evidence that resource scarcity is a myth? Taking random examples out of the whole of a commodity market is lazy and sophomoric. This guy should know better. I'm sure I can find you some stocks, like Ebay for example, that have bucked the bear market over the last three years, but that doesn't mean shit. It's still been a bear market, up unti recently.

T. Did you know the price of steel has nearly DOUBLED since the first of the year? Do you know why? And do you understand the ramifications? Two months and steel has become so scarce that many dealers wont even quote you a damned price on the phone. They're telling their customers "We'll let you know the price when the truck gets to your door..". Now that's some crazy shit, no?

Scarcity is myth...tell that to a businessman. :confused:

Tiassa

02-27-04, 04:17 PM

Did you know the price of steel has nearly DOUBLED since the first of the year? Do you know why?People and their policies. It isn't a shortage of iron ore. It isn't a shortage of peeople. It isn't a shortage of time.

I noticed that your post was thin on substantial argument. Let me know when you get around to something more useful.Scarcity is myth...tell that to a businessmanYou might as well say, "God is a myth? Tell that to the apostles."

In other words, whatever you say, Father Fifteen. :rolleyes:

guthrie

02-27-04, 05:38 PM

"It's comical. T. This article is typical conservative rhetoric that gets pimped out to justify wanton, reckless destruction of habitat in the name of progress."

For once I agree with 15of the19. I think some people have the apocaly[pse planned for 2007.

But, Tiassa, things are scarce. I would assume you have heard of teh hubbard peak. Or that the easily got to resources of a number of elements are running out. Hence the hypoerbolae in that CAto piece. It assumes that we wil exponentially improve our technology in such a way as to vastly increaase our available resources. But that isnt a given. Biotech might be one way, and it might well work out, but we cant assume it will.

Tiassa

02-27-04, 06:44 PM

things are scarceBut what things? I would assume you have heard of teh hubbard peakAnd?

Actually, I'm trying to follow an exchange that took place between Hubbert and Exxon:• "Your statement that the fraction of the original oil-in-place that will be recovered is correct, but the effect may easily be exaggerated. For example, we know how to get oil out of a reservoir sand, but at what cost? If oil had the price of pharmaceuticals and could be sold in unlimited quantity, we probably would get it all out except the smell. However there is a different and more fundamental cost that is independent of the monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production. So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be." (David Nissen (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/to_nissen.htm), Exxon Corp.)

• "[T]here is a different and more fundamental cost that is independent of the monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production. So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be." (M. K. Hubbert (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/))The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is, as Wes has repeated over and over, subjective; that is, humans decide for reasons rational and irrational (largely irrational) what the value of something is. That value can make something seem scarce no matter how much there is. The scarcity seen in the resource becomes a product of our own minds. I figured "scarcity is a myth" to be a bit more workable an idea than, "scarcity is a delusion."Hence the hypoerbolae in that CAto piece. It assumes that we wil exponentially improve our technology in such a way as to vastly increaase our available resourcesWell ... that's a sticky consideration. On the one hand, you're right. It's a very dangerous presumption. To the other, though, history indicates a rather high probability. It keeps happening with increasing frequency.

Let's take a look at something Nissen wrote:My analyses are based upon the simple fundamental geologic fact that initially there was only a fixed and finite amount of oil in the ground, and that, as exploitation proceeds, the amount of oil remaining diminishes monotonically.Nissen's analyses are based on a two-dimensional representation. The amount of oil in the world is not fixed. However, fixed as Nissen applies it is a reasonable enough approximation as it is reasonable to presume that six-billion people on the planet will consume oil faster than natural processes create it. Nonetheless, fixed and finite implies a static number that indicates no new oil entering the system at all, a condition that is inaccurate and hints after the myriad unaccounted factors in documenting the relationships between resources and the people who use them.

But you'll notice between both Nissen and Hubbert is the idea of, "as long as we use oil for energy . . . ."

That choice is among the many that makes scarcity a myth. I mean, you raised the issue of hyperbole ... for obvoius reasons, I'll skip the overblown Michael Moore "dialogue" discussing the diversity of seemingly-essential products that depend on oil, and not just in the sense that we need to lube the gear that makes the products. How use the resources, and whether we use available and viable alternatives to a given resource are choices. Scarcity in any applicable human-species sense is self-imposed. I know food is a tough thing in many parts of the world. I know clean drinking water is a tough thing in many parts of the world. But allocating resources to accommodate all of humanity just isn't a high enough priority to people. They'd rather discuss their myths and figure out how to make things scarce for even more people. The moral or ethical implications are beside the point--it should be evident that it's not a lack of resources itself, but rather a human obstruction to abundance.

Scarcity is a myth just like "God is vengeful" is a myth. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a powerful sermon, legendary in its effect. Nearly canonical in the academia of American literature, nothing about the appeal or effect or apparent rude genius of Jonathan Edwards' desperate tantrum makes anything about the myths it exploits real. It's a very convincing sermon within a certain set of presumptions. If you're willing to believe his attributation of God is correct, it's a terrifying vision of the world.

Look at Hubbert and Nissen: they're discussing within a presumed framework, within the myth. Yes, if you create this and this and this impediment, this and this and this scarcity will result. I think that's pretty evident.

Demand and necessity are two different things. "Scarcity of resources" in economic theory presumes that supply must trail demand. A few years ago, for instance, the cost of basic milk and butter climbed ridiculously around Seattle. It wasn't because there wasn't enough cows or milk to provide for living necessity, but that too much was being sold off to make specialty products. So here supply trails demand, but if we look at it in terms of the species, we make one product that is a vital foodsource scarce in order to accommodate luxury. Or, just to make it a little more applicable: the food I give my child (e.g. necessary to grow the future generation of the species) is made scarce in order to accommodate the luxurious demands of a few. The presumption is based in unnecessary desire and not living necessity. Wes offers the standard: a resource is scarce because it is not readily available. you have to do something to acquire it

This is complete horsepucky. Resources are scarce because you have to cook a steak, or walk to the bathroom? Air is scarce because you have to breathe? The steak example ignores the abundance of a house, electricity, and a steak to cook in the first place. With 1.7 billion people unable to find clean drinking water anywhere around them due to political considerations, I find it absolutely perverse to define scarcity according to the effort it takes me to walk to the kitchen and get some. It's an inapplicable definition; one should not need a degree in macroeconomics in order to breathe. To borrow a phrase from the religious folks, if God had intended for humans to remain in one place, he would not have given us legs. In fact, let's blame God for differentiating in the first place. We'll climb the mountain because it's there, but heaven help us, resources are scarce because we have to walk to the kitchen?

One can define a word how they wish. Whether or not that definition is of any use is a separate question entirely.

15ofthe19

02-28-04, 02:59 AM

You really don't know shit about shit do you?

Citing applicable theories that are proven wrong on a daily basis is not enough to convince you.

I picture you standing on the corner screaming "The only reason you believe the sky is blue is because you've been taught that it is so..." Neverminding the scientific fact that the sky is blue for a reason.

You choose to live in an alternate reality.

Congratulations. Your intentional threadjack was a success.

Tiassa

02-28-04, 10:55 AM

I picture you standing on the corner screaming "The only reason you believe the sky is blue is because you've been taught that it is so..." Neverminding the scientific fact that the sky is blue for a reason. Nope. If I ever choose to take issue with the sky being blue, it will be to question the choice of the phonetic value "blue" being used to indicate that range of wavelengths. There's also that arcane bit about what I would see through your eyes, whether blue would look like blue to me. But that's a different issue for a different time.Your intentional threadjack was a success.Is that what we call invalidating the basis of a theory? Threadjacking?

Man, I gotta get hip with the new buzz lingo. I'm still stuck in post-mod, where colloquialisms didn't assert to be useful.

Tiassa

02-28-04, 11:22 AM

Just some notes:. . . . Classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Dowd points out, never separated the study of economics from the social relations on which it is given meaning . . . .

. . . . Dowd reveals the untenable assumptions, “assuming away” social reality with qualifications of “all other things being equal,” that neoclassical political economy is built on. The wealth of ammunition he supplies is, perhaps naturally enough, foreign to mainstream economics. While the latter presupposes the permanent existence of scarcity of resources, it does not acknowledge that scarcity is intentionally created and sustained by capitalism. Thus, anyone praising capitalism’s “efficiency” can be brought down by noting how foodstuffs are deliberately destroyed to keep prices high, while countless people starve. Similarly, the practice of “planned obsolescence”—incorporating failure into a product’s design to ensure brisk consumption—could not be more antithetical to efficiency. (Sperber (http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Apr2003/booktwo0403.html))See, for some reason, the idea of building an argument is just foreign to some people. Mention of Adam Smith was written off early as an appeal to authority, but in Sperber's review of Dowd we find the very discussion of Adam Smith that nobody wanted to have.

And we also find discussion of elements of the myth of scarctiy: That scarcity is intentionally created and sustsained is a large part of what makes scarcity a myth. Additionally, of course, there are ridiculous and arbitrary divisions like, oh, national boundaries.

UC Humboldt (http://www.humboldt.edu/~envecon/ppt/423/unit1/sld008.htm) defines economics as "the study of how scarce resources are allocated among competing uses."

In this definition, scarcity is presupposed. It is tantamount to defining religion as "the study of how God interacts with Creation and the ritual practice deriving therefrom."

That the paradigm presupposes something does not make it real, it only makes it essential to the paradigm.

Theoretically, economics by UCH's definition is unable to cope with surplus or abundance. I think this is reflected in practice, as abundance is actually a "bad thing" inasmuch as it makes prices collapse and sets in motion a nasty chain of interrelated conditions.

Similarly, religions are often unable to cope with the assertion of a lack of God.

guthrie

02-28-04, 04:04 PM

Ahh, now I see tiassa is coming round to what i was saying earlier about scarcity being in part due to continued demand and desire for stuff. :D
I think it might be helpful to momentarily float the idea of total absolute scarcity, and actual present day scarcity. The difference being that we will one day in the next century or so, run out of oil, therefore over the course of humanities existence, oil is scarce. However, by comparison, despite the many starving people in the world, as has been mentioned before, food isnt actually scarce, but the money is. Which might lead onto a debate on the merits of a monetary system involving the creation of money by creation of debt, but I digrees.
Now, I wonder if its possible for It also to be seen that peoples demands for stuff so far seems to be very great. Thus, as long as that demand keeps up, there will be at some point, scarcities. Like with say a new computer product. It isnt efficient to build 20 factories to build it, becasue not everyone will have the scarce stuff, money, to buy it at once. But enough people do buy it that supply cannot keep up with demand. Thus scarcity ensues. The point is, I think, that within the current system, and limitations on production and vagaries of human nature, that it is impossible to produce everything that people want, insofar as there are limits on how many people are needed for certain kinds of work, and the capital invested in manufacturing has to be raised, and the plants that produce cement or iron cant quite produce it as instantaneously as we'd like. so we end up with scarcity.
Does this make any sense or am I beggining to sound like tiassa on a bad day?

guthrie

02-28-04, 06:10 PM

Some other thoughts about scarcity etc and their changes over time. In the good old days, we depended far more on crops and products derived from animals and plants, thus were dependent upon their yearly cycles, and some years there were bad harvests. Also, because of technical difficulties, there were limits as to how much could be extracted of something like Tin. A factor in the changes in house building in france and england in the 13/14th centuries was the scarcity of long trees suitable for the old style of house, thus the new one was made, using shorter beams interlocked, the gaps filled with wattle and daub or bricks or suchlike. Whereas nowadays, at the moment, we are stil limited in what we can dig out the earth by our technology, but also we could dig out more and faster. But we cant afford to.

wesmorris

02-29-04, 03:57 AM

[font=trebuchet ms]But what things?

By your own analysis, anything of value right? Isn't that what you said?:

"The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is, as Wes has repeated over and over, subjective".

Did you think guthrie said:

"things are scarce"

... because he was talking about something specific... you fraud?

The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is, as Wes has repeated over and over, subjective;

If you don't put value on it, it's not a goddamn resource, so it doesn't matter how much of it there is, you fucking moron.

that is, humans decide for reasons rational and irrational (largely irrational) what the value of something is.

so you just deem the reasons of value irrational eh? you offer no "understanding" to try to put yourself in their shoes and comprehend how it is that they value what they do, but you wag your finger and tell them you dissaprove. why do you think they should care what you think, when you don't care what they think? "your reasons are irrational!". that will surely win their hearts and minds. :rolleyes: the scariest part is, T,... and you should take this into serious consideration some day: What if you're wrong? What if this whole time, all of your finger wagging bullshit has been in due to some inability you have to actually communicate. You know how to do one thing for sure: bury people under your horseshit. Perhaps you've exploited this your whole life? Perhaps you've got a nasty little habit of being an incommunicative unreasonable cunt but you win arguments that way so you keep doing it for the satisfaction of the kill. Perhaps you've found this is the only way you can have some control in your life, given that you fucked up and knocked up some chick you don't respect, dropped out of college, blah blah blah all the other shit you've fucked up in your life... and now you're stuck looking into your child's eye's and you can't fucking accept that daddy is a "never gonna be" who "might possibly have been" if it weren't for that he opted to be a goddamn loser, so you fucking compensate. You compensate and you fucking bury people under your mountains of horseshit, pretending no one but you has a point, no one but you knows a fucking thing, and no one, NO ONE, beats you on your home turf... sciforums. Maybe that's why every goddamn conversation with your pathetic ass is a fucking pissing contest, where you pretend your point is the only possible way to validly assess whatever and then you put every word spoken into your cunt and wonder why everyone else's voice is so muffled. Idiot.

That value can make something seem scarce no matter how much there is.

Fucking rocket science eh? Wow.

The scarcity seen in the resource becomes a product of our own minds.

"becomes"? Tell me idiot, when was it a product of anything else?

I figured "scarcity is a myth" to be a bit more workable an idea than, "scarcity is a delusion."

That you have introduced a consistent train of thought, that is the delusion. You're over your head and you don't realize it.

Well ... that's a sticky consideration. On the one hand, you're right. It's a very dangerous presumption.
If you weren't such a pretentious, pompous, dicknose pissant, you may come to understand that "dangerous" is not an applicable word to a boundary condition of a model. "correct" or "incorrect" and maybe "useful" or "not useful" are the considerations to question.

To the other, though, history indicates a rather high probability. It keeps happening with increasing frequency.

Which, if you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are, you might check that uhm, well you know, SO FUCKING WHAT???? I said "stuff takes time". That there will be more stuff later than is available now does not in any way contradict that. "scarce" is in contrast to "infinity" you fucking dolt, and the word conveys the meaning well if you aren't so pretentious as to insist that you know better.

Let's take a look at something Nissen wrote:Nissen's analyses are based on a two-dimensional representation.

As if you can see more (than two dimensions) eh? Self righteous dipshit.

The amount of oil in the world is not fixed.

When? The concept of "fixed" has to do with "time" so tell me, "when?". If it's not static then what is it? Some kind of function? Is it linear? Exponetial? Positive or negative? Is it increasing now? What then? What is increasing now? Oh the amount of oil? You mean compared to how much we're taking out? Uhm.. wow hey that directly reflects that formula I wrote out eh? Weird.

However, fixed as Nissen applies it is a reasonable enough approximation as it is reasonable to presume that six-billion people on the planet will consume oil faster than natural processes create it.

If natural process are continually creating it at some rate, that rate will limit the supply and in turn, the rate of consumption. Hence your presumption is pretentious, pointles blah blah.. I suppose: self important. I mean, all you have to do is write a 10 page legal brief on it and you'll win! That's what you want eh?!?! Every conversation is a contest T, don't forget. I'd hate to see you actually communicate with one of your inferiors.

Nonetheless, fixed and finite implies a static number that indicates no new oil entering the system at all

Consumption is constrained by the rate of supply.

Assuming that natural resources are "fixed and finite" is a true statement given a defined time period. During that time period, value is assigned to things making them into resources and it happens an amount over a period of time. If per the supplied equation you integrated from the first point of interest in time, and your functions adequately described the system, you would show exactly how much of resource x there is at the and of the time period, or any point within it. Perhaps the individual writing your article lacked knowledge of calculus, and as such doesn't comprehend value of the terms "fixed and finite" as they have no context given his ignorance. Maybe that explains a lot here.

After all, if resources are fundamentally scarce, it stands to reason that increased demand for them hastens the day when they will disappear from the planet.

LOL. That is simply UNTRUE, and indicative of the condition I just explained above. If resources are fundamentally scarce, that doesn't say anything about whether or not they will dissapear, amplify, change, or do anything until you know about the resource, why it is valued, where it is, how to do stuff with it, how long it takes, blah blah. It's possible - given the axiom of scarcity, that you could literally bury yourself and everyone else on the planet with resource x. Of course if you haven't been educated I can see how you might make that mistake. I have being attempting to educate you throughout this thread, but your ego and attitude problem keep you busy congratulating yourself for the kill, rather than engaging in a goddman conversation, you stupid fucking cunt.

You see asshat, a resource's availability is as I formulated: a function of time.

, a condition that is inaccurate and hints after the myriad unaccounted factors in documenting the relationships between resources and the people who use them.

LOL. Uh huh. What the hell are you even talking about here? First of all, the condition is not innacurate, merely apparently beyond yoru comprehension. Sadly, I understand that means that to you, it can't exist. Let's expand your horizons son.

But you'll notice between both Nissen and Hubbert is the idea of, "as long as we use oil for energy . . . ."

Pointing fingers? No way!

That choice is among the many that makes scarcity a myth.

LOL. The only thing making scarcity a myth (in this thread) is the glass house you've contructed to ensure is stays that way.

What else is a myth eh? Physics? Love? Birth? I mean, throw out everything that is only a matter of mind as "mythical", then you might as well throw this conversation right along with it and shut the fuck up.

I mean, you raised the issue of hyperbole ... for obvoius reasons

*holds mirror in front of the asshat's face*

, I'll skip the overblown Michael Moore "dialogue" discussing the diversity of seemingly-essential products that depend on oil, and not just in the sense that we need to lube the gear that makes the products.

How merciful. You spare us one asshat's idiocy for another. Your kindness abounds.

How use the resources, and whether we use available and viable alternatives to a given resource are choices.

and you figured that out by yourself eh? what a big boy. hey did you notice that your sentence is pointless?

Scarcity in any applicable human-species sense is self-imposed.

ANY axiom is self-imposed. It'd be fine to pretend the axiom is invalid and throw it out of your model, but if the outputs from the model do not reflect reality because you throw out that axiom.. then you just damaged your model because of your emotional requirement to pretend that axioms that don't suit your emotional taste should be thrown out of the model.

I know food is a tough thing in many parts of the world. I know clean drinking water is a tough thing in many parts of the world. But allocating resources to accommodate all of humanity just isn't a high enough priority to people.
So since your sensibilities are offended, the head goes in the sand eh? Pretending doesn't make the model innacurate, it makes you stupid. LOL. It's funny that you go straight for the part of the model you don't understand and blame it without really understanding it. It's complicated by the fact that you possibly can't comprehend it, as you have no reference for it yet. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone exposed to calculus and such would make errors you've made, or the errors that your "taylor v2.0" made.

They'd rather discuss their myths and figure out how to make things scarce for even more people.

What a cunt eh? So since someone thinks scarceness exists, it follows that they want to make things more than way? Brilliant, and you say I sound religious? Man you should go back through everything you've ever said to me, fucknut, and pretend you wrote it about yourself. You could identify a lot of your issues with yourself that way I'm sure.

The moral or ethical implications are beside the point

Yet to me they seem like the focal point of your argument which you have incidentally labelled appropriately as "beside the point".

--it should be evident that it's not a lack of resources itself, but rather a human obstruction to abundance.

Rather, an asshat's got a crayon shoved up his nose. "obstruction to abundance"? Dipshit. If you would actuall participate in the conversation, you might note where it was discussed that:

If a resource is not infinite, by my definition is it "scarce".

In that capacity, the term "scarce" is perfectly defined and always applicable, as it is not possible to have infinity of something by the nature of the term infinity.

and:

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?".

Abundance is a comparative term which is not precluded from application in a system of scarce resources. Abundance is "compared to demand", whereas "scarce" is compared to infinity. If you have no clue what I'm talking about I'd guess your question along the lines of "why compare scarce to infinity when you only compare abundance to demand?".. lol.

Scarcity is a myth just like "God is vengeful" is a myth.

LOL. No tiassa, scarcity is 2+2=4, almost literally. It's even more basic than that really.

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a powerful sermon, legendary in its effect.

You know first hand, I can tell. I mean, you make yourself the angry god don't you? You put those sinners in your hands right? I mean those who embrace the idea of scarcity, they are the monsters trying to starve the world eh?

Fuck the rest of your post. I'm sleepy.

Tiassa

02-29-04, 08:39 PM

If you have no clue what I'm talking aboutI had thought you were talking about economics. After all, we are in the Economics forum and the word does appear in the topic post. However, as your incoherent, profane apoplexy suggests, I was wrong in thinking you were discussing economics.

Let me know when you figure out what it is you're actually talking about.

Wes, if you put even a scarce fraction of the effort you put into hating me into actually thinking, you might be able to make your point without exhausting yourself; of course, such a condition presupposes--dangerously--that you have a point to begin with.

In the meantime, I can't figure how I'm so important to you that you would put so much effort into deliberately failing to communicate. It's a thrilling performance, Wes, that serves as a testament to the sublimity of faith. I'm telling you there is a logical problem that comes with presuming scarcity as a given in any economic system because scarcity is a myth and you're telling me that God is great.Abundance is "compared to demand", whereas "scarce" is compared to infinity.Yes, scarce according to the great infinity of sitting on your ass.

Look, Wes, you've defined scarcity according to what amounts to differentiation in monotheistic debates on the nature of God. At that point, you're right, scarcity isn't a myth; it's absurd and laughable and a sick joke.

gendanken

03-23-04, 08:15 PM

Allright, I'll wing it.

I've had 2 days now to decipher this thread and before getting involved here as I was asked to months ago (yes, I realize I'm late. Screw me.) a disclaimer: Gendanken's heel is economics or anything having to do with the business world.

Some ad hominems:
Without meaning to I am led to focus on one thing and it is Tiassa's doing.

Tessie is notorious for long wind. In just trying to grind down his posts to a point, ONE CENTRAL POINT that has gotten lost in his masses of references and needless tangentials you tend to find yourself with your eyes tearing and your mouse crying to click on the 'X' in the window. I logged on earlier but ran out of time. For example, what does this:

"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."- Tessie

Have to do with this:

"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."- Tessie

or any appeals to pioneer days or moon rocks?

In order to understand the dilemma in this thread, one has to focus on other's participation here and only by doing so have I zeroed in on Tessie's platform (finally):

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 humans...

You'll never get to the meat of the matter unless you prick the little pedant with questions and milk the fucking POINT out of him.

He says:
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.

Not only this but we are led to believe that the earth is as plentiful as it was years and years ago:

That there is an 'unprecedented abundance' in power supplies, this includes fossil and nonfossil fuels.
Yet I know how much Tessie pays in gas money.
I also know what he blames it on- a beauracratic choice to skirt issues and imagine scarcity where plenty abounds, sheer politics. Never mind that the current energy crisis in this very globalized world is based on something other than imagination.

That we have "barely tapped" into the earth's supplies of irons an ores, even pointing out a 31% decrease in their prices worldwide.
Yet there are hundreds upon hundreds of mines in Central Africa that have been bled dry by the diamond and silicon industries. I'm sure we all know why silicon is so popular nowadays, yes?

Taylor writes:
The fear that mankind is rapidly deforesting the globe has arisen on and off ever since the 18th century. Yet precious little evidence, other than anecdotes, has ever been advanced to support that lamentably widespread belief . ...
Yet overhead shots of massive baldsopts sprouting up accross the lush greens of African, Polynesian, South and Central American forests even in the Russian woodlands...all these baldspots a direct result of the organized stripping of the land for resources especially now due to technology, if I showed Taylor these overhead shots I'd bet he'd shut the fuck up, yes?

What I am seeing here is that fucked as I am in the field of business and its terminolgies, even I can conceptualize something as simple as this so why can't you, Tessie? The concept is fairly easy to understnad yet you have so much trouble with it.

Scarcity is defined by the simlpe logic of what it signifies- a finite whole subject to the laws of demand and supply and depleted, as with anything, in time. Someone here has even given you examples with shucked corn and 'x' being the irrefutable amount one is working with, regardless of rate.
They've also supplied a definition:

Scarcity over time or intertemporal scarcity. Increasing scarcity over time
is a function of declining stocks of raw materials available for extraction
giving rise to an increase in resource prices because of increasing marginal
costs of extraction as the resource is depleted.

Economic Scarcity
Economic scarcity is the concept that there is only so much of anything. There is only so much real estate in a city, and some parts are "better" than others. There are a finite number of miles of beach front. There is only so much food grown

You seem to think that the world starves and children die because of choice yet I imagine you trying to grow beans in their dried up old gardens with "coopearation" and some gassy rhetoric on Adam Smith.

I'll quote it again:

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.

See?

Add to this your mention earlier of survival of the fittest being, of all things, 'countersocial'. Countersocial? Your whole peformance in this thread is either you grasping to subjective abstracts to save face

OR

a severe lack in your ablities to open your mind up a bit

OR

an inability to think outside of books

OR

its simply yet another reason to believe this picture I've always had of you rooting for a dystopic paperbound fiction.

All others who have participated but gendanken did not address, pardon but this talk of depletion of sources being 'mythological' cried out to me and it was only by reading mostly everybody else's post that I could figure out where things stood.

Tiassa

03-25-04, 03:27 AM

it was only by reading mostly everybody else's post that I could figure out where things stood. I'm not sure you have.For example, what does this:

Have to do with this:

or any appeals to pioneer days or moon rocks? For example, would you actually like an answer to that?You'll never get to the meat of the matter unless you prick the little pedant with questions and milk the fucking POINT out of him.Hey, I pointed out my mistake, which was considering economy from an applicable perspective. Get over yourself, princess.Never mind that the current energy crisis in this very globalized world is based on something other than imagination.What are you going on about? Of course the energy crisis is based on something other than imagination. Our choices and actions are not imaginary. (Unless, of course, we wish to digress metaphysically, at least.)That we have "barely tapped" into the earth's supplies of irons an ores, even pointing out a 31% decrease in their prices worldwide.
Yet there are hundreds upon hundreds of mines in Central Africa that have been bled dry by the diamond and silicon industries. I'm sure we all know why silicon is so popular nowadays, yes?You reinforce the real nature of our choices and actions with such an example. We'll revisit this in a moment.What I am seeing here is that fucked as I am in the field of business and its terminolgies, even I can conceptualize something as simple as this so why can't you, Tessie? The concept is fairly easy to understnad yet you have so much trouble with it. No, I just don't panic when humans do something dumb like that.Scarcity is defined by the simlpe logic of what it signifies- a finite whole subject to the laws of demand and supply and depleted, as with anything, in time. Someone here has even given you examples with shucked corn and 'x' being the irrefutable amount one is working with, regardless of rate.Which is a wonderful but non-functional idea. But we've come to your definitions, which brings us closer to the issue.

Economics doesn't speak of scarcity related to necessity, but rather related to some amorphous vanity.

Somewhere between the "scarcity" of having to expend a resource in order to utilize a resource and the scarcity of a supply that must necessarily trail demand, something is lost in translation.

When scarcity is applied in relation to prices, as per your first definition, we are definitely well inside the myth of scarcity. Humanity has never functioned exactly according to economic theory, at least in our societal and civilized ages. There is a level at which I will defer to certain basic economic ideas as not being mythical, but we are not slugs in the garden or bacteria feeding on guano. We are human beings, and the processes by which we are subject to natural law seem, superficially, at least, different from slugs or bacteria.

Economic theory at its basic level is much like political theory or theology; the perspective offered is limited. Think about applicable "economic theories." No matter how much you crunch the numbers, Communism somehow manages to miss certain human aspects. Unfortunately, so does capitalism. (The former presumes humanity uniformly capable of recognizing the utility of the place of the individual in society, thus altering the relationship between individual and society and making the individual subservient to the community; the latter depends on questionable virtue, an artificially unequal utilization of resources, and makes the relationship between the individual and economy so important that the individual can become a tool of the economy. In either case, humanity defers its services to a cause when the cause is actually supposed to be a device that lends its services to humanity.)

Absent from these sorts of economic discussions is any sense of reality. Sure, there is only so much of anything, but if we stick solely to these two-dimensional considerations of economy, we'll never understand a simple question like how immediate bounty can upset the resource-utilization scheme to such a point as to call down a scarcity from the heavens.

Your second definition only reinforces the mythic aspect of scarcity. And here we revisit choices and actions. What makes the real estate "better"? Something one desires, something intangible? Having worked for an insurance company that got bad news every time a house slid off the hill in California, every time the tornados ripped through the midwest, and hearing woes about whether or not the rates would rise again and what the effect would be on the customers . . . . You know, Joe's view of the Pacific costs other people money; it's an inefficient utilization of resources that we choose. Jack has every right to build an expensive house, but crap, man, in Tornado Alley? (I'm glad I didn't deal with auto insurance.)

There is only so much food grown? Yes, and much of it rots because nobody's going to move it to where it's needed without profit. We have the food; we have the means of transport; to borrow a phrase, we lack the resolve.

Which brings us nicely to the next point:You seem to think that the world starves and children die because of choice It's the twenty-first century. We are the human species.

Yes, children starve and die because of choice.

We're playing a living game according to outmoded rules.yet I imagine you trying to grow beans in their dried up old gardens with "coopearation" and some gassy rhetoric on Adam Smith. I'm sure this is significant in some way. Perhaps you could enlighten me?Add to this your mention earlier of survival of the fittest being, of all things, 'countersocial'. Countersocial ? Your whole peformance in this thread is either you grasping to subjective abstracts to save face

OR

a severe lack in your ablities to open your mind up a bit

OR

an inability to think outside of books

OR

its simply yet another reason to believe this picture I've always had of you rooting for a dystopic paperbound fiction .I think it's rather quite funny that you would include "an inability to think outside of books" when what I am, in reality, calling for is a thorough thrashing of cookie-cutter, textbook-driven ideology.

We live in cooperative society. It's about time humanity got used to that fact and reassessed its stance as a victim of everything. We opt out of "natural law" when it suits us; after all, we charge people with murder and rape. We can continue to blame our choices on nature or we can start dealing realistically.

When we move into a warm-blooded reality, how can a concept measured purely by irrationality be anything other than mythical?

wesmorris

03-25-04, 07:18 PM

Get over yourself, princess.

LOL.

Words you should heed.

Tiassa

03-25-04, 08:11 PM

LOL.

Words you should heed.Well, what do you know? You really aren't smart enough to know better.

wesmorris

03-25-04, 10:21 PM

Well, what do you know? You really aren't smart enough to know better.

*sniffle*

You're no hater T. Keep saying it to yourself.

EDIT:

Do you think that if you're were actually as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you'd realize that being "smarter" doesn't correlate to being pertinent, right or a decent human.

Maybe I misread you. I'll give you a shot: Know better than what?

Tiassa

03-26-04, 12:02 AM

Know better than what?Than to be a pretentious piece of shit seeking to start yet another cheap fight.

Given how upset you get when picking these fights with me, I just don't see why you would want to put yourself through it again.

wesmorris

03-26-04, 12:36 AM

[font=courier]Than to be a pretentious piece of shit seeking to start yet another cheap fight.

So let me get this straight.

You, in a rant of self-important distraction from pertinence, tell gendanken to "get over herself, princess". I see you for the hypocritical, obvious retard that you are and shove your nose in it... and when shoved up your cunt that seems like "I picked a fight with you"... to you?

LOL. Man you are the most moronic potentially smart guy I've ever met.

You've got issues, son.

Given how upset you get when picking these fights with me, I just don't see why you would want to put yourself through it again.

LOL.

You're so intelligent T, why don't you see it? Why don't you see that the idea of "putting myself through it" is secondary to allowing your verbal assaults to go unchallenged? You are a verbal bully and I don't like it, so when I encounter your sorry, skanky cunt of a self - I wait, watch and challenge your horseshit when you inevitably spew it.

I'm going on the theory that if I illustrate your hypocracy to you enough times, it'll soak in and like six month down the road you'll catch a clue. I realize it's an amazingly vivid web of lies you've created for yourself, so maybe with a complicated sample like yourself it'll take a bit longer, but spotting phony asshats like yourself is just sort of part of what I do so the effort or "putting myself through it" is pretty well second nature.

You can always ignore me.

Tiassa

03-26-04, 12:50 AM

You can always ignore me.And you can always drop your stupid obsession with me, Wes.I'm going on the theory that if I illustrate your hypocracy to you enough times, it'll soak in and like six month down the road you'll catch a clueThat only works if you're honest, Wes. And we already know what's wrong with that."putting myself through it" is pretty well second natureYour choice. Your obsession. Your problem. Why don't you see that the idea of "putting myself through it" is secondary to allowing your verbal assaults to go unchallenged?Because time after time you pick arbitrary starting points designed to empower your standing grudge. Your pattern is quite clear, Wes. You're just a prick out looking for a fight.

But keep it up if you want, then. If you lie to yourself enough, who knows? Maybe six months down the road you'll catch a clue.

wesmorris

03-26-04, 01:33 AM

*smirk*

Obsession?

So you're gay?

LOL. Oh yeah I remember, you are kind of gay.

Yeah okay whatever dude.

You don't understand simple eh?

I'm as obsessed with you as I am a computer that is pissing me off. I kick you a couple of times and then forget you exist until the next time I get pissed off at you, you narcissistic moron.

LOL.

Fool.

Tiassa

03-26-04, 01:46 AM

I'll just recycle a prior quote for a new occasion:

• Well, what do you know? You really aren't smart enough to know better.

guthrie

03-26-04, 03:45 PM

right, before I get really annoyed at the wasting of board space, a potentially decent topic, and the brain cells of you all, i'd like you say:

tiassa, if you think youve got the bit of economics that communism and capitalism have missed, please tell us. Then we'll rip it apart, and if it survives, then you can print it in a journal and get famous.

Tiassa

03-27-04, 12:20 AM

if you think youve got the bit of economics that communism and capitalism have missed, please tell us.Twofold:

(1) Both demand untenable presumptions about human nature, relying on a benevolence not consistently evident.
(2) Both view the distribution of resources from a traditional standpoint that resource availability must necessarily trail demand. In both cases, this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire.

The result is essentially that necessity and desire become equal, and those better-empowered can pursue their extraneous desires at the expense of human necessity, and also that, among the "winners and losers," the losers are presumed to be happy enough about their condition.

In Communism, presumptions about human nature are reflected in poor production quality. (The picture of the car in the dumpster was a national chuckle for Americans.) In Capitalism, the presumptions about human nature that make the system any more civilized than outright anarchy simply aren't reflected in reality. "Trickle-down," largely considered an innovative wealth-creation device, failed because Americans, like their Soviet counterparts, depended on the goodwill of people when money was at stake.

And before you go worrying about the journal publication, remember that I'd probably use critics who have a bit stronger reading capacity.

wesmorris

03-27-04, 02:04 AM

[font=courier]Twofold:

(1) Both demand untenable presumptions about human nature, relying on a benevolence not consistently evident.

Here's the problem:

Capitalism is simply a 'once abstracted' regurgitation of the evolutionary idea of "survival of the fittest". We have moral systems which regulate (obviously only to the extent of providing deterents) the activities of the participants, e.g. "murder is bad". Those systems act as a control to avoid the morally offensive results we would experience (mass starvation, genocide, murder, all sorts of rapes and robberies) if those controlling morals removed from the system.

Socialism is simply a significant extension of moral imposition, kind of like a theocracy of sorts. It is a forcing of "what you think is fair" onto the populus. IMO, the moral component of an ordered society must be optimized to the point at which is allows the most personal liberty and accountability possible with as few rules as can be found tolerable by the majority of the populous.

(2) Both view the distribution of resources from a traditional standpoint that resource availability must necessarily trail demand.
How stupid to recognize the arrow of time and nature of locality when designing a distribution system.

In both cases, this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire.

Why should it? To satisfy your moral outrage I assume? I do not enjoy the idea of people starving in Africa, but lack of resources on the planetary scale is not the reason they don't have food, so I do not see that you have a point. Governments are responsible to determine the difference between necessity and desire when it comes to the distribution of resources, and it's obvious that some of them choose desire over necessity. Regardless, there will always be at least some people within any government with whom their problems with this issue will negatively impact the welfare of the people of their nation.

The result is essentially that necessity and desire become equal
Oh? I have a desire to kick you in the nutz but it's certainly not economically feasible for me to undertake the endeavor. I also desire to have a gazillion bricks. Does my desire render that a necessary too?

and those better-empowered can pursue their extraneous desires at the expense of human necessity,

Who determines what is necessary? The people do it through their respresentatives or dictators do it. What if someone thinks it's okay to murder the first born girl in the family because she's an economic drain on the family unit. What if that is a cultural aspect of an entire society? Does your bleeding heart trump theirs? I would think that for the most part, you and I might agree on "what is necessary".... maybe. Who are you to determine what is "extraneous" to the point that you impose your opinion on someone else?

You're certainly entitled to voice your opinion, lobby for whatever cause you deem worthy and use your ballot. However, I think getting into the business of determing the "necessity" of a vacuum or an automatic diswasher is something government should strive to avoid. I would agree that the consideration is necessary.. but only in making the determination as to the standard of living the safety net should provide. There should be a provision for mimimal welfare / sustenance (such that suffering is minimized and improvement of economic independence is encouraged. perhaps and the rest is free market wherein the legal system strives to be ethical and morally acceptable to the majority. I think that keeps the necessity of determining what consists of "necessity" to the minimal possible effect within the system.

and also that, among the "winners and losers," the losers are presumed to be happy enough about their condition.

It is common sense that if you are miserable and you want to stop being miserable, you figure out how to stop being miserable. Perhaps you even ask for help. Do you consider that presumption about "happiness"? Did it occur to you that some people choose not to be happy? Look at you for instance. You're not happy and you blame everyone but you.. no? You've been cheated? Perhaps you're angry because you don't "fit in". Are you owed something? If you are not happy about your condition, you should change your condition or be a fucking man and accept it. That whining hypocritical disfunctionals want their cake and my cake and they want to eat it, still have it and then have more at the same time as not having any, is their problem and if they can solve it, more power to them. Again, they could always ask for help. They could make friends, partnerships, etc. to accomplish their goals.

You are gaurenteed the right to pursue happiness. Actually finding it is your responsibility

In Communism, presumptions about human nature are reflected in poor production quality. (The picture of the car in the dumpster was a national chuckle for Americans.)

Did you know that if you grow a plant in no breeze, it will die if the wind blows too hard? You're probably a germophobe too eh? Can you see the point?

In Capitalism, the presumptions about human nature that make the system any more civilized than outright anarchy simply aren't reflected in reality

They are reflected in the legal system of the society. Allowing private property is simply a matter of law. I would consider the adoption of "no private property" as a serious imposition on freedom and an 'increase in the level of control exerted by the system'. As I think evolution is a self-righting system, anarchy follows to be as such. I think it is wisest to interfere as little as possible with a self-righting system, while still satisfying the ethical / moral standards adopted by the populus. Shit I think I said that already. Meh.

"Trickle-down," largely considered an innovative wealth-creation device, failed because Americans

Perhaps you could be a little more specific. "trickle down" is exactly correct for the general case. Maybe your example will clarify your point.

, like their Soviet counterparts, depended on the goodwill of people when money was at stake.

"trickle down" doesn't depend on the good will of people at all. It depends on their economic liberty and encouraging those with the most money to circulate it around the economy. Trickle down = spending. People spend money to make money. It can be sweet.

Tiassa

03-27-04, 05:26 AM

Capitalism is simply a 'once abstracted' regurgitation of the evolutionary idea of "survival of the fittest". Which, incidentally, is part of why I find it countersocial. Leading human society in the present age considers itself more enlightened than Sparta. We reject eugenics. We are affected by compassion. Societal cooperation demands a reduction in the cutthroat nature of "survival of the fittest" endowed with both ambition and conscience. Attempting to enact a rational observation as a deliberate system among irrational creatures does not always suggest wisdom. Socialism is simply a significant extension of moral imposition, kind of like a theocracy of sorts.Some might disagree. Oscar Wilde (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html), for instance:The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes.I think your view of the moral imposition might be influenced by presumptions about the station of the individual.It is a forcing of "what you think is fair" onto the populus.Mayhaps. But any proper government receives the consent of the governed in some form, even if implicitly through an absence of revolt. Thus, the only way for a proper Socialism to come about is with conventional agreement among the people as to the rights and responsibilities of both the governed and the governments they endorse.IMO, the moral component of an ordered society must be optimized to the point at which is allows the most personal liberty and accountability possible with as few rules as can be found tolerable by the majority of the populous. It's a very human outlook, and not one with which I wholly disagree. But it is one which seems to have little or no use beyond subjective desires.

The moral component must strike a balance 'twixt liberty and necessity. To what is one accountable? And why? If it's merely an arbitrary purpose, that liberty serves nothing but the moment, and while that idea seems very attractive to many people--myself included at times--it is not a condition that has brought humanity forward to this time and place wherein we might make such considerations.

In the long run, guarding against extinction is not a guarantee against extinction. But ... wandering adrift, waiting for God, and having the Best Party Ever while doing so means nothing if, in the end, humanity dies away.This is the context I see and it renders your argument irrelevant.Quite obviously, I disagree.How stupid to recognize the arrow of time and nature of locality.What are you going on about?

It's an odd transfer between the theoretic and the applicable, much like our discussion of scarcity. In this case, what I'm referring to can be demonstrated by answering a simple question:

• What happens when people's needs are met?

The answer, apparently, if you ask an economist, is that things fall apart. Currency values come apart, market incentive loses steam, wages and prices both come unhinged.

(Remember when you asked if I thought Socialism fixed things and I said, "No, else I would be a Socialist"? We're standing right on that threshold.)

If "poverty becomes impossible," it means that at any one point in the endeavor, there are enough resources utilized to accommodate basic human needs, and access and distribution is such that, literally, poverty becomes impossible. (Well, you can always choose to walk away and live in the desert or something.)

And that's the problem of an abstract theoretical scarcity being yanked into the applicable realm. It's not a graceful or even functional transition.

Think about it: Why can't people have enough? Because scarcity is so presumed to be a natural condition that the system is designed in such a manner that it will collapse if "people have enough."

That natural condition of scarcity you demand--that inapplicable scarcity of having to breathe, of existing in a differentiated Universe in the first place, is not functionally applicable.

And it is that gracelessly-transferred idea of scarcity that mucks up Communism, Capitalism, and the most part, at least, of Socialism. (It's a huge stumbling block along the route to Wilde's idyll.)
Why should it? To satisfy your moral outrage I assume? :rolleyes:

At any rate, why should it? Because that bastardized "scarcity", that rape-child of an inapplicable abstraction, has the curious effect of reacting to plenty by invoking scarcity.

The scarcity of your or my Porsche should not be resolved by making food scarce for others. Such processes in society contribute to the corruption of cooperative processes that make the society function.I do not enjoy the idea of people starving in Africa, but lack of resources on the planetary scale is not the reason they don't have food, so I do not see that you have a point. If you want to go from A to B by leaping first to M, I suppose that's fine. But I don't see how you're connecting the one to the other.Governments are responsible to determine the difference between necessity and desire when it comes to the distribution of resources, and it's obvious that some of them choose desire over necessity. Regardless, there will always be at least some people within any government with whom their problems with this issue will negatively impact the welfare of the people of their nation.And yet you reject that scarcity is a myth?Oh? I have a desire to kick you in the nutz but it's certainly not economically feasible for me to undertake the endeavor. I also desire to have a gazillion bricks. Does my desire render that a necessary too?Well, that's the thing. The scarcity of having to breathe (e.g. necessity) and the scarcity of my testicles for you to kick (e.g. desire) are lumped together in considerations of supply necessarily trailing demand.Who determines what is necessary?Aren't you cutting your rails a little fine there?

Why worry about the scarcity of air that results from having to breathe? Nobody has decided that it is officially necessary. You can choose to not breathe. Of course, then you get into the scarcity of resources necessary to accomplish that--you might have to put some effort into tying the rope to the rafters or swallowing some pills.

Like I said ... I think you're cutting your rails a little fine there.What if someone thinks it's okay to murder the first born girl in the family because she's an economic drain on the family unit. That can still be shown to be the result of human choices. The necessity threatened by the additional burden of a female child in say, China, is a result of cultural conditions as well as poor economic choices in the form of a Maoist revolution.I would think that for the most part, you and I might agree on "what is necessary".... maybe. Who are you to determine what is "extraneous" to the point that you impose your opinion on someone else?Who says it will be just me? Stay relevant.

We are talking about collectives and cooperatives here in terms of societies and cultures. Why focus on such an individual point just to obfuscate?However, I think getting into the business of determing the "necessity" of a vacuum or an automatic diswasher is something government should strive to avoid. Given the two-billion people in the world who lack access to clean drinking water, I'm inclined to scoff at your flippancy.

Is it that you wouldn't want to improve your condition "a little bit" because you want "the whole package" instead?

There will be some obvious objective criteria. If the community feels a dishwasher and vacuum for every household will serve well the hygiene and health of the community, and if such a distribution can be pulled off, then sure, why not? But when a company can't afford to keep all its workers and lays off 10% of the workers and the execs who got sacked for making bad business decisions get severance to such a tune that could keep the laid-off employees working for at least another year (time enough for the numbers to change and not demand the layoffs) I think we run into a clear threshold. It may be that societal obligations to the individual will have to be anti-identified until the greater pattern of what suits people emerges.I would agree that the consideration is necessary.. but only in making the determination as to the standard of living the safety net should provide. There should be a provision for mimimal welfare / sustenance (such that suffering is minimized and improvement of economic independence is encouraged. perhaps and the rest is free market wherein the legal system strives to be ethical and morally acceptable to the majority.Something about Wilde goes here. Oh, yes, I remember:The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.At any rate ....It is common sense that if you are miserable and you want to stop being miserable, you figure out how to stop being miserable. Perhaps you even ask for help. Do you consider that presumption about "happiness"?I'm barely following you as you start to break down even further. I get what you're after, I think, but what the hell does it have to do with anything?

I'm talking about the notion that someone should be happy to be fired so that their boss can afford another vacation house.Did it occur to you that some people choose not to be happy? I'm of the opinion that's most Americans. But by this point you seem to be talking about a different issue. Working sixty hours a week and not being able to meet basic needs? I'm a fan of pointing toward the moralists in the 90s throwing fits about domestic partnerships at Disney and other companies; people cohabit when they shouldn't quite often out of economic necessity in this country. Divorce rates? Have you read some of the prenuptial agreements inspired by divorce rates over time? A lawsuit-happy culture? An entertainment culture that thrives on suffering and depravity? Humor and politics that depend on the ignorance of the audience? People willing to seize anything for themselves in order to bolster their sense of security? These aren't signs of a culture dominated by happy people. And, you know, given that I'm the one who argues that scarcity is a myth according to the choices people make, I would think it very well should have occurred to me that many people choose unhappiness. I watch it in my household every damn day. Perhaps you're not paying attention?Look at you for instance. You're not happy and you blame everyone but you.. no? You've been cheated? Perhaps you're angry because you don't "fit in". Are you owed something? If you are not happy about your condition, you should change your condition or be a fucking man and accept it. That whining hypocritical disfunctionals want their cake and my cake and they want to eat it, still have it and then have more at the same time as not having any, is their problem and if they can solve it, more power to them. Again, they could always ask for help. Topic, Wes. Remember? You say you're not obsessed with me?They could make friends, partnerships, etc. to accomplish their goals.Yes. But from someone whose integrity is as crippled as yours, I can see why questions of honesty and decency escape you. Do I feel cheated? Sure, but who doesn't? Do I resent being lied to? Apparently I'm the only one. What do you know? I must be crazy.

But when you wake up one morning and realize that you're not paid enough to commit felonies on a regular basis, that you're not paid enough to piss off forty state attorneys general in one week, these things seem a little more vital to me than being pissed off that I had to put up with a two-bit punk who actually makes you look smart.Did you know that if you grow a plant in no breeze, it will die if the wind blows too hard? You're probably a germophobe too eh? Can you see the point? Yes. It's transcendent because it is empty, and therefore lighter than air.They are reflected in the legal system of the society In theory.Allowing private property is simply a matter of law. Agreed.I would consider the adoption of "no private property" as a serious imposition on freedom and an 'increase in the level of control exerted by the system'. And there are those who assert that property is robbery. I tend to sympathize with them.As I think evolution is a self-righting system, anarchy follows to be as such. I think it is wisest to interfere as little as possible with a self-righting system, while still satisfying the ethical / moral standards adopted by the populus. Humans are irrational creatures, Wes. We both know it; we both demonstrate it. (We all demonstrate it.) The idea of a self-righting system seems well and fine, but when we remove it from its sanitized theoretic state and consider that the invisible hands steadying the human irrationality demands its fee in death, the simple question, "Is the best we have the best that we can do?" takes on new urgency.

Furthermore, what is "interfering" with a self-righting system? How, exactly, does the system interfere with itself?Perhaps you could be a little more specific. "trickle down" is exactly correct for the general case. Maybe your example will clarify your point.The failure of Communism is largely predicated on its lack of incentive for innovation and growth. The general argument goes quite simply, "Why should I work hard when Joe, who is asleep at the wheel, gets the same money I do?" Incredibly two-dimensional, and symptomatic of the American 1980s, I find a certain validity in it nonetheless. Essentially, Communism failed to account for the fact that the herd will attune itself to the least possible expenditure. What Joe gets away with, Steve and Bob want also. (Communism only works if everybody is adequately educated as to their role in society and is relatively comfortable with it. Flexibility, of course, comes with comfort, but the people must necessarily be educated about their role in society.)

The failure of trickle-down, while also invested in presumptions of human nature, depended on a slightly different sense of goodwill. Let's go ahead and look at your point:"trickle down" doesn't depend on the good will of people at all. It depends on their economic liberty and encouraging those with the most money to circulate it around the economy. Trickle down = spending. People spend money to make money. It can be sweet. The goodwill required of trickle-down is that the money be spent in certain ways. The theory sold to the people is that by coddling the rich, the benefits would pay off and trickle down through the normal course of commerce and economy. The reality is that the money was more often recycled into the playfield of the upper echelon of commerce and finance. Yes, some of that money and benefit trickled down, but not nearly the amount people were led to believe. The "wealth gap" widened. I'm trying to find a number, for instance, that might give us an idea of how much of that money left the country for illicit drugs. Not that I blame rich people exclusively for the drug problem, but the drug problem needs rich people at some point. More to the point, though, we see a lot of that money going out of the country in investments, drugs, and other expenditures that do not trickle down to the American people.

As oddly shallow as it sounds, all that had to happen was that people didn't need to be so damned selfish when they had money. I'm not talking about giving it away. But ... overseas million-dollar parties instead of supporting local poverty-relief? Hey, just skip one of the parties. But that's too much to ask. While we're at it, let's get some Italian or Asian specialty furniture and not put that money into American labor. Why? Because it's chic to have imported furniture.

Add up all the little things, Wes. After a while it starts to get staggering. That was the lack of goodwill. Not enough of the money trickled down into the economy like it should have.

Remember the phrase, "It takes money to make money"? (Of course you do; I see it right there in your post.) Even in the 1980s companies were having trouble with the idea that investing in their employees would pay off on the bottom line. By the end of the century, though, companies had largely taken to a new social welfare in the form of educational assistance outreach, vice treatment, health care, retirement investing, &c.

But getting the suits to acknowledge what's plain as day when it means a penny has to leave their hands for something they can't buy outright proved tougher than it should. How long did the, "Am I my brother's keeper?" argument continue? (It still goes on.)

Oh, and as to spending ... it was the middle of the 1990s and it occurred to me to ask: How did it come to be that a Democratic president holds office at a time when it is your patriotic duty to the economy to spend yourself into miserable debt?

It's just that reality doesn't seem like "goodwill" to me. And that's a huge part of what's happened. I read an article the other day that reminded, for instance, that Bush is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem.

In a similar light, take a look at the lying politicians and the incredible new magnitude of their deceptions--even "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman," seems tame--and take a look at the financial scandals wrenching corporate America. What about Enron, at any point in its existence, reflected the necessary goodwill? What about fixing the books to the tune of billions reflects any sense of goodwill?

At some point, in trickle down, you have to stop cutting throats for a few seconds in order to let the blood seep down to the roots. Otherwise you're left with nothing but a stupid bloody mess.

Trickle down depends on the goodwill of allowing the money and benefit to trickle down in the first place, and not using your advantages to siphon it off again before it reaches the bottom.

Which leaves the context as I see it such as to make your post irrelevant.

A pisser, since you went to such efforts to contrive a complaint that I was ignoring your posts earlier in this topic. Have you no decency?

Oh, wait. Of course you don't.

gendanken

03-27-04, 06:24 PM

Tessie:
I'm not sure you have.
Yes, I think I have.

Wes also has a way of being loopy as you do but I gather the impasse is centered around you believing that (and I'll use your own word) scarcity is only a theoretical 'vanity' used by economists while Wes and others think otherwise, even going so far as nitpicking the semantics. However, in this post of yours a strange thing has happened- I actually understnad you and in the process no longer understand why he has problem with you since he's written this:

I do not enjoy the idea of people starving in Africa, but lack of resources on the planetary scale is not the reason they don't have food, so I do not see that you have a point. Governments are responsible to determine the difference between necessity and desire when it comes to the distribution of resources, and it's obvious that some of them choose desire over necessity. Regardless, there will always be at least some people within any government with whom their problems with this issue will negatively impact the welfare of the people of their nation.

If you argue that the culprit is the ineffiecinecy we as people show* in allocating rescources then he is saying the same exact thing you are. Maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm not but fuck it- more on this later.

[* "Show" can be used interchangeably with "choose", again your argument. So why the man does not see a point ...I don't understand]

For example, would you actually like an answer to that?
Yes, I would.

I would love to see, in plain English, what a Buddhist sage, financial purges during the 90's Clinton administration, Davy Crockett and moon rocks have to do with the premise of scarcity.

Gendanken: Never mind that the current energy crisis in this very globalized world is based on something other than imagination.

Tessie: What are you going on about? Of course the energy crisis is based on something other than imagination. Our choices and actions are not imaginary. (Unless, of course, we wish to digress metaphysically, at least.)
What I am going on about: your continuous labeling of scarcity as mythical. "Mythical" implies fairy tales and legends of pretty fairies with pixie dust in their hair, the stuff of imagination. An abstract.

Understand?

But never mind it now, I think I finally undertand what you've been going on about. That comes here:

Economics doesn't speak of scarcity related to necessity, but rather related to some amorphous vanity.

Somewhere between the "scarcity" of having to expend a resource in order to utilize a resource and the scarcity of a supply that must necessarily trail demand, something is lost in translation.

and here:
We are human beings, and the processes by which we are subject to natural law seem, superficially, at least, different from slugs or bacteria.
Spefically here:

Your second definition only reinforces the mythic aspect of scarcity. And here we revisit choices and actions. What makes the real estate "better"? Something one desires, something intangible? Having worked for an insurance company that got bad news every time a house slid off the hill in California, every time the tornados ripped through the midwest, and hearing woes about whether or not the rates would rise again and what the effect would be on the customers . . . . You know, Joe's view of the Pacific costs other people money; it's an inefficient utilization of resources that we choose. Jack has every right to build an expensive house, but crap, man, in Tornado Alley? (I'm glad I didn't deal with auto insurance.)

There is only so much food grown? Yes, and much of it rots because nobody's going to move it to where it's needed without profit. We have the food; we have the means of transport; to borrow a phrase, we lack the resolve.

Reminds me of why I have failed economics not once but twice- its in all the abstracts they use to fit into their theories, the soft monies and 'phantom' profits of the business world is what I could never undertand because it stunk of politics.

A business sets up and automatically the accountants are throwing in linear depreciation formuals and debiting assets not yet there, as in nonexistent. I can put it even better, for example: Dee Snider of "Twisted Sister" commented once on what the stock market actually does, that it allows for

2 + 2= 5

and for person A to sell person B 100 cows when he only has 5. This is why business bullshit is my heel. I don't get it.

There are all kinds concepts and intangibles purposely thrown in for what? Why? To round out the portfolio. Ok, now what happens in the translation process? They narrow their possibilites, yes? Is this what you are getting at? The terseness in outdadeted models and practices such as these and the limitting habits that humans have for applying their formulas to problems that in doing so narrow the lanscape by purposely making things (like poverty) necessary only so that their ideas work? Work or make sense?

Completely understood- and I'm dumbfounded to say the least, I actually get you for once.

A world of resources would certainly be unleashed onto the populus if only our bureacrats step out of their formulas and desist from having to invoke abstracts into thier machines as something like lubrication.

BUT!

I dare you tell me that I'm wrong in saying that as we get economically richer the environment grows poorer.

I introduce you to to a non profit organization known as "Redifining Progress" where they calcute something called a Footprint for nations cross globablly. Think of each nation with its foot out and making a print on the world. The boundries of its foot mark the land area that that nation uses for its energy supplies. It calculates enery use and resources on both an individual and collective level.

Now!
If we are to assign all the nations in the world with a footprint that would be compatible with the world's resources, that with any given time the earth could tolerate with no drastic reductions in its bounty- REGARDLESS OF MANAGEMENT- then that footprint would on average measure some 4.6 acres per person.

The United states has the world largest with close to 30 acres per person compared to third world nations (Ethiopia, Haiti, Afghanistan) where the average is 1 acre. Unbeliavable. And combined with developing countires (Africa, Asia) the total footprint of Humanity- HUMANITY- shows an overuse of our planet's resources by 15%.

Now, with everyone in this globalized world dying to be just like us, dress like us, eat like us, trade like us, Be Us, this means that given the opportunity all these nations will with time have a footprint (or a land usage per person) of 9 acress............... where our little blue planet can only feasibly tolerate arornd 1 or 2 per person. There are some 6 billion of us running around on its surface like so many parasites. In a century or so there will be a billion more.

My point: a dog can only tolerate so many parasites sucking the blood from its body and as any vet knows he will either die from asphyxia or collapse from anemia. No medicine would 'cure' him unless you pluck the ticks from his body. And so with planet earth- no principle, no dispcipline, no politic or theory could replenish our resources unless you plucked all 6 billion of us off the planet before all resources have been exhausted. And yes, I do think its possible that resources will one day be exhausted. I'm a realist.

Get over yourself, princess.
You know Tess, at the rate you're going twenty years from now your head will be way too big for a toupee.

gendanken

03-27-04, 06:25 PM

Source:

Redifiningprogress.org/puglications/footprintnations2004.pdf

guthrie

03-27-04, 06:33 PM

The result is essentially that necessity and desire become equal, and those better-empowered can pursue their extraneous desires at the expense of human necessity, and also that, among the "winners and losers," the losers are presumed to be happy enough about their condition.
I'd agree, except that its not that the losers are presumed to be happy, its that its their own fault for not being happy, or not working hard enough to be happy.

In Communism, presumptions about human nature are reflected in poor production quality. (The picture of the car in the dumpster was a national chuckle for Americans.) In Capitalism, the presumptions about human nature that make the system any more civilized than outright anarchy simply aren't reflected in reality. "Trickle-down," largely considered an innovative wealth-creation device, failed because Americans, like their Soviet counterparts, depended on the goodwill of people when money was at stake.
Except that in actual communism (not what we've seen in the USSR and China), people would be working at what they wanted to. And most places ive worked, people like to do the job well, not just because they will get fired if they dont, but because its more satisfying to do it well than badly, at least if you arent pissed off at the job and dont want to be there.

And before you go worrying about the journal publication, remember that I'd probably use critics who have a bit stronger reading capacity.
Is that a childish jibe at us or something?

guthrie

03-27-04, 06:39 PM

Posted by tiassas:
"(Communism only works if everybody is adequately educated as to their role in society and is relatively comfortable with it. Flexibility, of course, comes with comfort, but the people must necessarily be educated about their role in society.)"

Roughly speaking, I would say that is a predicate for both communism, and, say, libertarianism. Both require the entire populace to have swallowed the ideals. I am not certain it is possible to do that, so, i am not a communist. But im not a libertarian cos i wouldnt/ couldnt live in a world like that, whereas i think i could in a communist one.

wesmorris

03-28-04, 01:08 PM

Perhaps this will help Gendy.

Economics doesn't speak of scarcity related to necessity, but rather related to some amorphous vanity.

Somewhere between the "scarcity" of having to expend a resource in order to utilize a resource and the scarcity of a supply that must necessarily trail demand, something is lost in translation.

Something is lost in translation when you politicize the issue, yes.

Supply trails demand. That is fact. It is not debatable. If I want to breath, it takes a split second for my nervous system to tell my lungs to do it.

That is simply the economic interpretation of two knowns from physics (or perhaps more directly from common sense):

The arrow of time (entropy)(you can't turn back time, time moves forward, so doing anything takes some time)
Locality (it takes time for anythign (including information) to change locations)

Scarcity has other meanings that if taken exactly literally are untrue in this context. The notion of something scarce implying that it's necessarily 'hard to come by" is not true in this context. It merely means that supply trails demand. It means "takes an effort to come by", even if that effort is so miniscule to seem automatic like breathing. The fact is that though it seems abundant (infinite, in economic terms (if an item is abundant it's cost falls to zero, meaning that there is no investment to ascertain it)), the atmosphere could only support x people, dependent on x and the rate of oxygen consumption. The investment in partaking of the supply of air is of minimal investement for sure, but it without that investment you'll suffocate. This is what the presumption of scarcity tells us to heed - the obvious.

Given this simple truth, I cannot see how arguments as to the mythical nature of scarcity are more than disgusting political stench, as can be expected from someone who wears an ass for a hat.

To argue that "scarcity is mythical" is to proclaim profusely "I don't understand scarcity as it is specified in this thread". The rest of the horseshit is politics and the apparent functional imperative of a disfunctional jackass to shove his smarmy, idealistic (unrealistic due to the fact that it demands that everyone adopt the same smarm, which is obviously never going to happen) morality down everyone's throats.

I'd guess there are a number of prominent economists / political figures / etc. that do not understand this point clearly and bastardize it for their political purposes (like our resident asshat). There is nothing here though to indicate anything mythical about the presumption of scarcity.

guthrie

03-28-04, 01:26 PM

There is a middle way in all this scarcity argument. That is that supply trails demand because the suppliers cant have everything the customers want in stock. But then the productive capacity is there already waiting, so that the customers demands can be met within a very short space of time.
Or else think of it as contingent upon the item desired. Thousands of people want executive jets? Thatll be a year or two to ramp up production. Thousands of people want an extra loaf of bread? Thatll be in next day by delivery van.

wesmorris

03-28-04, 02:19 PM

But that isn't a middle way at all. You are just talking about inherent problems with supply, as are assumed by the term 'scarcity' exactly as I described it.

15ofthe19

03-28-04, 02:36 PM

originally posted by che
The goodwill required of trickle-down is that the money be spent in certain ways. The theory sold to the people is that by coddling the rich, the benefits would pay off and trickle down through the normal course of commerce and economy. The reality is that the money was more often recycled into the playfield of the upper echelon of commerce and finance. Yes, some of that money and benefit trickled down, but not nearly the amount people were led to believe. The "wealth gap" widened. I'm trying to find a number, for instance, that might give us an idea of how much of that money left the country for illicit drugs. Not that I blame rich people exclusively for the drug problem, but the drug problem needs rich people at some point. More to the point, though, we see a lot of that money going out of the country in investments, drugs, and other expenditures that do not trickle down to the American people.

As oddly shallow as it sounds, all that had to happen was that people didn't need to be so damned selfish when they had money. I'm not talking about giving it away. But ... overseas million-dollar parties instead of supporting local poverty-relief? Hey, just skip one of the parties. But that's too much to ask. While we're at it, let's get some Italian or Asian specialty furniture and not put that money into American labor. Why? Because it's chic to have imported furniture.

It also makes me chuckle when I read stuff like this. Envy and jealousy are such ugly emotions.

The is the same way of thinking that costs the U.S. jobs every year. Just look to your local industrial park for examples of plants where a bunch of union broke-dicks are picketing for a $2 raise in their already ridiculous pay-level, relative to their performance compared to non-union shops, and you'll see the same beer-gut lazy losers crying about "all our jobs are going overseas...". Guess what shitcock, you could have signed on at the Nissan plant up the road and you'd be making $22 per hour and getting overtime, but instead you stuck to your same-shit, different weak(:>) mentality of bitching about having to actually do a little work, and United Technologies finally gave up and closed the damn plant. There are no jobs for lazy sacks-of-shit at Japanese plants. I guess the union broke-dicks know that, so those blood-suckers just squeeze the last few nickels out until there is nothing left, and then they go home and drink Milwaukee's Best and bitch about Jeff Gordon's new girlfriend. Losers. :rolleyes:

For those of you with a clue, here's a little nugget to throw out next time some jackass is crying about the job market. Toyota has created 22,000 jobs in the state of Kentucky alone . Put that in your pipe and smoke it mister save the world, but don't take my job. Now if you've never been to Kentucky, you may not appreciate the power of that number in that context, but trust me, Kentuckians needed those jobs. You think it sucks that Dell is outsourcing, maybe it does, but Denso is hiring, so go work on your resume. :cool:

Tiassa

03-28-04, 08:55 PM

Is that a childish jibe at us or something? While it's true that I have some certain doubts about the intellectual basis of what I sometimes refer to as the "Sciforums treatment"--see 15ofthe19's latest two cents in this topic, for instance--it's more a jibe aside at certain people, who, in the past, have felt the need to dispute issues with me while proudly crowing that they're not reading my posts. Some of them say they're too long (which would be problematic), some in the past have actually gotten angry at me and complained, "I can't understand what you're saying; you use too many words." And yet people wonder why I pick on reading comprehension around here . . . .

You wrote: Then we'll rip it apart, and if it survives, then you can print it in a journal and get famous.It all depends on where you choose to throw your lot with the word "we." If you'd stuck with the word, "I," there would be no cause for such a note. Maybe some other, but not something nearly so broad and condemning.

And also, at the end of all that, there is the real consideration that if I was shooting for publication, the Sciforums crowd is about the last group of people in the world that any publisher undertaking to release such a volume would turn to for criticism. And that includes me, should it be, say, your manuscript.

Our working environment around here not only is not prepared for such an undertaking, but pretty much is determined by the posters to despise such prospects.

Doesn't mean the individuals themselves aren't qualified, but this is Sciforums, and the posters who represent the individuals . . . I mean, damn.

Tiassa

03-28-04, 09:00 PM

Stupidity is such an ugly sickness.
broke-dicks
beer-gut lazy losers
shitcock
same-shit, different weak(:>) mentality
bitching
lazy sacks-of-shit
jackass
Put that in your pipe and smoke it mister save the worldGive it another whack when you grow up and get healthy, boy.

15ofthe19

03-28-04, 09:56 PM

Tiassa

03-29-04, 06:39 AM

T you aren't the first, and certainly wont be the last to duck me when I base an argument in matter-of-fact real world examples of the effects, good or bad, depending on your POV, of Globalism on the U.S. economy and more importantly the collective psychology of a given segment of the global workforce.Oh, why don't you wait until you base a real argument on real examples instead of fallacious appeals to emotion and truckloads of childish, bitchy attitude?Specific to the U.S., if you decry so-called "trickle down" economic principles, how do you reconcile that with the fact that low personal property and real property taxes along with lower corporate tax rates are some of the biggest factors in determining where a potential overseas investor decides to locate a tax-generating, job creating facility within a potential region? Depends on the entity. Why don't you try explaining your theory instead of being a pathetic little cuss?

And try to be coherent. That would be helpful.

15ofthe19

03-29-04, 03:44 PM

I can only interpret your response, or more accurately a lack of a response to mean that you simply have no idea what I'm talking about because you simply have no idea how any of the fundamentals of economic development factor into the equation of who builds what facility and where. There is no appeal to emotion here T.

If you want to learn, I will be more than happy to teach you. ;)

Tiassa

03-29-04, 04:05 PM

There is no appeal to emotion here T.During your time at Sciforums, your reading comprehension, attitude problem, and devotion to divisive and provocative behavior indicates that you are simply not smart enough to make such a declaration.

Seriously, you're one of the few people I've encountered who puts such effort into both promulgating and attempting to disguise his own stupidity.

Try pointing out the real argument, and showing what it has to do with anything.

Profanity, limited circumstances, and an appeal to emotion: you've got nothing, little boy.

gendanken

03-30-04, 12:04 AM

Wess:
Perhaps this will help Gendy.

........Given this simple truth, I cannot see how arguments as to the mythical nature of scarcity are more than disgusting political stench, as can be expected from someone who wears an ass for a hat.

To argue that "scarcity is mythical" is to proclaim profusely "I don't understand scarcity as it is specified in this thread". The rest of the horseshit is politics and the apparent functional imperative of a disfunctional jackass to shove his smarmy, idealistic (unrealistic due to the fact that it demands that everyone adopt the same smarm, which is obviously never going to happen) morality down everyone's throats.

Ha!

I know damn well my lack of knowledge in this field stinks to high hell in this thread so I'll be dead honest with you- the businessworld, to me, fucking blows.

I had no clue prominent economists were using 'scarcity' for politcal means in their "smarmy" asshatteque, Wes. My mind is made for other things, so its all Greek to me.

Tessie:
While it's true that I have some certain doubts about the intellectual basis of what I sometimes refer to as the "Sciforums treatment"--see 15ofthe19's latest two cents in this topic, for instance--it's more a jibe aside at certain people, who, in the past, have felt the need to dispute issues with me while proudly crowing that they're not reading my posts.
Well then, do yourself a favor and at least address them when they actually do.

I've actually read your shit and understood you for once and what does gendanken get? Nothing. Nada. Punto.

At least let a girl know she's a rambling idiot or something. You'll only make it worse on yourself by proving our own theories on what you are.

wesmorris

03-30-04, 01:04 AM

"your reading comprehension, attitude problem, and devotion to divisive and provocative behavior indicates that you are simply not smart"

You've burned it onto all those tattered banners no? Seems like part of your trophy... your burden.

It's a shame they all bashed themselves into oblivion like that...

Banging against pink's wall.

Tiassa

03-30-04, 01:22 AM

At least let a girl know she's a rambling idiot or something. You'll only make it worse on yourself by proving our own theories on what you are. Actually, the most part of it is finished. I apologize for the delay. I'm having an ethical quandary about whether or not to buy an online copy of a magazine article that's simply hiding from me in the stacks.

No ... you're not necessarily a rambling idiot. It's just that you raised a couple issues I'm happy to address, and I might as well put some effort into it so I don't have to go through it six more times with other people.

In the meantime, I do apologize for the delay. I admit it's easy to forget the more substantial issues when they arise among the bullshit factor being piled on by people who, while they may be at least as annoyed with me as you are some days, simply aren't willing to put the effort into attempting to understand their annoyance that you've shown since our first ugly encounters.

Gendy? Yeah, I can believe you're trying. Toward what is beyond my speculation, but I say that without sarcasm; one thing that's obvious is that you are indeed your own person.

But if you want the excuse list, my mother stopped by to see her granddaughter, there was a Metallica show in there somewhere, and for once the handful of topics I find myself involved in for the long haul generally taxes my intellect and not my patience.

I see in your post an opportunity to tax myself in that more rewarding manner, and promise to have it for you just as soon as I dig up a reference from one of the twentieth century's finest windbags in order to try to nail down for you a contextual consideration of myth.

And yes, I should have at least dropped a note that I saw the post and was on it. M'apologies, m'lady.

Tiassa

03-30-04, 01:27 AM

And as long as I'm checking in on this topic: It's a shame they all bashed themselves into oblivion like that...'Tis, replied Aunt Helga.

gendanken

03-30-04, 01:57 AM

Tessie:
Gendy? Yeah, I can believe you're trying. Toward what is beyond my speculation, but I say that without sarcasm; one thing that's obvious is that you are indeed your own person
No, when I say I'm dumbfounded I actually am dumfounded. I'm not working towards anything.

It was like sitting down and listeing to the quiet after the storm..............on you?

I really did understand you, a little. Fancy.

Tiassa

03-30-04, 02:16 AM

No, when I say I'm dumbfounded I actually am dumfounded. I'm not working towards anything.Not even understanding?I really did understand you, a little. Fancy.I actually got that impression; it's part of the reason I'm holding out for this article. I smell opportunity, not blood. The only tragedy comes up if I'm suffering some sort of pseudo-cryptomnesiac muddling of articles, though I'm pretty sure I'm not. (It's one of those things that sat in the stack of books under the nightstand until a few weeks ago. I'm not responsible for that reorganization of the living space, but it's starting to get to me. I even found an old Crab Creek Review, and an issue of Parabola from 2002. Unfortunately, these aren't what I need. (That's the problem of reading those damn magazines that look like thin trade-paper books.)

gendanken

03-31-04, 02:16 PM

Round the world and back again....THAT's the sailor's way.
I've been around the world and back again, and yet find his post delayed...
In the meanitime:

15:
If you want to learn, I will be more than happy to teach you
I place before you a soap box. Teach.

15ofthe19

03-31-04, 03:00 PM

originally posted by gendizzle:
I place before you a soap box. Teach.

Oh fair dizzy, where should I begin?

You must un-learn all that you have learned.

There is no try. Only do, or not do.

If you are ready to leave the dark side, you must surrender any notion you might have held that anything about this world is fair or just. Only then can you fully accept the charge you have to keep. We must now leave the dark ones to wallow in their own crapulence, and move to a place of light and wisdom. The Festivus Pole is in its proper place, the Feats of Strength are over, and now we can begin. :D

Question the first: Why do some have more than others?

gendanken

03-31-04, 03:15 PM

15:

You must un-learn all that you have learned.

A task easily achieved by blue eyed vermin.
If you are ready to leave the dark side, you must surrender any notion you might have held that anything about this world is fair or just. Only then can you fully accept the charge you have to keep. We must now leave the dark ones to wallow in their own crapulence, and move to a place of light and wisdom. The Festivus Pole is in its proper place, the Feats of Strength are over, and now we can begin
Ha!

Prole. "Fair and just" is for the idiot to sing about when he's playing with his fingers up in his ivory towers.

Answer the second: Because some are smart enough to not look their nose down on the virtues of greed, vice, and savagery.

15ofthe19

03-31-04, 03:41 PM

Answer the second: Because some are smart enough to not look their nose down on the virtues of greed, vice, and savagery.

That's an interesting way to put it. I'm not positive that virtue is the word I would have used in that context, but I wont quibble. Quibbling over semantics is for pseudo-intellectuals.

Question the second: Why is there more than one color of umbrella?

gendanken

03-31-04, 03:56 PM

Question the second: Why is there more than one color of umbrella?

Why is there more than one color umbrella...
Why is there more than one color umbrella....
Why is there more than onecolor umbrella..

Answer the third: For the atmosphere of choice. Or competition.

Answer the fourth (in case you were being sarcastic and only 'playing' with gendanken as if you could): in case a girl feels like impaling you with blue umbrellas on Wednesdays and black ones on Fridays.

15ofthe19

03-31-04, 05:13 PM

Answer the third: For the atmosphere of choice. Or competition.

Actually it's just answer the second. You're sort of getting the order of things screwed up there. Nevertheless, you're correct. There are millions of colors of umbrellas because people like having choices.

Question the third: Who or what should limit how many makes, models and styles of umbrellas are available to the public, and on what authority?

Tiassa

03-31-04, 06:22 PM

Ha! Ha-ha! Ha-ha-haha-ha-ha!

Got it ....

:cool:

Gendanken, I decided to scour around for any prior reference I had made to this particular article on the web. I knew I had somewhere. It took about six Google searches before I stopped looking for the windbag and started looking for a specific phrase that I remembered using.

Turns out I was looking for the wrong windbag. It's been 102 weeks, it turns out, since I last mentioned it, but it's obviously not worth dragging this out another two weeks just to be cute.

I'll finish up and get it posted this evening. I'm holding the book I need in my hands ... well, not exactly in my hands as I type, but I see it. It ain't goin' nowhere. It ain't gettin' lost.

gendanken

04-02-04, 12:06 AM

Allright, good. So you're not only being a dipshit trying to play games with a girl he doesn't take seriously. I'll be serious then:

Question the third: Who or what should limit how many makes, models and styles of umbrellas are available to the public, and on what authority?

Answer the third: the Politburo. Those with the instinctual drive to manage, distribute, and maintain. Those in power and on the authority of those consenting to it.

Wesmorris:
I've noticed something- in you saying this:
Given this simple truth, I cannot see how arguments as to the mythical nature of scarcity are more than disgusting political stench, as can be expected from someone who wears an ass for a hat.

Are we not saying the same thing? Unless you think I've been rambling then perhaps you don't know, so I'll show you:

"Reminds me of why I have failed economics not once but twice- its in all the abstracts they use to fit into their theories, the soft monies and 'phantom' profits of the business world is what I could never undertand because it stunk of politics.
"- gendanken, 3 or 4 posts ago.

Tessie:

Tick, tick, tick, tick...

wesmorris

04-02-04, 12:39 AM

Are we not saying the same thing?

I don't think so in that I think economics is a science... and all tessie has done is polute it with his politics. I'm trying to talk about the science of it, as removed from it in terms of politics as I can make it. So it seemed to me you were trying to say you think that the entire potato is crap politics, which is why it seems we're not sayign the same thing.

Of course economics has a political aspect to it as policies are formed to implement it, but IMO, this policy must appreciate the reality of how the underlying systems behave... prior to applying the policies to implement it as to fail in doing so will inherently render the systems less efficient and as such, squander potentially valuable resources.

That is why tessies attempted dodge (paraphrasing):

"oh so you don't want to discuss anything can actually be applied"

... or whatever the shit he said is simply false IMO. "it takes time to move something from here to right over there (oh yeah muthafuckah, I'm gonna kick your fuckin deriere yeha yeyah. you broke rules, so now I pull out all your pubic hayahah hayaya eh ayare. (pardon, it was a (n AD) D moment))" is exactly applicable when in the context of economics.

Perhaps it was never presented to you properly. IMO, economics is the science of logistics, closely related to operations research in that sense. It studies systems that attempt to allocate resources to meet the demands placed on those systems by its components.

Then again, I'm not sure where you're coming from. Does the paragraph above seem political to you? If so then in your context your point holds, it's a bunch of political horseshit. I look at it as queues, distribution systems, etc. so to me it seems that isn't political.

To me, it seems that my opening post was steeped in an attempt to study the system... whereas tessie has let his bleeding heart spew on my thread. I should say however that it looks as if it weren't for his participation, this thread wouldn't have any legs at all. Perhaps that would be a good thing, I suppose that depends on how you looks at it. I suppose that's cool with me in that if nothing else there has been somewhat interesting interaction. Goddamn I'm fucking rambling again.

Tiassa

04-02-04, 06:39 AM

I would love to see, in plain English , what a Buddhist sage, financial purges during the 90's Clinton administration, Davy Crockett and moon rocks have to do with the premise of scarcity.Easy enough:

• The common theme has to do with efficiency. It's all about choices."Mythical" implies fairy tales and legends of pretty fairies with pixie dust in their hair, the stuff of imagination. An abstract."Implies," Gendanken, is still an internalization insofar as your perception is concerned. To start with the basics--1. a) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b) Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

(Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth)--and then move on to the next level--Myths are not the same as fables, folktales, fairy tales, anecdotes, or simple fiction , but sloppy usage has blurred the distinctions in many people's minds. The term "myth" is sometimes used pejoratively in reference to common beliefs of a culture or for the beliefs of a religion to imply that the story is both fanciful and fictional.

Myth is often used to refer to a commonly held but erroneous belief. Compare urban myth , the secular mythology of modern culture.

The terms urban myth and urban legend are sometimes used to describe something that is false, but, strictly speaking, those can be either true or false as well. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth))Some more on the context of myth in terms of scarcity°:• And why have we been so taken with the myth of scarcity? Has there been real scarcity since the close of the 19th century? I don't see scarcity in the US, or the world in point of fact, though I do see a teeeny weeeny bit of disparity in the distribution of income and wealth. Scarcity is again, the result of a definition: we are all greedy grasping creatures destined to live our lives in the mall, buying, buying, buying: unlimited wants, don't you know. Really, now. (Laurence Shute (http://www.eh.net/lists/archives/hes/sep-1996/0106.php), CSPU Pomona Dept. of Economics)

• Last but not least is the myth of scarcity – the belief, common in the U.S., that there are not enough resources to go around and the human population is close to overshooting the carrying capacity of the earth. There is a certain irony in the fact that the country with the most profligate waste and consumption levels is the most obsessed with planetary resource limits (and the least willing to do anything about them).

Andrew Ross makes the point that fears about scarcities of natural resources parallel the manufacturing of social scarcities by competitive capitalist regimes. In the public consciousness, imposed limits to growth in social welfare expenditures become intertwined with the notion of environmental limits. Missing from the picture, of course, is the role of the rich in gobbling up both economic and natural resources at an ever expanding rate, undermining effective environmental protection, and refusing to invest in new, non-polluting energy sources. (Betsy Hartmann (http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-12/10hartmann.cfm), Hampshire College)

• The myth of scarcity is championed by those systems hung up on production -capitalist as well as "actually-existing socialist." This myth is the touchstone of their terror, and is what keeps everybody in line without too much overt coercion."He's (she's) a survivor"-I don't knowhow many times I was to hear this admiring phrase from the lips of Texans. Mere survival the goal! I realize they said it in the context of the economic slump,and they generally meant survival in the manner in which one was normally accustomed, but it nevertheless always struck me as an awfully low setting of one's sights, especially for such an outwardly arrogant people as Texans. The odd corollary to it is the belief, in defiance of common sense and of the most elementary statistics, that one will be the exception who will "make it" over all the other "losers." One of the results of this belief, of course, is a contempt for "welfare" and the state's notoriously low ranking in social services. (Salvador Ferret Ferret (http://www.processedworld.com/Issues/issue26_27/i26texas.html))

• Men don't pick their wives purely on economic grounds. It seems odd that we make all important global decisions that way. Capitalism reduces life to a silly game something like Monopoly where the goal is to get all the money and prevent anyone else from having any. It is based on the myth of scarcity. There is plenty for everyone if we just stopped playing the money game so fiercely. According to capitalism, greed is good and generosity is weakness. This conflicts with nearly every world religion except Ferengiism and Satanism. The American version of capitalism teaches that taking from those who have little is good. Squashing your competitors is good. Gaining a monopoly and exploiting it is good, so long as you don't get in trouble with the trust busters. Polluting the environment is good, so long as it increases profit. Firing long term employees is good so long as it increases profit. Usury is good. Sharp business practices are good. This is Satanism; all that is missing are the horns and pentacle. Jesus referred to it as worshipping Mammon. (Roedy Green (http://mindprod.com/capitalism.html))

• Once we dispel the myth of efficiency hiding costs, we discover that sustainable is synonymous with real efficiency--getting the most of our resources over time. (Frances Moore Lappe and Anna Lappe (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0418-04.htm))And here we run up against what had delayed me so terribly, the pursuit of the smallest reference. In the end, should it ever be of any use to you, I've actually transcribed the entire introduction to Jean Markale's The Celts. It is in his discussion of "Myth and History," in essentially framing the confines of his later examination, that he made some interesting notes that have, over time, worn away the confines of what I call "myth," with the effect of laying bare the skeletons of myths I always thought were quiet, decent neighbors who kept their lawns nicely and didn't bother anybody. I'll do what I can to keep the excerpt ... tolerable.But what is this myth?

We should start by defining its meaning. Originally the word myth meant a sacred story, appertaining to the divine. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, however and more especially since Xenophon wrote in the 5th century BC, myth has popularly come to mean anything which cannot exist in reality; any fiction or narration which cannot be defined as logos in the Greek or historia in the Latin.

Since logos can mean "reason" as well as "word", the world of myth becomes the world of the irrational. And since history purports to be a logically and cohesively arranged succession of events, it automatically precludes anything irrational. So myth is left as an isolated, disconnected phenomenon, which cannot easily be placed in a chronology. It is illogical or even a-logical . . .

. . . . In his Aspects du Mythe, Mircéa Eliade defines it as "sacred tradition, primordial revelation, exemplary model". There is no need to establish whether myth is true or false, real or unreal, since its very existence suggests that there is a reality and the different aspects under which this reality appears can only be evaluated in their own context. It is shallow-minded to view the complex cultural reality of myth as something simple.

Eliade's further assertion that myth is "a true story because it is always related to reality" gives myth an importance rarely, if ever, accorded it by the scientist, but the statement remains open to discussion nonetheless. A myth can after all be a false story about real facts. Indeed if we support the notion of myth as an idealization of the real, and accept Freud's suggestion that it is the expression of profound human tendencies, then myth can quite easily be false. For logical distinctions between truth and falsehood can only be made by comparing the material point of departure and its final idealization in myth. If truth and reality belong to separate spheres of examination, the claim that myth is a true story has little value. What matters is that the myth is real, that it has a real existence. It might be better to define myth as a reality in itself or a concept, disregarding for the moment the question of whether it is born of experience or constructed like an abstract theorem. Since every myth is a statement, it must have its own indisputable and basic reality, its truth or falsehood being observable only in practice. To take an example, when General Boulanger attempted to seize power he was obeying a myth, the Napoleonic myth of the leader. This myth existed, neither true nor false. If Boulanger had succeeded, the myth would have become true inasmuch as the idea had converged with external reality. Since he failed, however, the myth became false because no such convergence had been achieved. Again, the death of Jesus was deliberately made to coincide with the Christ myth, or rather with one specific Christ myth. And this Christ myth, which was real in itself, thereby became real for others, acquiring the value of truth for the believer, while being condemned as false by the Jews who chose not to recognize the myth in practice.

The definition of myth as a reality assumes that there is some axiomatic principle from which everything can be argued mathematically. In fact, the myth itself is the axiom, the first thesis of a Hegelian dialectic. Given this axiom, all further argument can proceed quite logically, for since the advances on logistics and the formulation of a relativity theory we have learnt to distrust the over-coherent solution.

We would do better to look back upon myth not as a simple-minded act of human fable-making, but as an operational technique of the same epistemological value as mathematics. It is possible that we may then be able to understand the lessons of history more fully, of history is crammed full of lurking myths like fatherland, freedom and right . . . . But if myth is to be regarded as an operational technique, we must determine to what end this technique is employed. And it is here that the basic problem lies.

Mircéa Eliade says that myth "narrates an event which took place in the earliest times, the fabulous times of our beginnings". But this eminent mythologist has confused his terminology. Myth narrates nothing. It is legend which tells the story of our beginnings, and it does so by placing myth in the cultural context inherent in a specific civilization. To split hairs even further, we should perhaps replace the word "beginnings" by the word "initiations", although initiation has become so debased a term that it is either virtually meaningless or tainted with a whiff of esotericism and magic totally alien to the present discussion. In any case, by confining his definition of myth to our beginnings, Eliade neglects the myths of Tristan, the Grail, Arthur, Orpheus, Oedipus, or any which refer to consequent rather than initial situations. It is as if he has looked only at the myths of some "primitive" societies and deliberately overlooked the myths which have been created, and are still being produced, in "civilized" societies. It would be interesting, for example, to study the myth of the car. (Markale, "Myth and History (http://homepage.mac.com/bdhilling/sisyphus/MythandHistory.html)")And hopefully, therein, you can find some context on myth.

In plain English? At some point, the abstract scarcity of economics is defined by the apparent fact of differentiation within the Universe. As Wes reiterates:

• It means "takes an effort to come by", even if that effort is so miniscule to seem automatic like breathing.
• A resource is not scarce if I can think of it, it appears immediately before me and that is the entire deal.

That second point especially, from earlier in the topic, not only draws an arbitrary line for not being scarce (thought is still an expenditure of resources), but does so in order to maintain the necessity of differentiation.

And to me that seems to make the abstract scarcity rather inapplicable in any practical sense, and reserved entirely to abstraction.

Which leads us to a point that Wes finds contentious, so I'll step off here and attempt to address a number of things from your post from so long ago that I haven't touched in the next round.

However, just to touch temptingly on one of them: I dare you tell me that I'm wrong in saying that as we get economically richer the environment grows poorer.I won't, but in the same breath I dare you to make it relevant. Now ... before you rush off to do that, though--petroleum, the obvious one, is still a matter of politics and choices--let's put that one beside another of yours:unless you plucked all 6 billion of us off the planet before all resources have been exhausted Judging by history, both ancient and modern, it will take an act of will to keep us on the planet for too long.

I point to pre-Columbian Europe. There was fierce competition for wealth going on according to some silly notion that there was only so much of it to go around. The philosophical discussions of economy started to work around this, and I figured Adam Smith would be a good milestone to mark that period, but apparently he's irrelevant to economics. But we're in a period where we create wealth, not fight over a pittance. The world has already learned that lesson once with geography, and as a CATO link I posted earlier in the topic suggests, we're going to learn it again in terms of our estimates of resource availability. And we're going to blow ourselves up long before we tap the planet's resources. We might ruin them--e.g. water--but the planet and its resources will most likely outlast us unless we get off the rock at some point. And when we do, we will have the knowledge to manage our growth to meet the opportunities presented by the resource abundance available to our will. Humanity evolves. (Which is the purpose of raising interplanetary and interstellar considerations to begin with. Just to point to a pattern. A very human pattern.)

Oh, yes, and it's probably a good thing I'm genetically predisposed against losing my hair. Or so I'm told, but I can't remember what the merit of such a claim is.

It's not so much that my head is big, but rather that it's fertile - you should see me grow hair.°
____________________

° context of myth in terms of scarcity - Remember that we're discussing here the context of the idea of myth. While it's nice to see the myth turn up in universities, it's true that I have no idea who Salvador Ferret Ferret is, aside from the author of a nearly-manic piece. Same with Roedy Green. I include the quote from the Lappes because F.M. Lappe is one of the authors of "Beyond the Myth of Scarcity," and seems to be one of the primary proponents of the term, though he works largely with issues of food distribution, and it would be unfair to automatically carry over his ideas into the realm of, say, petroleum without some consideration of how those ideas apply. These quotes are intended largely. Notice how the authors (excepting Lappe) focus directly on choices. ("result of a definition," "a certain irony" and "the role of the rich," I admit I wouldn't know what short bit to quote from Ferret; nor Green--the issue is thematic to the quotes.)

° grow hair - Let's see who the first to jump on the obvious one is.

Tiassa

04-03-04, 01:39 AM

I dare you tell me that I'm wrong in saying that as we get economically richer the environment grows poorer.

I introduce you to to a non profit organization known as "Redifining Progress" where they calcute something called a Footprint for nations cross globablly. Think of each nation with its foot out and making a print on the world . . . . If we are to assign all the nations in the world with a footprint that would be compatible with the world's resources, that with any given time the earth could tolerate with no drastic reductions in its bounty - REGARDLESS OF MANAGEMENT- then that footprint would on average measure some 4.6 acres per person.

The United states has the world largest with close to 30 acres per person compared to third world nations (Ethiopia, Haiti, Afghanistan) where the average is 1 acre. Unbeliavable. And combined with developing countires (Africa, Asia) the total footprint of Humanity- HUMANITY- shows an overuse of our planet's resources by 15%.

Now, with everyone in this globalized world dying to be just like us, dress like us, eat like us, trade like us, Be Us, this means that given the opportunity all these nations will with time have a footprint (or a land usage per person) of 9 acress............... where our little blue planet can only feasibly tolerate arornd 1 or 2 per person. There are some 6 billion of us running around on its surface like so many parasites. In a century or so there will be a billion more.

My point: a dog can only tolerate so many parasites sucking the blood from its body and as any vet knows he will either die from asphyxia or collapse from anemia. No medicine would 'cure' him unless you pluck the ticks from his body. And so with planet earth- no principle, no dispcipline, no politic or theory could replenish our resources unless you plucked all 6 billion of us off the planet before all resources have been exhausted. And yes, I do think its possible that resources will one day be exhausted. I'm a realist. There's enough to deal with there ... I'm sorry to take the whole thing as a block, but . . . .

The big catch comes when we look at the "globalized world dying to be just like us." I don't argue the numbers, but rather the necessity of the outcome. Yes, this is the way it will go, but who says this path is right?

This is where the ideas of demand, desire, and need come in. Demand in economic terms is defined by desire, and ignores need.

"Dying to be like us" is apt enough to be a bumper sticker; overconsumption, resource mismanagement--which in itself constitutes a choice to not utilize available resources . . . we need not cut out all extraneous desires by any means; desire is the sweetness that makes any dose of life go down better. But from the economic paradigms we recognize, the utmost expression of human efficiency is a system which depends on accumulation for the sake of accumulation and gives no regard to necessity except to demand a certain portion of the population exist arbitrarily without access to certain resources--e.g. live in poverty.

Two billion people live in this world without access to clean drinking water. This isn't because there's not enough water on the planet, and it's not even because "so much of the water is polluted." Certainly, pollution is problematic, but there are places in the world where the choices people have made in matters political have resulted in the elected failure to extend resource utilization (e.g. water technologies) into the region.

Michael Moore, in Dude, Where's My Country? puts out a wild and nearly irresponsible dialogue about petroleum, but buried within the rhetoric is a litany of products that depend on petroleum not just for the components of their manufacture (e.g. lubrication, fuel) but as ingredients to the product itself: Furniture upholstery, grocery bags, toys, bottles, clothes, medicines, even baby diapers . . . aspirin, cameras, golf bolls, car batteries, carpet, fertilizers, eyeglasses, shampoo, glue, computers, cosmetics, detergents, telephones, food preservatives, footballs, insecticides, luggage, nail polish, toilet seats, panty hose, toothpaste, pillows, soft contact lenses, tires, pens, CDs, sneakers . . . . (p. 88)Some of that stuff we can get elsewhere. But we choose the fastest way, the cheapest way (an almost mythical measure in itself).

Additionally, there seems to be some gap existing insofar as how we move from the abstract scarcity that defines itself according to differentiation in the Universe and the scarcity that means some kid in Appalachia, or even in Seattle, goes hungry tonight. I would call it a difference of opinion, but we haven't yet moved the discussion to the point where those opinions come into play.
____________________

• Moore, Michael. Dude, Where's My Country? New York: Warner Books, 2003.

gendanken

04-04-04, 10:50 PM

Tess and Wesmorris:

I've got about 10 minutes before I must leave here so only know that I have at least read this and only if

One- I am not ridiculed for ill-skill in this field.
Two- referred to as princess (fuck you Tess)

Will I be more than willing to come back and post a reply.

Game?

wesmorris

04-04-04, 11:27 PM

"Demand in economic terms is defined by desire, and ignores need."

:rolleyes:

What?

"demand" doesn't give a shit about anything. it's just recognition that someone wants something. laws and the conscience of the individual establish the difference between want and need. you're still talking politics.

wesmorris

04-05-04, 12:16 AM

gendy, just post your shit for chrissake.

SLWK

04-05-04, 02:35 AM

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"

The fundamental goal of economics is not the most efficient allocation of resources but rather the establishment of a civilised and sustainable society. Granted, a great deal of economics deals with the allocation of resources for the sake of efficiency but an equal amount deals with issues of equity and the establishment of a just and fair society.

Yes, market forces and price are the best means to determine how resources should be used, but naked, unfettered competition will often lead to undesirable results:

1. In every society there is a need for so-called public goods -- eg, defence, law enforcement, roads, etc. Many of these goods do not offer a clear or quantifiable return in the short run and thus won't be provided by private enterprise.

2. Unfettered capital flowing in and out of countries can give bring down entire economies and thus societies -- eg, the currency crisis of the 1990s. (In a world with perfect and complete information, the problem mightn't exist but this isn't the case.) Without intervention from bodies such as the IMF countries could collapse into anarchy.

3. The philosophy of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- taken to the extreme cannot sustain a free, democratic society. Over time, as history has shown, the less fortunate will revolt and the government must then choose between suppressing the revolution by violent means or reforming their social and economic policies along the lines of John Rawl's social contract -- ie, the welfare state.

So, in conclusion, economics is not essentially about "the strong surviving".

wesmorris

04-05-04, 10:33 AM

The fundamental goal of economics is not the most efficient allocation of resources but rather the establishment of a civilised and sustainable society.

Disagree:

The fundamental goal of economics is to describe systems of resources and how they can be / are allocated. The issue of whether or not a society can be civilized or sustainable is political in nature. Using the science of economics can help you determine if your society is sustainable. Determining if your society is civilized? Economics cannot help you there. Regardless, as a science, economics does not have an "active goal". The goal is descriptive, to create a tool for understanding something. "economics" does not care if you are fed or not.

I'd say if there were a myth regarding economics (as T keeps insisting), it is that it has "goals" other than to provide a tool for understanding and those provided it by individuals or organizations. Obviously, I think those goals belong to the realm of politics. It seems to me that it's important to be able to distinguish where the line between politics and economics lies.

Yes, market forces and price are the best means to determine how resources should be used, but naked, unfettered competition will often lead to undesirable results:

Anything often leads to undesirable results, depending on your perspective eh? Naked, unfettered competition is naturally the most efficient means by which to distribute resources, but depending on your perspective, you might not like the results (as if you are not willing to murder, maim, etc. to obtain resources you'll likely die).

1. In every society there is a need for so-called public goods -- eg, defence, law enforcement, roads, etc. Many of these goods do not offer a clear or quantifiable return in the short run and thus won't be provided by private enterprise.

Governments set up the laws the govern resource allocation. Economic analysis can tell you if they're doing a good job or not based on your desired profit function.

2. Unfettered capital flowing in and out of countries can give bring down entire economies and thus societies -- eg, the currency crisis of the 1990s. (In a world with perfect and complete information, the problem mightn't exist but this isn't the case.) Without intervention from bodies such as the IMF countries could collapse into anarchy.
Well if the governments laws suck or they cannot enforce them... there is a natural conclusion. Oh and of course if you run a system under constraints described by X and then X changed drastically in a very short time, you destabalize the whole thing.

Perhaps the myth is thinking of our resource exchange system as "the economy". Actually maybe that's fine, but we have to realize that this "economy" is shaped by "politics" and though the two are related, but very different things. Politics is an economic control system.. but not the actual economics. Politics represents the contraints we intentionally add to the economic system. Allocation of resources already has contraints, regardless of policies. I suppose that's why I'm so adamant about keeping them separate. Who owns the drilling rig, or what happens to the oil still doesn't effect that you still have to have somewhere to put it, it still takes x time to draw it out, blah blah. Those rates etc, interact with all the other rates based on supply and demand within a system, all of which act naturally to shape and constrain the system - perhaps rather brutally without political considerations. Humans don't generally like brutality, so we law it up.

I mean, we could discuss the economic system of a bee-hive right? How could we affect the "sustainability" or if it is "civilized"?

3. The philosophy of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- taken to the extreme cannot sustain a free, democratic society. Over time, as history has shown, the less fortunate will revolt and the government must then choose between suppressing the revolution by violent means or reforming their social and economic policies along the lines of John Rawl's social contract -- ie, the welfare state.

That's why you syphon off a base level of comfort/aid for them as I've condoned a number of times in this thread.

So, in conclusion, economics is not essentially about "the strong surviving".
Don't you think that depends on how you look at it? For instance, if you take the system into consideration, then it is essentially about the strong surviving. You set up a system, and those who best adapt to it, thrive within it. That's what I mean by "the strong survive".

SLWK

04-05-04, 02:48 PM

wesmorris

04-05-04, 03:55 PM

Yes, a lot of economics is about understanding how things work -- eg, microeconomics, game theory, experimental economics (the new frontier) -- but equally there is much in economics that is about identifying and (artificially) fixing or preventing problems.

Fair enough, I do tend to split hairs as I think it's important to separate the art from the science. I'm tempted to do it now, but the practicality of your point is taken and compels me to stop that.

Consider game theory, a field in microeconomics, and the phenomenon of Nash equilibrium.

Yeah I keep forgetting what that is. I knew one time but forgot.

Here, there are some situations involving a group of rational economic beings in which a Nash equilibrium is not the best outcome for the group.

Okay I looked it up. I'm not sure, maybe I know why this is true. I'll give it a go below.

That is to say, it is possible for rational, self interested beings, motivated only by maximising their utility, to decide or act in such a way that every person in the group is not as well off as he or she could be.

Well, I think it's the subjectivity of value, or "utility" (maybe you have a specific definition of 'utility' in mind that I'm unaware of, which precludes subjectivity) that makes the above true. If you're happy knowing you screwed me over, perhaps that's an aspect of value or utility that is not accounted for eh? I realize it is not easy to account for. I do have some ideas though. Couldn't you gather a bunch of statistical data and model accordingly? Yeah okay it would get complicated fast.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

On economics and political science, in many respects the two are intertwined. Indeed, in the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the subject was known as "political economy".

Well, I won't argue with you about that. I definately think it's fair to say they're deeply intertwined.

Economists often start out with a political goal and then formulate a set of economic policies. c.f. the work of the neoclassicals vs the neokeynesians

That makes sense, given that the goals of economics must be political in nature.

If you were to read grad economics at say Chicago instead of say Harvard you would advocate a different set of economic policies.

Maybe.

SLWK

04-05-04, 04:58 PM

Couldn't you gather a bunch of statistical data and model accordingly? Yeah okay it would get complicated fast.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

For game theory, yes. Statistical analysis of decision making is going on in a new field called experimental economics -- a bunch of people sitting in a computer lab making decisions in response to the decisions of others (similar to a group psychology experiment). Results of the experiments are collected, repeated and then analysed in regression and similar statistical tests. In fact some of the research going on in experimental economics is leading to conclusions that people often do act irrationally and not in their self interest -- ie, some research seems to defunct the fundamental assumption of economics.

In terms of your ideas, it is good to throw up new theories and ways of looking at things and have the ideas tested and analysed in a forum. Indeed this is how breakthroughs are made and how a science can advance.

wesmorris

04-05-04, 05:17 PM

It just seems to me that the apparent innefficiency of a system where "there are some situations involving a group of rational economic beings in which a Nash equilibrium is not the best outcome for the group" has to do with will, opportunity and the subjectivity of "good".

I'm thinking that "leading to conclusions that people often do act irrationally and not in their self interest " is fundamentally incorrect, as people cannot help but act rationally in what they percieve to be their best interest (at least on a subconscious level). Yes I'm saying that all people always act rationally, based on what their experience deems to be rational. I suppose I should qualify that heavily, but it seems too much at the moment.

Rationality is, as far as I can tell... dependent on context. Bah I'm just meandering now.

Tiassa

04-05-04, 06:08 PM

What?

"demand" doesn't give a shit about anything. :rolleyes: it's just recognition that someone wants something. Wants. Subjective. Remember that word, "subjective (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective)"?

Is "economics" a tool or an overseer? That is, does recognition of "economics" equal the acquisition of a tool to help cooperative humanity evolve its social processes, or is the recognition of "economics" the submission to a cause greater than the individual or the collective human endeavor?

In the everyday term, we might ask, "Do you work for economy or does economy work for you?" Change "economy" to "the economy," and then you have the political argument you so detest.

Because this isn't about politics, Wes, no matter how much you wish to hide from the issue. It's about the simple recognition that humans exist, and that any applicable sense of economics that fails to account for necessity either as well as or instead of demand will tend toward a practical imbalance that renders economic theory an overlord, a cause which must be served.

Contemporary economic theory derives from a philosophical background obsessed with the notion of gain or accumulation. The slow suffering of starvation far-removed from the individual is considerably less visible than the effects of warfare; it is no wonder commerce was treated as the pacifier of humanity; "Das ist der doux commerce!"°

Demand that fails to account for necessity reduces human beings to mere factors in an equation. Accounting for necessity--accounting for the fact that we humans exist at all°--changes the relationship between people and the abstract concept of scarcity. It recognizes differentiation in the Universe and attempts to account for the fact of what portion of differentiation it describes. Thus, air is only scarce if you're on the moon or some-such, or if you've polluted the life out of the air; the finite resource of air is of such vast proportions that it is essentially infinite in relation to humanity; we must work very hard to throw off the balance and consume more than nature produces. Air is not scarce because you have to breathe.

Something indeed gets lost in translation between the abstract and the applicable, between the should, could and is of reality. The longer this topic drags on, the closer I come to putting my finger on it. But I'm still not sure how close it is; like a negative image of the Luxor from fifty miles out, I see its darkness rising into the sky; but I couldn't tell you how far away it is. Fifty miles? If only.

That something has to do with the difference between the abstract description and the real situation. If only the scarcity you describe were the one humanity faced practically on a daily basis!

There's six billion people on the planet. Air is not scarce, and it should not be. The only places it's really problematic is where we've dumped a bunch of crap into it, and humanity's denial runs so deeply that we've even tried to blame our problems on the cattle in South America.

What makes any resource valuable to us, Wes, as you point out, is that we choose to give it value. We're afraid of death; at the end of the day, this underpins all practical implementation of economic theory. We're irrational creatures; our priorities are not necessarily logical; rather, they are necessarily illogical.

The slugs don't care about economy. Who does? Humans and a few other primates? Dolphins? Whales? Rats? Horses? Most of the living Universe is simply an acutely transient balance of matter and energy. When my cat knows it's time to die, she will go away somewhere and pass quietly. Or I'll simply find her, stiff, on the floor by the sofa. But she won't do what humans do; she won't steal necessary resources from others in order to extend her pleasure.

The value of things, when necessity remains unaccounted, is as mythical as anything else, and that's one of the things that sets scarcity to hiding religiously behind a wall of orthodoxy. The demonstrable, practical effects of the abstract, theoretical scarcity are all chosen.

We choose to use one resource instead of another. We choose to utilize that resource inefficiently. We choose to panic at the prospect of losing such access to the resource when what it does can be accomplished otherwise.

At present, it is out of character with humanity's practical example to simply roll over and let such abstractions frighten us to docility.

That fear comes from having bought into the myth. Resources are always scarce; scarcity is a natural condition of the Universe; supply must necessarily trail demand.

It's all what we choose.laws and the conscience of the individual establish the difference between want and need. Really? Life and death doesn't?

You don't need air?you're still talking politics. So says you.

Apparently, you don't need air. Good thing. It's so scarce, after all.

:rolleyes:

Notes:

° Das ist der doux commerce! - Apparently a joke between Marx and Engels. Oddly appropriate, if one ignores history, which only sharpens the wit of the joke.

° humans exist at all - A dubious proposition, insofar as it can only be agreed to and never proven.

15ofthe19

04-05-04, 06:49 PM

Contemporary economic theory derives from a philosophical background obsessed with the notion of gain or accumulation.

That is your obsession clouding your judgement, yet again. Not everyone agrees with your bias, and you cannot emperically prove what you argue.

Demand that fails to account for necessity reduces human beings to mere factors in an equation.

And this thread is on SCIFORUMS, and we are talking about SCIENCE, so what part of that don't you get? Humans are mere factors in an equation for the purposes of this discussion. I still contend that you have no business in this argument, and never have, because your trying to talk philosophy and politics in a thread devoted to science. Your motives are still impure, and the Mod of the EMJ forum, I would have expected better from you.

But she won't do what humans do; she won't steal necessary resources from others in order to extend her pleasure.

This statement worries me. I can only attribute it to someone who is potentially suicidal, or that has really just lost the will to live, and hasn't really seen fit to do anything about it yet.

I never realized going to the doctor when I was sick was the equilavent of stealing. Fascinating...

wesmorris

04-05-04, 07:06 PM

I regret having addressed the asshat directly.

I will no longer do so if I can keep myself from it.

Oh...

It did have one good point, life and death are definately on the list. I'd have added them if I thought of it but it's sort of inconsequential to the point that it will never get.

Look what a stupid dipshit it is:

"Apparently, you don't need air. Good thing. It's so scarce, after all."

Air is pretty scarce at the bottom of the ocean eh? Perhaps everywhere in the universe that isn't here, in this atmosphere or one identical to it as well eh?

This shouldn't be about politics, no... you simply MAKE IT THAT WAY YOU FUCKING LIAR.

FUCK OFF. GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD YOU IDIOT.

Okay, I'll ask nicely:

Please, have the decency to leave this thread.

I should have never addressed you again, but your horseshit makes it difficult for me to avoid so please, leave.

Tiassa

04-05-04, 07:46 PM

Wes and 15ofthe19

I await your responses.

I mean, I don't know what either of you call those excuses for posts, but should you ever feel the decency to actually respond, do so.

Wes--you're right. When you don't want to have an honest discussion, you probably shouldn't bother addressing me.

Just because you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about doesn't mean you need to go get all childish about it. What, do you really think you're demonstrating your brainpower pouting like a spoiled princess?

If you don't like your own arguments, don't argue them. Get a new gig. One that you're more comfortable with.

15ofthe19

04-05-04, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by SLWK:
For game theory, yes. Statistical analysis of decision making is going on in a new field called experimental economics -- a bunch of people sitting in a computer lab making decisions in response to the decisions of others (similar to a group psychology experiment). Results of the experiments are collected, repeated and then analysed in regression and similar statistical tests. In fact some of the research going on in experimental economics is leading to conclusions that people often do act irrationally and not in their self interest -- ie, some research seems to defunct the fundamental assumption of economics.

I've participated in some exercises like the one described. It was fun, but at times extremely frustrating to find workable compromises within our group. Some of the members of the group had a much more limited understanding of the subject matter and virtually no relevant experience applicable to the aims and goals of the fictitious organization we were managing. The context was often a competition of different fictitious businesses within a model of a given industry. Example: We made tennis shoes. We were Reebok. We competed against Nike, BK, whatever. What I took away from it was that it was almost impossible to account for all of the variables that would apply to a real analysis of the market that we were manipulating within our given model software. The computer software just wasn't able to account for things like the barge accident that closed the Mississippi River last month, or the attacks of 3/11 and the impact that had on world markets. So it seemed that the modeling was useful for teaching some basic understanding of the forces at play in a market, but not really an accurate representation of the market.

wesmorris

04-05-04, 10:12 PM

Wes and 15ofthe19

I await your responses.

Here it is, cunt.

I mean, I don't know what either of you call those excuses for posts, but should you ever feel the decency to actually respond, do so.
As if a dirty cunt like yourself could fathom a clue as to the decency of adults.
When you don't want to have an honest discussion, you probably shouldn't bother addressing me.
LOL. Oh I want it, it's just that you're incapable you fucking piece of shit.
Just because you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about doesn't mean you need to go get all childish about it.
LOL, so vehement divergence from the cuntular perspective makes me stupid now does it? LOL. And you wonder why I call you a cunt don't you? LOL. I am childish about this because that's apparently the only thing a cunt can understand, you fucking piece of shit.
Tell me you little cunt, what is it that makes you think you're so smart in comparison to the rest of us? Also, do you really even understand what smart is? I only ask because I wonder how it seems from behind your insurmountable wall. It seems to me if you really understood it, you'd never use the argument "you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about" you sorry, pathetic loser.
If you don't like your own arguments, don't argue them.
LOL. Man your comments never fail to make my jaw drop, so thank you for your incredible unpredictability. *snort*
That you would argue "if you don't like your argument, don't argue it" in response to anything I've said in this thread is fucking flabbergasting. It's like "hey what time is it?" and you respond "purple, you little stupid person". Uhm... see below:
Get a new gig.
I'm guessing you already realize that the popularity of the idea of "fuck you", regarding you, is still of like, rock star proportions with me no? You know what cunt? I'll take the gig I want, and your bullshit objections will result in my giggles, knowing I've crammed a little more sand in that gargantuan fucking cunt of yours. Please, object all you'd like.
One that you're more comfortable with.
The only think I'm uncomfortable about here is your disgusting perspective. Fuck off.

Here I'll try your style, such that maybe you'll understand something that another human attempts to communicate with your emotionally crippled ass:

"Stupidity is such an ugly sickness. Give it another whack when you grow up and get healthy, boy."

Tiassa

04-05-04, 10:59 PM

Just to make sure I have your argument straight, Wes:cunt
dirty cunt
cuntular perspective
fucking piece of shit
cunt
little cunt
snort
fuck you
cunt
bullshit
gargantuan fucking cunt
fuck off
emotionally crippled assYep. That's smart, Wes. You sure told me.

Thanks for making it easier, Wes.

Like I said, let me know when you get around to responding.

I'm still waiting.

Tiassa

04-06-04, 10:08 AM

15ofthe19

I'm calmer. There are a couple issues worth responding to I admit. Contemporary economic theory derives from a philosophical background obsessed with the notion of gain or accumulation.

That is your obsession clouding your judgement, yet again. Not everyone agrees with your bias, and you cannot emperically prove what you argue.Very little of economics is empirical. I would point to your own technical discussion with SLWK: . . . it seemed that the modeling was useful for teaching some basic understanding of the forces at play in a market, but not really an accurate representation of the market. That much cleared up, it is worth noting whence I derive that assertion. I've been looking for a polite way to say, "Read a book, damn it," but failing miserably.

Essentially the book in question is Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests. I will seek to find a way to summarize the relevant argument for you over the coming days, but it's a dense 135 pages (plus notes). However, in lieu of that summary, and mostly as encouragement for people to read this book, I will for the time being, merely list some places the book turns up on Google, starting with an obvious couple:

• Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science - Professor Albert O. Hirschman. See http://www.sss.ias.edu/home/hirschman.html
• Princeton University Press. (The e-book is for sale here, as well as the paper copy, but the summary blurb is actually what's worth reading.) See http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5996.html
• International Association of Health Policy. "Lecture Abstract: Social capital - Social or Capital?" See http://www.healthp.org/article.php?sid=193
• International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations. "1997 Symposium - Interests, Passions, Politics: Psychodynamic Assumptions of the U.S. Constitution." See http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/1997Swog.htm
• EconBooks.com. "Customer Reviews - The Passions and the Interests." See http://www.econbooks.com/The_Passions_and_the_Interests_0691015988.html

Like I said, I'll try to put together a reasonable summary as regards the issue at hand. The above links are merely intended to establish that I'm not insane for seeking information and knowledge from this book; aside from that, anyone is welcome to argue the value of what I get from it. Seriously, it's a great book. I encourage anyone to read it.

But it's going to be a tad difficult to summarize. It's actually easier to tell you to read the book and hope you do. (You know that compact, dense informational people scream for instead of my long rambling posts? This is it. You can almost outline the book by transcribing it, it's so bare-bones in order to contain itself.)

In the meantime, I'll give it a whirl. It's going to require abusive copyright violations beyond my usual willingness.And this thread is on SCIFORUMS, and we are talking about SCIENCE, so what part of that don't you get? Why don't you try explaining what the hell that has to do with anything.Humans are mere factors in an equation for the purposes of this discussion Now, just wait a minute. First off Wes says in his topic post that:

• It seems to me that any economic model you'd try to implement would include this foundation or it would be inherently flawed.

This refers to his three points outlined in the very beginning. Wes went on to affirm:

• 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

Yet Wes is arguing as a necessary component of any economic model a notion of scarcity that cannot be applied. I even apologized for not realizing that we weren't discussing applicable ideas, which apology went over about as well as Les Nessman's turkeys.

And now here you are, 15, telling me that humans must necessarily be mere factors in an equation for the purposes of this discussion?

Once again ... are we discussing ideas that can be applied, or mere abstract theory that will remain forever abstract?I still contend that you have no business in this argument, and never have, because your trying to talk philosophy and politics in a thread devoted to science. I find it absolutely ridiculous that you would call refusing to account for relative factors scientific.

But, whatever. You're the genius, right?Your motives are still impure, and the Mod of the EMJ forum, I would have expected better from you.Maybe about the time you demonstrate yourself capable of reading my posts, I'll give better consideration to your assessment of my motives. Remember that macho tantrum you threw about the cocaine bit? Your reading comprehension hasn't improved any, 15. You see politics where I see a clear pattern in history of humanity's idea of scarcity repeatedly defied, and the potential for that to occur again in the future.

All I've ever tried to do is discuss the validity of those original three points. But apparently we're supposed to just presume their correctness and proceed from there.

So ... what's that about "science," 15?

Remember that Catholicism makes much sense logically and rationally if you accept from the outset that God exists, Jesus saves, and the Bible is true. In other words, you can argue Christianity scientifically if you allow scientifically untenable assertions as the foundation.

Similarly, I debate the "reality" of those three points listed in the topic post insofar as they must be reconciled before I can accept the assertion that they must necessarily be at the foundation of any economic model, else it be flawed.

And that is what y'all have been running from the entire time.

That is what Wes calls irrelevant.

And yet you claim to be talking about science?This statement worries me. I can only attribute it to someone who is potentially suicidal, or that has really just lost the will to live, and hasn't really seen fit to do anything about it yet. Again, we see an example of your problems with reading comprehension.

What ever are you going on about?I never realized going to the doctor when I was sick was the equilavent of stealing. Fascinating... Fascinating, indeed. And it has what to do with what?

Like I said, I await your response. Preferably one that addresses issues for once?

gendanken

04-09-04, 03:13 PM

I've done some research and:

Wesmorris: Perhaps it was never presented to you properly (gendanken)

You're right, it wasn't. You (wesmorris) see it as a scientific priciple used as a tool in allocating resources and describing a system, completely indifferent to any subtelties or politics trying to manipulate it, yes?

Am I wrong?
Analogy: Like a scientist assigning a theory to his experiments, the outcome of his experiment tells him whether he is doing somthing right or something wrong regardless of hypothesis.
The experimet and the agents involved- that you see as economics.
The theories applied cirumspectively- that you see as political bullshit. They (theories) are abstracts that could be modified and should be according to the undeniable results.

Its Tessie's vehemence with his rigid theories (or politics) that's got you calling him a cunt, yes?

But it looks like Tessie is looking down on your formula or experiment and sees one agent too many, something you don't need. And in you insisting that you keep it in your forumla (or system) he up and calls it a mythological element altogether since your system would run alot smoother by virtue of a wise choice.

Tessie:
The common theme has to do with efficiency. It's all about choices.
I'm seeing that now. Synopsis: a scarcity of anything forces choices on the system's manipulators. Gasoline shortages in the 70's forced people to choose wether or not they'd pay higher for gas or go without.

But none of these shortages are mythical, there really was a fucking shortage of oil in the 70's. You going to tell me it was only politics? Or some abstract only useful in order to maintain "the necessity of differentation"?

I spent a good deal reading everything you provided up there in your analysis of myth and suprisingly fell upon the very site where you mention Ferregism-
I find the author speaking about capitalism played out like some runaway Monopoly game where everyone fights to make money if only to prevent their neighbors from making any.

He says this game is based on the 'myth' of scarcity since there is enough for everyone and if only we switch gears and stop thinking of greed as good and generous as weak than all would be dandy.

But there is no account taken of finite natural resources.
Little thought is put to conservation of reserves in the system. How? In not looking past rigid formulas and cookie-cutter textbook driven ideology- what you are saying.

Desire has much to do with this, regardless of need.

I quote:
Ecological Concerns:

Capitalism is overheated. It aims for constant growth. It ignores the biological imperatives that all systems must be closed and self-sustaining. In biology, constant growth is called cancer. We can't keep expanding the economy on a finite planet. You can expand quality of life, but you can't (and I mean can't not shouldn't) do it by ever expanding consumption of natural resources. This problem is a side effect of capitalism's narrow focus rather than considering the big picture. Capitalists pushed the Newfoundland cod stock right to the point of extinction before they would pay attention to what nature was telling them. Even then the capitalist fishermen rioted demanding the right to kill off the last few fish. The glamour of capitalism makes people ignore the harsh biological realities of life on planet earth.

Follow?

You say:

I point to pre-Columbian Europe. There was fierce competition for wealth going on according to some silly notion that there was only so much of it to go around. The philosophical discussions of economy started to work around this, and I figured Adam Smith would be a good milestone to mark that period, but apparently he's irrelevant to economics. But we're in a period where we create wealth, not fight over a pittance. The world has already learned that lesson once with geography, and as a CATO link I posted earlier in the topic suggests, we're going to learn it again in terms of our estimates of resource availability. And we're going to blow ourselves up long before we tap the planet's resources. We might ruin them--e.g. water--but the planet and its resources will most likely outlast us unless we get off the rock at some point. And when we do, we will have the knowledge to manage our growth to meet the opportunities presented by the resource abundance available to our will. Humanity evolves. (Which is the purpose of raising interplanetary and interstellar considerations to begin with. Just to point to a pattern. A very human pattern.)
I had a good mind to lambast you on this but you did point out water being ruined by none other than us.

However, if it has happened to water, then what about developing countries where cheap firewood is a staple? Everything of anything is subject to depletion especially when an entity as consumptive, demaning, and greedy as we are consider it a staple. Why? Because even in the face of zero, nothing nada we adapt and keep forcing it.

I do understand some of what you are saying though- for example, in Cuba during the Soviet era all their farmland was subsidized by the Russian governmet. Farmers were made to use expensive pumps and combustible fuel in order to pump water for their soil. As soon as the government no longer funded it, these pumps sat around rusting and wasting and with no collateral to purchase those fuels the land sat around spoling and went "barren" since the farmers could ill-afford to irrigate their land with methods forced on them from above.

Notice I but "barren" in quotes.

What's the story like now years later? These farmers that once sat around watching their land fucking rot are now using traditional methods like small dams and windmills to bring their land back to life again, they use less demanding cattle from Africa to maintain their water supplies and no longer suffer from drought. My point: Even though Cuba by and large is a poor country the bounties are undeniable, the people are happier and the crops yield every season.

Methodology is what screwed them- not scarcity, though it looked like it.

THIS, I feel is what you see as scarcity being some notion of 'mythical' yes?

Two billion people live in this world without access to clean drinking water. This isn't because there's not enough water on the planet, and it's not even because "so much of the water is polluted."
The Aral Sea in Central Asia was once one of the largest- go look at it now. Its a diseased slab of dry crust cutting across the continent, you'd die just standing on the hot bed for too long.
The fish industries have come to a standstill in some places.
Why?

Reason the first: Uzbekistan's cash crop just so happens to be cotton and it has this dirty habit for sucking up the all water resources around the factories where it is manufactured.

Reason the second: New canals and channels have left dry riverbeds.
Water use goes unchecked while arable land goes wasting.

Tell me all of this is irrelevant like you did in your last post to me, Tess. I fucking dare you.

This is where the ideas of demand, desire, and need come in. Demand in economic terms is defined by desire, and ignores need.
Concering my statement of half the globe dying to be like us, then yes.

But applied to simple economic principles, then no.
Scarcity measures supply. If the supply of a staple is low, then the demand is high. Now why is it high? Becuase it is needed, and when supplies are low of something needed you cannot ignore it. You are forced to make a choice by sheer need.

Like the lung demanding air and the force exerted by the body when you try to choke someone like I'd like to do you sometimes- that is need. Not desire.

See now?

Tiassa

04-09-04, 07:45 PM

Gendanken-

Just a short note in deference to your prior notes ... I'm away for the weekend. I'll be near a computer, but I'll be cut off from my library and completely out of rhythm; if I fail to respond directly, I'll get to it as soon as I'm home.

Kikisue

04-09-04, 08:46 PM

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

...Im not an evolutionary biologist, I am a biochemist with a lot of microbiology background. But I think I can and should correct that statement slightly -

Those that are the most fit for environment X will thrive best in environment X.

The environment is constantly changing, as the other populations flux and adapt or decline in proximity to the subject your talking about. There is no such thing as being perfectly suited to an environment - just better suited, or suited well enough, to it - for the moment.

wesmorris

04-11-04, 02:40 PM

You're right, it wasn't. You (wesmorris) see it as a scientific priciple used as a tool in allocating resources and describing a system, completely indifferent to any subtelties or politics trying to manipulate it, yes?

Yes. Politics become involved as soon as you attempt to formulate profit functions and policies to achieve them. No political assertion can negate the concept of "scarcity" as I've presented it, as it is fundamentally a nod to the arrow of time. Perhaps if someone has a "timeless model" to present, they should present the model sans leftist political horseshit.

Am I wrong?

Not this time. :D

Analogy: Like a scientist assigning a theory to his experiments, the outcome of his experiment tells him whether he is doing somthing right or something wrong regardless of hypothesis.

Close enough yes. It is a boundary condition rooted in common sense. Of course boundary conditions are up for discussion, but NOT, IMO - subject to the political argument that has been raised over and over in this thread. It is wholly irrelevant.

Of course it's apparent that the cunt can't help himself.

The experimet and the agents involved- that you see as economics.

Yes.

The theories applied cirumspectively- that you see as political bullshit.

Not necessarily bullshit, but yes, especially when promoted by a cunt.

They (theories) are abstracts that could be modified and should be according to the undeniable results.

Absolutely.

Its Tessie's vehemence with his rigid theories (or politics) that's got you calling him a cunt, yes?

Hehe, if it were so simple. I think at this point there are too many reasons for my assertions as to his cunt nature to really discuss in detail.

But it looks like Tessie is looking down on your formula or experiment and sees one agent too many, something you don't need.

Well, I think Tessie is lost - afloat in the subjectively euphoric cloud of self-important political horseshit that continually spews from his orifices (and fingertips).

And in you insisting that you keep it in your forumla (or system) he up and calls it a mythological element altogether since your system would run alot smoother by virtue of a wise choice.

It is my contention, that a wise choice is impossible without this consideration. If you read closely, you will see it is fundamentally the semantics that this piece of shit has a problem with. He doesn't like the term "scarce" because of it's dictionary type implications as in "there's not much of this". I recognized this and offered to abandon the term, as long as consideration is still given to the contraints that the time dependence of resource gathering and allocation demand. I cannot make a wise choice
regarding the supply of food to you, or your community, etc., without considerations as to the availability of the resources that comprise your food supply. Even if you automate the process, like breathing - failure to account for availability of resources (like going to space and forgetting to bring enough oxygen) will result in failure of any goal unless that goal is to die. Even if that were the goal, then consideration would have had to be taken to ensure that you didn't have enough air

gendanken

04-11-04, 03:44 PM

Wes:

Good, so gendanken has not misfired and now we can either go on with sweet progress since this last post of yours has been the clearest on what the problem between you and Tess is thus far or you can continue punching his eye out and asking him to leave.

As an aside, my participation here in this thread reminds me of the good old days long ago when discussion was meaty, about something. I've actually learned something here ....... despite the cuntocity.
This is the way the forums should be.
That being said, back to misanthropy.

Tessie:
Just a short note in deference to your prior notes ... I'm away for the weekend. I'll be near a computer, but I'll be cut off from my library and completely out of rhythm; if I fail to respond directly, I'll get to it as soon as I'm home.
Thought the man was agoraphobic......gasp.

Kidding. Allright, will do.

Tiassa

04-12-04, 05:12 AM

horseshit
cunt
cunt
cunt
horseshit
piece of shitWes, stop masking your misogyny as hatred for me and try sticking to the topic.

Stop living in fear. Stop expecting the worst of the Universe. Get a new point, and stop complaining about the apparent differentiation of matter in the Universe.

Remember that there is no bright center of objectivity in the Universe. You might as well be arguing the definitive existence of any one specific god.

Tiassa

04-12-04, 05:14 AM

Tell me all of this is irrelevant like you did in your last post to me, Tess. I fucking dare you.I thank you for clarifying.

As to the rest ... swatting flies is one thing, but as you have a point to make, I shall undertake your fine considerations later today, when I'm more awake.

wesmorris

04-12-04, 09:48 AM

Wes, stop masking your misogyny as hatred for me and try sticking to the topic.

Fuck you, you worthless fucking cunt.

You are far too fucked up to understand what I am.

How about I put this in economic terms:

The opportunity cost for being me, is finding people like you wholly disgusting.

It's amusing that you're so pathetic as to cast it as "misogyny". LOL. Fact is: YOU MAKE ME SICK. YOU. Not anyone else in this thread, and really only only one other person on the board that I can think of (on further thought, make that two). You are a disgusting individual (as are they). Individual.

It's your normal, pathetic, stab in the dark that has you would cast me as a misogynist based on my use of the word "cunt" or "bitch". I only say what I hope will offend you most, you dirty cunt. Well, that and it's perfect fucking description. You are a cunt. That you would take from that "wes hates women", is only more evidence that you're a cunt.

So please, provide more evidence of your worthlessness.

You do it every time you speak.

Tiassa

04-12-04, 02:36 PM

It's amusing that you're so pathetic as to cast it as "misogyny".Hey, you're the one focusing on female anatomy in such a negative light.

Get over yourself.

wesmorris

04-12-04, 03:13 PM

Hey, you're the one focusing on female anatomy in such a negative light.

LOL.

Oh man you are a cunt.

It's entertaining when someone masquerading as an adult begins a sentence with "Hey, you're the one who blah blah blah..."

Douchebag.

Get over yourself

You first, bitch.

gendanken

04-12-04, 11:38 PM

Has it occured to either of you that being the only one here with a cunt I alone reserve the right to assign its use as misogynist?

Either way, only gendanken reserves the right to bash women. And fags. And Jews. And Christians. And mullets.

BACK ON THE FUCKING TOPIC PEOPLE.

hypewaders

04-13-04, 01:08 AM

Scarcity is a choice, although often a coerced one: Take respect and civility, for instance. It would seem that these are in short supply here.

:reaches into Top Hat: .(not asshat, Wes)

But human resourcefulness has been our amazing story of survival and prosperity, one of modifying the environment to produce new abundance.

:foop!:

You folk have stirred up some insight here.

Respectfully Yours,
Hypewaders.

gendanken

04-13-04, 01:19 AM

Hypewaders:
Scarcity is a choice, although often a coerced one
I've done my homework buddy boy, and no it is not.

Small btw: Tessie:
thank you for clarifying.

As to the rest ... swatting flies is one thing, but as you have a point to make, I shall undertake your fine considerations later today, when I'm more awake.
Here's hoping you don't focus on a point you oppose and split the fucking hair out of it.

I think the Cuba example fits in quite nicely with what you are getting at. Now step to.

hypewaders

04-13-04, 01:38 AM

Alright, since you've done your homework, help me with mine for a minute:
In this vast universe, what is there that we need, that we can't have?

15ofthe19

04-13-04, 07:06 AM

Haven't you read this thread?

Nine pages and we're back to square one. Meh. I'm going to work.

hypewaders

04-13-04, 08:00 AM

You had time to wade through all that? I'm trying for the Executive Summary.

hypewaders

04-13-04, 11:26 AM

OK then from skimming for myself, and trying not to get distracted by some squabbling and tautology, this is all I gleaned. But surely there's more to it, so I'm asking with a dazed nod to time's scarcity, arrows, plowshares, Darwin, Smith, Keynes, kindness, mercy, and all that's sacred but shouldn't be:

determinism : libertarianism
competition : cooperation
scarcity : adaptation
conformity : freethinking

There's a seeming gravitation toward either extreme, but I think the truth lies somewhere in between, or in the interplay. Neither extreme describes reality very thoroughly, because they're just fortified perspectives. And "anthropic principle" is such an exemplary muddled term- I challenge anyone to give it a concise definition- it's perhaps deliberately confusing by human nature.

I'm left reminded of the 20th century Jagger & Richards thesis on the subject:

You can't always get what you want-
But if you try sometimes, you might find-
You get what you need.

hypewaders

04-13-04, 10:53 PM

The response to my strenuous insight is an all-annihilating black hole. I feel like Dubya at a press conference.

Tiassa

04-14-04, 02:20 AM

Synopsis: a scarcity of anything forces choices on the system's manipulators. Gasoline shortages in the 70's forced people to choose wether or not they'd pay higher for gas or go without Is necessity the Mother of Invention, or is desire?But none of these shortages are mythical, there really was a fucking shortage of oil in the 70's. You going to tell me it was only politics? Or some abstract only useful in order to maintain "the necessity of differentation"?As an analogy: regardless of what you or I might think of the notions of God or "God's will," disbelief (such as it may be) does not change the fact that some hoser somewhere just strapped some dynamite to his chest or picked up a rifle: God is great.

Likewise, that scarcity is a myth--as my assertion has it--doesn't change the facts of what people do while subject to that myth. What made the resource scarce, especially in the gas crisis, was not nature itself, but human choices. And rather silly ones, at that.

Part of what Wes seems to dislike, calls "political," is the inevitable transformation of an idea from a pure abstraction (gee, it would be nice if everyone could get along) to an applicable theory (just how exactly are we going to accomplish that?)

And that does necessarily demand accounting for some human politics. But this does not a political argument make. What is the difference between the scarcity of air as a result of the necessity of breathing and the scarcity of grain as a result of something like the North Korean regime?

Don't we have to be alive in the first place in order to have an applicable economy, and not just be part of an abstract one? (The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out . . . .)Tell me all of this is irrelevant like you did in your last post to me, Tess. I fucking dare you. I thank you for making it relevant. Having that context on the original dare clears up the relevance considerably for me.

And yes, you're on a huge part of what shows the myth of scarcity. A friend of mine is pursuing some interdisciplinary environmental sciences degree, and just did a section on organic farming in Cuba; I'm quite happy to see you mention it. Part of what happens when people are happy is that arbitrary demand decreases. It's not the fastest for the technical evolution of society, but it does lend against the myth that the land can't support us.

I keep thinking of trees and paper and cotton and cloth and what about that silly political hemp fight? Deforestation, erosion, The Who . . . .Concering my statement of half the globe dying to be like us, then yes.

But applied to simple economic principles, then no. Sounds like the tricky part . . . .Scarcity measures supply . If the supply of a staple is low, then the demand is high. Now why is it high? Becuase it is needed , and when supplies are low of something needed you cannot ignore it. You are forced to make a choice by sheer need.The existence of scarcity within any localization does not demonstrate the existence of a necessary scarcity. Such as:Like the lung demanding air and the force exerted by the body when you try to choke someone like I'd like to do you sometimes- that is need. Not desire.Yes, need invoked by another's choice.

Part of the tangled difference is, indeed, the abstract scarcity that comes with the fact of differentiation in the Universe and the scarcity that comes from blowing up the local water-distribution system as part of a war.

And here we have to revisit the topic post:
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. Everything is fine until we enter the two statements highlighted in red above. And then we take from Wes' interruption of my discussion with 15ofthe19:
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.Whether or not the model is applicable to what is still a serious question. Applicable to life? Applicable to humanity? Applicable to the Universe in general?

What is the difference between a pond going belly-up because an algae bloom has screwed the food chain and the food chain being screwed by paperwork, legislation, and idiots with rifles? Are we seeking an application somewhere "above" humanity? To include the stars in the sky and the scarcity of magma in dormant volcanoes? What is the difference between a scarcity imposed by an inability to procure food and a decision to not distribute food?

Is recognition of economic methods a tool for human advancement and life, or is it, essentially, God, the ultimate cause?

And yet in response to various considerations of these issues, I get unfounded nitpicking about the use of verbs? Claims that the idea of "resource creation" is irrelevant to scarcity? Or the notion that Wes doesn't want to think about it, therefore it's not a legitimate part of the discussion? Insistence that the subjective value of things establishes the objective truth of scarcity?

I think you'll find the issue of the myth of scarcity not nearly as contentious as this debate has been, regardless of what you decide. And at the core of the idea is, quite simply, the difference between the idea that things are how they are, or that things are how they must be.

hypewaders

04-15-04, 11:44 PM

Was that the Executive Summary?

wesmorris

04-16-04, 01:11 AM

Insistence that the subjective value of things establishes the objective truth of scarcity?

The subjectivity of value doesn't much effect that it takes some amount time and consideration of space to move an object from A to B. If there is value, scarcity is true... PERIOD. Value creates demand. Demand is dependent on supply. Blah blah. Frame it however you want, it's still "studying the distribution of resources", which means you have to move shit from one place to another. Time and physical constraints are direct logical consequences. I call that idea "scarcity". Basically, "if you want some stuff to be somewhere at a time, you might have to plan some stuff for it to happen" or much more simply stated "resources are scarce". If you don't like the semantics, feel free to offer a better word. Okay how about "time constraints". Set your English to Pee See translation device such that when you see me type the word scarcity in the context of economics, you should hear "time constraints" or whatever.

I have no idea what Utopia it is you think you can create with your politics, but I do know that no matter what the result, no matter what the system implemented to attain it, it's still subject to the idea of scarcity as I've just defined it. Of course if you were a clever designer, you might be able to automate a number of your processes such that there is the illusion that supply and demand don't exist... but that doesn't mean they don't.

I'd think if you were anywhere near as intelligent as you consistently claim you are, you'd be able to see that pretty easily and this confrontation wouldn't have been inevitable.

On a theoretical note I might think that a system of diverse value is much stronger(on second thought I'm sure that would depend significantly on boundary conditions), than a system of uniform value, as if you remove the base of diversity in value, you would remove the driving force in improving efficiency (like the theoreticaly monopoly out of control in the long run))

It seems to me that you simply refuse to understand what someone says, in favor of what you insist that they say, even if they insist that what you are saying they're saying isn't what they're saying.

Yet you criticize the reading comprehension of other people?

And with a nice smirk...

Perhaps it's your lacking reading comprehension? No? Hehe. Oh I see... it's everyone who isn't you. It seems so unlikely to me that I keep forgetting that you insist it's true.

gendanken

04-18-04, 06:31 PM

Hype:
The response to my strenuous insight is an all-annihilating black hole. I feel like Dubya at a press conference.
Nope. Cheer up little one, I read it but had nothing as insighful to reply with. Economics is a touchy subject with me.

No one should be made to feel like Dumbass-Dubya. No One.

Tess:
Thread's done died but I feel I owe at least a reply-

Is necessity the Mother of Invention, or is desire?
A hybrid of both. Yet notice that those sired by necessity are not only timeless but tend to morph themsleves into keystones.

As an analogy: regardless of what you or I might think of the notions of God or "God's will," disbelief (such as it may be) does not change the fact that some hoser somewhere just strapped some dynamite to his chest or picked up a rifle: God is great.

Godamn have you got a way with making metaphors look like visual guano. Something like being in a hurricane, one reads them and gets lost in your references.

What made the resource scarce, especially in the gas crisis, was not nature itself, but human choices. And rather silly ones, at that
And here you have a point, something I've learned in this thread.

Choices, read:
The predictions were emotional and political reactions. A few years earlier, oil explorers
discovered enormous new oil provinces on the North Slope of Alaska and below the
North Sea off the coast of Europe. Experts estimated in 1973 that the world had
consumed only about one eighth of the readily accessible crude oil. The five Middle
Eastern members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were
able to hike prices not because oil was growing scarce but because they had managed to
corner 36 percent of the market. Later, when demand sagged and the flow of fresh
Alaskan and North Sea oil weakened OPEC’s economic stranglehold, prices collapsed.

It gnaws the shit out of me that you have a point, still does, but fair is fair. I actually understand you, fancy that. Tiassa of all people.

But this does not a political argument make. What is the difference between the scarcity of air as a result of the necessity of breathing and the scarcity of grain as a result of something like the North Korean regime?
Methodology, human corruption, ignorance and bad politics.

Loyalty to things having to be one way and not the other.

Don't we have to be alive in the first place in order to have an applicable economy, and not just be part of an abstract one?
If you are saying an economy exists outside of abstracts, like duh.

Of course, I feel what you are pointing to here is the corruption in our models mimicking what seems to be law as soon as there are needless concepts and loopholes that one uses in order for it- as in system- to function.

As in poverty being some kind of necessity.

The natural economy goes on almost flawelessly- timelessly- for billions and billions of years with all organisms living fairly comfortably (double adverb).
Yet as soon as we find a human model there are oil shortages because of depleted sources? No. Spoiled goods? No. Scarcity? No.

Oil shortages because of a dethroned Sha, political turmoil, and an Arabian embargo. A shortage- a crisis- as a response to human insecurity in a belief, a system, a politic. All of it emotional.

And yes, you're on a huge part of what shows the myth of scarcity. A friend of mine is pursuing some interdisciplinary environmental sciences degree, and just did a section on organic farming in Cuba; I'm quite happy to see you mention it. Part of what happens when people are happy is that arbitrary demand decreases. It's not the fastest for the technical evolution of society, but it does lend against the myth that the land can't support us.

Yes, Cuba was the catalyst. It was my hearing about it on some documentary that reavealed to me what you were getting at.

Now I have Cuba to blame for making it look like we've actually........aggreed on someting. Yikes.

Lastly:
Yes, need invoked by another's choice.

Whatever the fuck you mean by my lung's need for air as being a need invoked by another's choice is beyond me.

Tiassa

04-18-04, 11:25 PM

Whatever the fuck you mean by my lung's need for air as being a need invoked by another's choice is beyond me.I do stand corrected; I did read your passage wrongly. The breath you waste trying to strangle me is your own loss. And your own choice.

Look ... some can choose to have a problem with differentiation in the Universe, but I'm a monist and I don't, so I'm having a hard time figuring out what the problem actually is. I mean, technically, I'm the one that's supposed to have problems with differentiation.

I'm not even relying on the inability of a human being to demonstrate that reality is not an illusion as the foundation of my argument. Only if we wish to nitpick scarcity to such a point.

I'm all for the potential metaphoric applications of "economy," such as economizing one's movement or conduct, but is it really applicable to start counting up all your cells and trying to figure out what they're doing?

Seriously - scarcity is the microwave pizza being in the freezer and not appearing instantly in one's bloodstream? Scarcity is the necessity of differentiation? Guess what? Those things are all choices, too. Nobody says you have to eat. Nobody says you have to continue breathing. Nobody makes you the victim but yourself.

Two levels of scarcity:

• "Political" or applicable: If N people need 10n worth of a resource per capita, and circumsances make available 100n units, the resource will still be managed and distributed so that only, (x)N is available, and (x) will necessarily be less than 10. This is the problem with scarcity and demand in the sense that "supply must always trail demand."

• Abstract: Scarcity is the existential condition. Everything is scarce always.

There's a thousand other degrees, but the one is obviously too narrow for the intended discussion according to our topic poster, while the other defies any real applicability.

(How long can this discussion go on before it's even ready to argue whether or not human nature can be presupposed to bear this or that consistency of behavior?)

In order to devise a theory that is generally applicable regardless of circumstances, how does one account for the seeming dualistic opposition of the constant and the variable, or the rational and the irrational?

Apparently by trying to pretend that everything is constant or rational. Which, of course, means that rationality and consistency are ... scarce. But that's not an essential part of the discussion by any means.

gendanken

04-19-04, 10:00 PM

Gonna milk this baby down to a scarcity in its bloodsupply, are we?
Damnit. Look:

Ever factor yourself into why it is people don't get you? Thought I had you but lo behold

Seriously - scarcity is the microwave pizza being in the freezer and not appearing instantly in one's bloodstream? Scarcity is the necessity of differentiation? Guess what? Those things are all choices, too. Nobody says you have to eat. Nobody says you have to continue breathing. Nobody makes you the victim but yourself.

You post this shit.

Metaphorically speaking: are you saying that the other camp is insisting on counting all the body cells in deducing a workable system to describe it?

In order to devise a theory that is generally applicable regardless of circumstances, how does one account for the seeming dualistic opposition of the constant and the variable, or the rational and the irrational?

That is why no system lacks flaws.

All systems attractive only in their comaprison with others- Democratic vs. Socialist, Checks and balances vs. Theocracy, relativism vs. absolutism, all the isms in the bible but NONE are inherently perfect.

They have flaws. Who is saying any system exists to deal with opposing dualities......... regardless? They exist to deal with them in spite of, some better than others.

Is this what you mean by Wesmorris' mention of 'isness'?
You, sir, are sin awful with metaphors.

15ofthe19

04-19-04, 10:31 PM

Having a busy schedule with many daily obligations makes one acutely aware of the scarcity of time. No matter how early I get up in the morning, or how late I stay up at night, I simply can't find a way to fit more than 24 hours into a day. I've grunted, screamed, growled, and whined, but no matter what I do, the sun still comes up at a predictable time and sets at a predictable time. I don't get it? There are days where I really need 28-30 hours to fit everything I want to do into the day, but it never works.

So with that being said, I am still trying to wrap my brain around this notion that my scarcity of time is a myth. I really wish I could believe in that notion. I got to work at 8:28AM today and didn't leave my desk until 5:36PM. I ate my sandwich while I entered some sales orders. Shit, I never even went to the can, and I had three diet Dr. Peppers. But even so, I still didn't get all of my calls returned. What the fuck happened? Where is my extra time? I want my extra time dammit. I've got deadlines. :confused:

It occurs to me that this mythical proposition is something hatched and dispersed by those that simply have no experiential foundation in the ways of the market.

gendanken

04-19-04, 11:57 PM

15 blah:
It occurs to me that this mythical proposition is something hatched and dispersed by those that simply have no experiential foundation in the ways of the market.
Why don't just stop being a cunty little asshole?

You will never grasp what an Other is saying simply becuase you are far too entrenched in your own thinking, your own motive, your own model where clearly you have no incentive in even thinking the Other person has a point when you are so far up your own colon you're mumbling.

What does Tessie even mean by scarcity? Do you know? Have you a clue? Or are you too busy getting cutthroat over the word 'mythical' like I was when first entereing? Too busy getting personal? Vindictive, maybe? Perhaps too focused on being a schoolteacher?

Have you heard of Cuba?
Do you know what is meant by emotional politics?
Bad choices?

No? Then sit the fuck back and read the whole thread instead of polluting it with your plebian sarcasm.

gendanken

04-20-04, 12:20 AM

Courtesty of our lovely friend, el Quincenero:

"I read your latest rant on the anthropic thread. Here's the rub...I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. You may nave that ability, much like myself, to be so sarcastic and so obscure as to be perceived as obtuse.

Nevertheless, thanks for responding, and I hope you're having a great Monday night.

I'm starting to think that I might enjoy your rants as much as any one poster on this forum. You make me laugh my ass off, and that can't be a bad thing now can it?

Rizzle. "- 15of19

Wassamatta, monsiuer? I'm as serious as cyanide here yet you'd rather deal with it.............in private?

Gasp! Not afraid of little girls are you?

Tiassa

04-20-04, 01:33 AM

You post this shit. That "shit" is defined by the topic.

So ... just to be clear about that:

• "Seriously - scarcity is the microwave pizza being in the freezer and not appearing instantly in one's bloodstream? Scarcity is the necessity of differentiation? Guess what? Those things are all choices, too. Nobody says you have to eat. Nobody says you have to continue breathing. Nobody makes you the victim but yourself." (Tiassa)

This is a reference to an earlier post of Wes', in which he wrote:
• If you're actually addressing it in the terms I've mentioned, how do you propose that you pretend that it takes no time to produce a soy patty? Do you think that pretending that you have infinite of them increases the accuracy of your model somehow? Do you not pay attention to your surroudings to that degree? If I need to make a steak, but it takes fifteen minutes - I can't make it in ten. Dig? If I need air to survive and I don't have any, I die. It is an observation, not a presumption. I state it forthright because it's power is IMO, a facet of the anthropic principle. perhaps preceding it. Perhaps the anthropic principle is the first corollary of scarcity (per my definition).(Boldfaced accent by me.)

And that reference is tied onto the prior paragraph:

• "I'm all for the potential metaphoric applications of "economy," such as economizing one's movement or conduct, but is it really applicable to start counting up all your cells and trying to figure out what they're doing?"

Which, of course, brings us to the obvious point:Metaphorically speaking: are you saying that the other camp is insisting on counting all the body cells in deducing a workable system to describe it? That's pretty much the problem.

Let us revisit an earlier post of Wes':

• "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."

(Boldfaced accent by me.)

What is a "generalized model" of economics that is "applicable regardless of the details"?

Economic relationships exist on a fundamental level in nature. But here's the catch: they're irrelevant to their subjects. A shark understands food/not-food. It does not understand compound interest on a savings account, nor why saving money is bad for "the economy."

Likewise, a dormant volcano suffers a "scarcity" of magma. A star maintains a delicate balance of natural elements and processes; binary systems sometimes result in the dramatic "consumption" of one star by the other. Planets emerged from a distribution of resources that could, in theory, be quantified economically.

None of it matters. A star is. When it runs out of fuel, it will undergo various processes and cease to be. If a tree falls in the forest, who cares?

So there might be a difference between an arrangement of matter which seems to follow rational processes and one which seems to not.

If a star runs out of fuel, it ceases to be. If a living organism runs out of fuel, it dies. Stars do not hop about their environment collecting new resources, do not exhibit what we consider deliberate behavior. It seems to be reasonable to start accounting for certain acceptable (arguable, tenable) presuppositions.

A slightly different circumstance than, "In any model of a system, you can make assumptions as you see fit."

And while Wes does concede that one hopes to be realistic in those assumptions, that's part of the underlying issue from my first post in this topic.

I question the viability of the assumptions for the reasons outlined from the outset; this, I'm told, is irrelevant to the theoretic model built from those assumptions.

The insistence on counting cells is a reflection on the degree to which the presumption of scarcity according to such an abstract standard is inapplicable. Everything becomes a resource, and in the end we pick an arbitrary (?!) point at which we say, "Okay, this is where the model becomes relevant to us."

Time is a resource, you are a resource--your thoughts and efforts; food, water, air, heat or elemental response. Some of these, obviously, are resources. And yes, we can, if we choose, nitpick differentiation. But coming round the mark, how does that degree of economic study apply to observable reality? Regardless of the circumstances?

What is the cost of a bowel movement? How do you represent it? Well, there's the time spent manufacturing and distributing it (labor), the food to produce it (materials), and the body to exploit the material resource (utilization technology). Additionally, there's the cost of running water, if you have it; of toilet paper, if you have it; and also any sewage fees or septic tank maintenance you might eventually encounter.

What is the overhead on one bowel movement?

And at what point do we say, "Counting our sh@ts so precisely is just a little anal-retentive"?

Yes, it requires air to breathe. The only resource that's scarce, then, is will. Air isn't scarce because you have to breathe; it's scarce when it's polluted or absent.

Applicable regardless of the circumstances? How do we apply the idea to the economy of oxygen distribution when air is truly scarce--e.g. should one choose to scuba, or go out and mine the asteroid belt?

I feel I'm "out in the galaxy," still, insofar as these potential applications are concerned. But ... regardless of the circumstance?Is this what you mean by Wesmorris' mention of 'isness'?I wanted to comment, also, that "no system lacks flaws" reflects a universal scarcity of a fundamental resource: "perfection."

That aside, I'm unsure how to respond to your take on "isness." My only direct reference to it was circumstantial, part of discussing the topic post, but the existentialist aspect is another of those underlying themes, the subtle current beneath the eddies.

A not entirely irrelevant tangent:

• "They exist to deal with them in spite of, some better than others."

I just wanted to artificially isolate this statement and turn it for consideration vis à vis a consideration that does, admittedly, reek of politics:

• Does "economy" (or recognition thereof) exist as a tool to assist humanity in dealing with its existence and progress as a species, or does humanity exist subservient to "economy"?

I stand firmly with the former: there is utility in identifying economic trends and schemes. But we must bear in mind certain considerations about the "way things are" (see my first response to this topic), otherwise we fall victim to the notion that what we see is all that can possibly be.

And, as microscopes put an end--well, mostly--to talk of demons and disease, so, too, should the idea of "resource creation" at least cause a re-evaluation of the notion of fixed resource and fixed wealth quantities. Talk of resource creation has been around for three centuries or so; sure I can't pull a new tree out of my ass instantaneously, but just as technology itself can increase resource potential not by finding new resource stocks per se (although that is a big part of technology, too ... it's a long long way from divining rods), but also in extraction and utilization. And the relationship between resource and its actual use ... at this point, I think we'd be running in circles if I went on.

Everything that is is. But at some point examining the model will be inefficient because of the necessary resources for examination. Analogously, would you spend a million dollars to get two-million dollars worth of gold out of the ground? Would you spend a million for a billion? (In theory, of course. You may have little care for gold or the money that can be had by its possession and sale. Something about "subjective value" goes here, but I'm not sure what.) And if we put down a theory that nitpicks differentiation, I think we're treading into inapplicability due to the resource prerequisites of devising and examining the model.

It's like looking at some of the Christians you may or may not know and wondering, as some might cause you to wonder, "If it's your soul on the line, how do you not have time to know what you're talking about?"

Or the voter. If it's your money, or your child's education, or your job security on the line, shouldn't you at least have a clue what's going on before you go into the ballot box?

And look at the communicative economy of an election cycle: it's a bad investment insofar as many words and much effort bring little return. The political handlers have figured out how to fill up that demand for information, how to satiate it with gruel instead of steak or, as some might prefer, a grilled portabella cap. Many voters haven't the time to study fifty years' worth of history just to figure out the candidate is lying. Many haven't the will. Or the resolve. Or ... anyway, this isn't actually about politics. Politics just serves as a nice example.

However, instead of a narrow view of an information overdose, our current discussion seems to be hung up on how broadly we might view, well, scarce information. (Normally, I would use something like "scant," but ... hey ... y'know?)

We run into a problem of efficiency because the model is so far-removed from the applicable reality that it's a hell of a leap back in order to establish the context of the particular against the broader vista of the general.You, sir, are sin awful with metaphors Don't take this wrongly, but I try. Comfortable metaphors slip right by people. At least they seem to. And I know they can go right by me if I don't stop and dwell on them anyway. I suppose it has something to do with the comfort of the pre-judgments (I choose that term specifically) of any given situation we draw from experience.

But yes, I know.

Tiassa

04-20-04, 01:44 AM

It occurs to me that this mythical proposition is something hatched and dispersed by those that simply have no experiential foundation in the ways of the market.I haven't dragged this one out because it's a small part of a lot of reading that I have yet to finish. But I thought you might like it.

But be warned, you may not like it. In addition to addressing such issues as--

Let us now take the concept of "scarcity" and try to explicate it.

--it also involves some thoughts along the lines of--

Let us now recall what is normally understood by "definition" in the logical sense.

Just ... it's just a heads-up before you go diving into it.

The whole thing is available here (http://claudiogutierrez.com/E&E.html#escasez), but the specific chapter I'm reading from in this post is here (http://claudiogutierrez.com/E&E_Xb.html).

Oh ... and what's this about the ways of the market? You might want to check in on Wes' castigation of such narrow applications; he's working with an idea for a model that should be applicable regardless of the circumstances.

And the marketplace? Well ... remember when I asked you, "And if the present context is itself a myth?"

wesmorris

04-20-04, 10:16 AM

With a star or a shark, there exists no demand.

Your assertions about scarcity are political bastardizations of the simple truth that, once demand exists, time is a constraint that could kill you.

Humans demand not to die from starvation or exposure(for the most part).

Hence, time constraints are serious.

That doesn't at all imply jack shit about any of your thus far irrelevent points. Your argument does not at all effect the boundary conditions of the system.

If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system. I think you'll fail, as time contraints can/will always kill people if not taken seriously.

Sure, demand is choice. You can separate it into types of choices like 'gotta have it to live' and 'superfluous' and whatever else... but it doesn't really change the fucking fact that if demand exists, time/space constraints (scarcity) are applicable. They may be negligible, they may kill you. It depends eh?

Regardless, determinations as to "which choices are valid" are wholly political. As such, your pages and pages of diatribe is plainly irrelevent - and I mean very plainly.

Of course a large point of contention with you is that I simply fucking cannot stand you for a number of reasons that I've already beat to death.

That does not however change the fact that you are simply way off and you don't understand this very well or something. If demand exists -> scarcity. Choices, in the context you insist is relevant (which is of course, your goddamned runaway threadjack, but it's amusing how much you'll type in irrelevance) are mostly "how do we deal with scarcity" or "should we allow this demand"? If you don't allow the demand, then the scarcity of the resource disappears. How complicated.

Can you see how that in no way invalidates the idea of scarcity? I think maybe you can, but refuse to admit it.

Of course if there is no demand, there is no scarcity.

Would you like to argue that demand doesn't exist?

Do you have a better model? "Supply and demand" is beautiful due to simplicity. I have a difficult time envisioning how any system you could formulate couldn't be reduced back to supply and demand, but shit maybe I'm just not thinking creatively enough. It seems though that even if you create some other model, it is inherently constrained by time, thus.. no matter what model you set up (unless you can transcend space and time and get food there somehow, or pull a jim jones where everyone decides to permanently abandon demand), scarcity is fundamental to it.

So yeah, the simple model I've set up so far is applicable regardless of circumstance as of this point. You have made ONE, count it, ONE point that is correct and relevant so far, and that is the bit about the cells and adding them up blah blah. This is in a sense what I've discussed, but your point is really spun. This is about identifying that the body has cells and how those cells behave.

As I mentioned in the opening post however, it could be that I'm just stating the obvious. I'm not sure I've heard it put quite the way I have, and this is also how it all fits in to my overall philosophy... so... I posted it. *shrug*

15ofthe19

04-20-04, 11:59 PM

I for one am eagerly awaiting the unveiling of this entirely new paradigm shift into a system where the laws of supply and demand are negated. It certainly bodes well for remedying my tendency to bemoan the fact that some of the best material things in life can be cost prohibitive for all but the richest of the rich(Damned Rich People....we hates the preciouzzzzzzzz). Under the new system I will finally get that house on Lanai that I've been hankering for, and the best part: It wont cost me anymore than my old brick rancher in lowly ktown. That's going to be sweet.

On a lighter note, Fluffy Bunny, if you aren't mature enough to handle getting a PM from me without parading it around like an 8 year old arrogantly shoving her new toy in the faces of the less fortunate kids then I will be forced to cut you off. Try and show some modesty in the future. ;) I'd hate to see you fall into the Xev file at the bottom of the wastebasket.

wesmorris

04-22-04, 01:35 AM

One of the brightest people I know personally and haven't seen in years said something to me tonight that made me think of this thread. He generally leans left but is a pretty independent thinker and we were in a borderline discussion of politics/economicsishness. I was explaining my thoughts on the notion of lacking accountability in society and gave him a big schpeal about it which he, being intellectually honest (or to be fair, perhaps it was that he was a little buzzed and sleepy), agreed with.

He looked introspective for a second and said "You know what? I just hate people for what they want."

I thought that impressive and again, relevant to this thread.

Tiassa

04-22-04, 06:42 PM

A request for clarification from Wesmorris and 15ofthe19

To quote each of you:

• Wesmorris: "If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system."

• 15ofthe19: "I for one am eagerly awaiting the unveiling of this entirely new paradigm shift into a system where the laws of supply and demand are negated."

Now then . . . Would either of you like to please answer a simple question of what the one has to do with the other?

Neither of you has established that accounting for the difference between necessity and desire within the generalized notion of demand equals negation or revocation of "supply and demand."

Wes - I would invite yo to go back to your post which opens with a quote from 15, a quote from me, and then your commentary, "Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss the fundamentals of economics."

Therein you'll find your first claims of impertinence. However, if you check closely, you'll find that you are being impertinent by taking my discussion with 15ofthe19 regarding economic viability in the present context and attempting to wrangle that minor but metaphysical complication into a platform from which you might advance your broader point. Of course, I reminded you of this a while ago: "No, as I read the topic, you inserted your own context into a discussion I was having that might well have eventually resolved these issues."

Additionally, Wes, I remind you that I long ago made the note about applicability and posted my apologies for my prior error.

And yet, this is what you come up with? "If you want to create a new system . . . "? Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.

15ofthe19 - I would invite you to consider the wisdom of letting Wes set your course.

Think for yourself, man.

———————————————

• "Presuming that supply must trail demand is a huge problem. Sure, I'm among a circle of people who joke that we wouldn't survive without our computers and high-speed connections, but the scarcity of my computer depends on my desire . Making this scarcity, dependent on extraneous desires, so central to the economic function means that other, more necessary resources will be disrupted in their implementation."

• "At the abstract degree you're working in, demand is a choice. Resources are exchanged and utilized throughout the Universe; the only difference between a binary star system and a human association is the façade of will."

• "The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is . . . subjective; that is, humans decide for reasons rational and irrational (largely irrational) what the value of something is. That value can make something seem scarce no matter how much there is. The scarcity seen in the resource becomes a product of our own minds. I figured 'scarcity is a myth' to be a bit more workable an idea than, 'scarcity is a delusion.'"

• "Economics doesn't speak of scarcity related to necessity, but rather related to some amorphous vanity."

• ". . . this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire."

• "The scarcity of your or my Porsche should not be resolved by making food scarce for others."

• "The scarcity of having to breathe (e.g. necessity) and the scarcity of my testicles for you to kick (e.g. desire) are lumped together in considerations of supply necessarily trailing demand."

• "The value of things, when necessity remains unaccounted, is as mythical as anything else, and that's one of the things that sets scarcity to hiding religiously behind a wall of orthodoxy."

———————————————

At any rate, I just wanted to review what you seem to have missed the first time around.

It does occur to me to wonder whether you simply don't understand what you're reading, or whether you're just ignoring it in the first place and seeking to be obnoxious prigs.

Please state the case that accounting for necessity within demand equals an attempt to negate or revoke the laws of supply and demand.

Because I don't see how you arrive at that point other than by means of being utterly and completely stupid from the outset. And while you might go to tremendous efforts pretending toward such an end, it would just be easier if you came out of the closet and admitted you're not up to dealing with the issues you've invoked.

:rolleyes:

wesmorris

04-23-04, 12:46 AM

A request for clarification from Wesmorris and 15ofthe19

Why would someone of your station require any sort of clarification? I think it's because you're of nowhere near the station you've convinced yourself you are.

To quote each of you:

• Wesmorris: "If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system."

• 15ofthe19: "I for one am eagerly awaiting the unveiling of this entirely new paradigm shift into a system where the laws of supply and demand are negated."

Now then . . . Would either of you like to please answer a simple question of what the one has to do with the other?

Well, I didn't write what he said, but I can infer because of my significant skills with understanding what I read. These comments are not directly related. You have to take my comment out of context to relate it to his. My comment was in the context of prospecting for alternative models for supply and demand. 15's comment was specifically making fun of the fact that you seem to pretend that the constraints of time and space are simply not pertinent. Since you're so convinced that time and space constrains are mythical concerns, well basically he's anxiously awaiting the implementation of your cool new policies that magically circumvent reality.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you're too stupid to understand that for yourself?

Neither of you has established that accounting for the difference between necessity and desire within the generalized notion of demand equals negation or revocation of "supply and demand."
Well I won't speak for 15 but I haven't attempted to establish that relationship. Your innattention to the conversation isn't condusive to conversation, but then again.. I've grown to expect this from you, you sorry fuck.

Try reading it again moron.

I'll spell it out for you I guess, but I'm sure your cunt will rape my words of their intended meaning: I explained how the existence of demand (regardless of there it's via necessity or [/i]desire[/i], directly infers the logical consequence of scarcity. As such, the only means I could see to refute the argument is to reject the existence of demand, or the validity of the concept. You're pissing around bullshitting about choices, all of which lead to demand, which lead to scarcity. Still you don't see your irrelevance.

Wes - I would invite yo to go back to your post which opens with a quote from 15, a quote from me, and then your commentary, "Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss the fundamentals of economics."
An invitation from you is a veiled insult, you fucking liar.

Therein you'll find your first claims of impertinence.
Which, if you were even remotely honest, intelligent or capable of actual communication.. you could understand. Of course lacking these admirable qualities, you cannot help but fail miserably.

However, if you check closely, you'll find that you are being impertinent by taking my discussion with 15ofthe19 regarding economic viability in the present context
And if your cunt weren't so goddamned all-encompassing, you'd see that the the source of my objection is your fucking change of topic. Economic viability in the present context is only remotely related to the fundamentals of economics and wholly irrelevant to your claim that scarcity is mythical. I would think that someone who accepts the responsibility of moderation could at least attempt to stay on topic. I also think that a reasonable person might honestly consider the objection of the topic poster. YOU however, consistently demonstrate yourself as clearly incapable.

and attempting to wrangle that minor but metaphysical complication into a platform from which you might advance your broader point.
Ah, blaming everyone else for your inadequecies is your forte`. You wear it well. If you would like to debate the degree of importance of whichever metaphysical complication you find trivial, do so. Otherwise you're still irrelevant. How shocking. Perhaps if you're going to bitch about some non-existent ploy to advance some sort of rhetoric, you might spell it out eh? Fuckhead.

Of course, I reminded you of this a while ago: "No, as I read the topic, you inserted your own context into a discussion I was having that might well have eventually resolved these issues."
Pardon me for inserting insisting that you stay on topic. If you want to start your own thread, please do so. Hell you're free to do what you want. You want to go off topic, fine. I'm free to call you on it, show your irrelevance blah blah.

Additionally, Wes, I remind you that I long ago made the note about applicability and posted my apologies for my prior error.
Disengenuous dirtbag. Your apology consisted of what? This:

"In the meantime, I owe you an apology, Wes. It is my error that I have not until now realized that you did not wish to discuss an applicable economic theory, but rather one to remain entirely in abstraction."

The problem is that your apology is false. I might have considered it were your premise true. I DO wish to discuss the applicability of the theory, but can't seem to get past your problem with scarcity. It took until a post or two ago for you to have your first relevant point about the issue. I am looking at it from an apparently impractical perspective. Knowing what I know about systems, operations research and linear algebra though, I'm not convinced that this approach is necessarily impractical. I would and have however, agreed that it might not practical or particularly insightful. That is in fact, the intended discussion. As such, your apology, like over 99% of your commentary in this thread, is completely irrelevant. Seemingly, you're quite skilled at missing the point. I'd guess it's your lack of education.. but maybe it's just your fucked up attitude (which also prohibits the possibility of you ever actually getting educated).

And yet, this is what you come up with? "If you want to create a new system . . . "? Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
Man. Such squandered potential in you. It's baffling. It's difficult for me to imagine the sick mess in your twat that yields such obvious nonsense. I'm not paying attention? I probably shouldn't be, but I am.

15ofthe19 - I would invite you to consider the wisdom of letting Wes set your course.

Think for yourself, man.

WHAT A FUCKING PRESUMPTUOUS CUNT YOU ARE YOU FUCK. How in the shit you get off saying shit like that I cannot fathom. It's fucking fascinating though, I'll give you that. Wow. I'll just let 15 defend himself on that I guess, but holy fuck man, you are a sick bitch. You really think I'm "setting his course"? LOL. Perhaps I misunderstand. You're joking right?

• "Presuming that supply must trail demand is a huge problem. Sure, I'm among a circle of people who joke that we wouldn't survive without our computers and high-speed connections, but the scarcity of my computer depends on my desire.
The problem is, that it's not really a presumption. It's stated as such because it's a logical consequence of demand (in any form). For instance: At the current time, there's no way to know exactly how many people exist. You have to know that in order to plan for enough food, water, blah. So even in the most basic case of real need, supply trails demand. You have confused a matter of priority with a problem with a theory.

Making this scarcity, dependent on extraneous desires, so central to the economic function means that other, more necessary resources will be disrupted in their implementation."
It's central because it's real. I gotta feed my family. I'm not sure what's in the coffers at the moment. I have to track it. I have to figure out what I'll need for whatever period of time. The fact is that if you ignore the reality of scarcity you end up doing stupid shit like exhausting the earth's entire resource base. Time and space constraints are central to the idea of distribution. Game over, you're wrong. Oh and so you don't think I'm dodging you I'll say what I said before regarding your point about choice (many of which you consider extraneous):

"Sure, demand is choice. You can separate it into types of choices like 'gotta have it to live' and 'superfluous' and whatever else... but it doesn't really change the fucking fact that if demand exists, time/space constraints (scarcity) are applicable. They may be negligible, they may kill you. It depends eh?

Regardless, determinations as to "which choices are valid" are wholly political. As such, your pages and pages of diatribe is plainly irrelevent - and I mean very plainly."

- though that may be too succinct for you.

• "At the abstract degree you're working in, demand is a choice. Resources are exchanged and utilized throughout the Universe; the only difference between a binary star system and a human association is the façade of will."
It's hard to believe you claim I'm not paying attention. Read this:

"With a star or a shark, there exists no demand.

Your assertions about scarcity are political bastardizations of the simple truth that, once demand exists, time is a constraint that could kill you.

Humans demand not to die from starvation or exposure(for the most part).

Hence, time constraints are serious."

• "The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is . . . subjective; that is, humans decide for reasons rational and irrational (largely irrational) what the value of something is.
Rationality too, is subjective.

That value can make something seem scarce no matter how much there is.
So what? Anything that has value is scarce since if that value induces a demand you end up with scarcity as a result. So I guess if you don't induce a demand based on your value, you've got no scarcity issues. I'd guess however that if people did that, anarchy would reign as we would be basically reduced to animals. I think one of the facets that sets us apart in the animal kingdom is our propensity to value things. I value my computers greatly. I use them to increase the efficiency of business conditions in my little corner of the world. What I value in doing so is of special importance to me, and is valid from my perspective, in that I know what I'm doing in my niche. I would not expect you to value what I do, but I would expect you to see the possibility that my valuing a bigger hard drive for a computer I need to store a bunch of data on could actually increase the probability that someone somewhere else ends up with something to eat tonight, rather than starving. One of the strengths of a diverse, social species is specialization. I can do things that you can't and vice versa. Your responsibilities in part determine what you value. I may value that hard drive and you may think that my value of it is wholly superfluous and unneccessary. However, since each of us might not necessarily agree with the value of the other, it becomes imperative that we are each allowed to seek the satisfaction of our demand... whether or not we can actually attain the supply is in this context, a matter of politics (which is governmental, which is an organization of people in similar predicaments, each with a specialized skill set, things that are valued, etc.) What if you won't get off your ass to plow the field to feed the starving unless I give you a BMW? Should I force you? Isn't that explicit slavery? Ah I see, I should get someone else to do it. What if they suck at it and everyone starves because of it? Ah fuck this is another thread too. There's more to this but I'm spent.

The scarcity seen in the resource becomes a product of our own minds.

What else could it be? Our minds are the only known habitat for value.

The scarcity seen in a resource is a function of its availability, unless you're playing politics.

I figured 'scarcity is a myth' to be a bit more workable an idea than, 'scarcity is a delusion.'"
Too bad both are simply stupid, and that you're the kind of asshole that can't admit when he's been corrected.

• "Economics doesn't speak of scarcity related to necessity, but rather related to some amorphous vanity."
So you see demand as "some amorphous vanity"? It's funny that you understand the subjectivy of value, but then place a subjective value judgement on demand without recognizing having done so. It is this point at which you have just (I assume unintentionally) shown your allegiance to the idea that demand doesn't exist. Maybe it's demand shouldn't exist unless I say so. I bet you didn't see the relevance of my friend's realization either eh? It was directed at you, as you are doing what he does without the benefit of his realization. To be fair, I hate some people for what they want too I suppose.

• ". . . this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire."
Yeah right, I wasn't talking about politics, remember? I'm baffled that you can't see that determining what is necessary and what is desired is a sea of gray. I'm sure that 99% or better would see food as a necessity, but can you not see a valid perspective from which it is not? It kind of depends on what you're trying to achieve eh? One way to curb population growth is through starving people. Palletable to most? Not really, but true? Uhm, well yeah.

• "The scarcity of your or my Porsche should not be resolved by making food scarce for others."
Says your bleeding, dirty cunt. I generally agree with you on that, however, I am in no way convinced that the scarcity of the porche is making food scarce for anyone else. Food is scarce for others because of corruption, because of warlords, because of people who don't fucking care if somone else starves and steals the funds for their food. Of course the wealth of the US certainly plays into the availability of resources in other parts of the world, but then again... well, that's a whole thread in and of itself. Governments are responsible for the welfare of their people. Okay nevermind for now. Start a thread and post a link if you want to discuss that in detail.

And again, the scarcity of my (non-existent) porsche or a starving person wherever, doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the implicit relationship: demand->scarcity. Pretending that it isn't real doesn't make your problem go away, though I realize you insist otherwise.

• "The scarcity of having to breathe (e.g. necessity) and the scarcity of my testicles for you to kick (e.g. desire) are lumped together in considerations of supply necessarily trailing demand."
You have yet to demonstrate how categorizing demand impacts the validity of scarcity. It effects the degree of scarcity of a particular resource, but not that the resource is finite (at any given time) to begin with. Even if you have "free energy" you still have to make sure that the machine to acquire the "free energy" is in working order. If you fail to do so, your resource might become so scarce as not to exist.. eh?

• "The value of things, when necessity remains unaccounted, is as mythical as anything else, and that's one of the things that sets scarcity to hiding religiously behind a wall of orthodoxy."
LOL. Value is as mythical as consciousness. I contend that I exist (and as such, I am aware of myself and thusly conscious). As such, I value things as only I can. That is no myth.

It's funny that you said it yourself: "value is subjective". Yet you can't maintain the consistency required to logically adhere to your assertion? Everyone's value is subjective except yours? If you listed everything that everyone valued at any given time, or over a brief period of time.. do you think that every single list generated would have even one common element? I'm not sure, but I'd bet no. What does that imply? You seem to simply assert your value as superior (your continued assertions that scarcity is a myth is nothing less than a value judgement). Of course you are more than entitled to remain whatever kind of jackass you want to be. I'll do the same.

At any rate, I just wanted to review what you seem to have missed the first time around.
You mean you glossed over every point that has shown directly that you're stupid in favor of your pet theory "I'm king". I admire the pride in a sense, but find it misplaced. Damn the subjectivity of value eh? You'd rather be borg I guess.

It does occur to me to wonder whether you simply don't understand what you're reading, or whether you're just ignoring it in the first place and seeking to be obnoxious prigs.
It's amazing that the possiblity that you might have done exactly what you seem to accuse 15 and I of doing seems to never have crossed your mind. If it did, you failed to make it apparent. It those imaginary tattered banners must be distracting for your sick ass.

Have you noticed the subjective value that I've assigned you? Hehe. I don't totally discount your worth you know. In a sense, you are yang to me. You're entertaining as well, so it's not all bad - just mostly, considering that you basically disgust me and all.

Please state the case that accounting for necessity within demand equals an attempt to negate or revoke the laws of supply and demand.
Perhaps instead of basking in your disgusting, smarmy, unwarrented superiority complex, you could tell me what part about my two prior post you don't understand.

Oh, and since your reading comprehension is uhm, so lacking.. I explained it again within this post.

Because I don't see how you arrive at that point other than by means of being utterly and completely stupid from the outset.
So you're proposing the theory that I'm "intentionally pretending to be stupid"? You're serious? To me, that warrents the theory "this asshole must be unintentionally stupid". It's funny that you'd accuse someone with an obviously superior comprehension of the subject matter to be "pretending to be stupid". Because you probably don't realize it: This is one of the many reasons you are scorned.

And while you might go to tremendous efforts pretending toward such an end
Ah you are privvy to the motivations of all who cross your path eh? You are disgusting. If you were even remotely good at doing so, my opinion would differ. It's funny that you can't see your own problems, even when they are thrust in your face over and over and over. It reminds me how you blame the failure of your relationship with your partner all on her. It takes two to tango dumbass.

, it would just be easier if you came out of the closet and admitted you're not up to dealing with the issues you've invoked.
Oh so my thread was established as a dodge of your argument that didn't as of yet exist to me? I could have sworn I established the thread for the exact reason to deal with the issues it would invoke. I could have sworn that during the thread, I've exacty dealt with the issues I've invoked, and that you have spewed little but politically chareged, hypocritical garbage to refute a point that I didn't suspect was even up for debate. I could have sworn that my efforts thus far in this thread were for the most part (besides just slamming you because of my extreme distaste for you) to demonstrate the flaws in your analysis of scarcity... (and implicite to that effort, why scarcity is a necessary consideration regarding economics). If you could show a valid, reasonable point as to why scarcity should be ignored, or isn't a rational consideration I would be very impressed and yield the point. The fact remains and has been clearly demonstrated though: your analysis is off topic (not to mention, quite muddled and inconsistent).

wesmorris

04-23-04, 01:24 AM

.... try to remember ....

Pretending that it isn't real doesn't make your problem go away, though I realize you insist otherwise.

Tiassa

04-23-04, 02:27 AM

My comment was in the context of prospecting for alternative models for supply and demand. And? What does that have to do with creating a new system without concepts like supply and demand?stupid
sorry fuck
moron
cunt
rape
fucking
cunt
fucking
Fuckhead
dirtbag
fucked
sick
twat
FUCKING
CUNT
FUCK
shit
shit
fucking
holy fuck
sick bitch
shit
ass
Should I force you ?
suck
fuck
I'm spent
asshole
bleeding, dirty cunt
jackass
stupid
you basically disgust me
You are disgusting
dumbass You really should try constructing an argument, Wes. It's funny that you'd accuse someone with an obviously superior comprehension of the subject matter to be "pretending to be stupid". Keep flexing your musclehead, Wes. Stop and think about the fact that you're religiously insisting on an inapplicable definition that you expect to apply under any circumstances. You haven't supported it. You haven't backed it. You've merely wailed like a baby the whole time, run from the myth of scarcity, and hidden yourself behind a misogynistic wall of profanity.

Think about the fact that you find a question of whether or not the presuppositions are valid irrelevant to the theory built from those presuppositions.

Think about the fact that you're raving like a blue-faced preacher on the Sabbath.

Stop posing, Wes. Start thinking.

I mean, I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Rather, you just ran and hid from it like a punk.

Right, Wes. You didn't say what you said. You said something else instead.

We know, we know.

:rolleyes:

wesmorris

04-23-04, 11:18 AM

Now T, I asked very nicely that you stop pretending it isn't happening. Sort of pointless I realize, as you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're simpy incapable.

"run from the myth of scarcity".

LOL.

Idiot.

Tiassa

04-23-04, 04:03 PM

• Pretending that it isn't real doesn't make your problem go away
• I asked very nicely that you stop pretending it isn't happeningWes, you ought to drop the condescension, especially in light of your dishonesty.

After all, the value of things, as you've hammered home, is subjective.

That certainly makes it "real."

Yet you've come full circle to appeal the fact that people exist in the first place in defense of your rejection of necessity.

Show me how air isn't necessary.

Poseur.

thefountainhed

04-23-04, 04:18 PM

In all seriousness, why has this degenerated into a philisphocal debate? One cannot attempt to debunk the definition of set within the set itself. Economics is a science; it is not moral or what have you,

wesmorris

04-23-04, 04:48 PM

And? What does that have to do with creating a new system without concepts like supply and demand?

If you are too stupid to see that this was directly and indirectly addressed in the post in question, it is not my fault.

You really should try constructing an argument, Wes.
I did it and faired pretty well. Sorry you're too stupid to have caught it.

Keep flexing your musclehead, Wes.
I don't have one to flex.

Stop and think about the fact that you're religiously insisting on an inapplicable definition that you expect to apply under any circumstances.
But that's not a fact. I have considered the proposition and found it to be as stupid as the piece of shit who proposed it. That "time and space" are contraints that apply in any distribution scenario is again, not my fault. Further and again, if you were able to show how this isn't true I'd be impressed. That FACT is though, you haven't and apparently can't. Your argument has been refuted and shown as directly irrelevant, muddled and confused and you continue to ignore it. Apparently you have little recourse if you're going to continue to claim that you're right and your "issues" leave you little option but to stick with your mental flatulance.

You haven't supported it. You haven't backed it.
Oh? So since your problems don't allow you to actually comprehend what has been laid out at your feet a thousand times.. I have failed to support it. I supported it over and over and over. Is it because I didn't post a link to someone else's irrelevant essays that you find my argument lacking support? You are despicable you raggedy cunt.

You've merely wailed like a baby the whole time, run from the myth of scarcity, and hidden yourself behind a misogynistic wall of profanity.
It's fascinating that you're so dumb. I haven't wailed at all. I haven't run from anything and the only woman around here that I hate is YOU, you sorry piece of shit. The "mysogynistic profanity" is just for you, asshat. I hope you don't like it, but don't really care either way.

Think about the fact that you find a question of whether or not the presuppositions are valid irrelevant to the theory built from those presuppositions.
It's sad that your lacking depth leaves you with such a shallow analysis. Perhaps you just have to characterize my total anihilation of your argument in such a way to try to hang on to those imaginary tattered banners, such that you have a constant reminder of just how smart you know you are. LOL. You fucking jackass. You see, I have no problem questioning the assumptions. I didn't expect it, but I don't have a problem poking around to see if they're valid. The problem is that you simply ignore anything that counters your opinion. I've demonstrated exactly why you're wrong and you claim I'm.. uhm oh yeah "running from your argument". LOL. You're stupid, geto over yourself fuck off, eat shit. Ack you suck.

Think about the fact that you're raving like a blue-faced preacher on the Sabbath.
Think about the fact that you're a sorry little cunt who can't comprehend what he reads.

Stop posing, Wes. Start thinking.

I see, so thinking that's too far over your head doesn't count? Please demonstrate clearly how I haven't been thinking. Some might contend that my thinking in this regard is clearly superior to yours. I'd be one of them, though only mostly to antagonize you.

I mean, I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.
If you're going to claim that I didn't answer a question, you could at least quote the question.

Rather, you just ran and hid from it like a punk.
Did I? Kind of weird how I broke down every line in your post and reponded to it directly, and you posted the curse words I used, ignored everything else and now accuse me of "running and hiding like a punk". You're fucking pathetic, and I appreciate you putting it on display for all to see. You're a fucking sham.

Right, Wes. You didn't say what you said.
What the fuck are you talking about?

You said something else instead.
I said exactly what I said, I don't know what the fuck your cunt made you hear.

You see, here at sciforums we often quote the material we're criticizing in order to clarify this kind of shit.

We know, we know.
"We" is it now? You're the only one complaining. You mean you and uhm.. the other people in your sorry skull? I'd wish bad things upon you, but a fuckstick with an attitude like yours simply brings it on himself, so I get my wish. That's good stuff.

:rolleyes:

Gawd you're disgusting. It's cool though. A good analogy is like the first time you ever saw a piece of shit with corn in it or something. Disgusting as shit, but goddamn fascinating at the time. Now since you don't actually have anything of substance to say: GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD.

(please note the amusing irony that you fabricated an entire post on the subject "you're running from the point" while exactly running from a number of excellent points made in the post to which you are responding. *smirk* and you still don't see it. do you see how fascinating that is? man that's some corn in some shit right there)

wesmorris

04-23-04, 04:57 PM

Wes, you ought to drop the condescension, especially in light of your dishonesty.

As long as you act like a cunt, you will be treated like one. (Oh and me condescending to you, is merely an attempt to speak in a manner you can relate to, bitch.) As you apparently have little alternative, your course is set. Are you claiming that the text you quoted is indicative of dishonesty? Of so, that is the kind of thing I'd expect from a cunt.. so that must be what you mean. Okay cunt, I mean "I kindly suggested" instead of "asked". Whatever. It's good that you focus on what's important. Dishonest? LOL. Man you're disgusting.

After all, the value of things, as you've hammered home, is subjective.
So you still get that part.. but can you actually apply it? You have yet to demonstrate that you can.

That certainly makes it "real."
Indeed it does.

Yet you've come full circle to appeal the fact that people exist in the first place in defense of your rejection of necessity.
I have never rejected necessity you jackass. Try opening you eyes when you read.

Show me how air isn't necessary.
Okay. If you don't want to live air isn't necessary. If you have a tank of liquid oxygen, air isn't necessary. If you figure out a way to convert empty space into something breathable, air isn't necessary. Blah blah. Fuck you.

Poseur.

You have to be authentic to be able to identify a poser you asshat. If you cannot see that I'm the real deal, you are obviously unqualified to make the call. Of course, you're entitled to your cunt's opinion, but I'll be having none of it you worthless fuck.

wesmorris

04-23-04, 05:02 PM

In all seriousness, why has this degenerated into a philisphocal debate?

Uhm, tiassa claims that "scarcity is a myth". The conversation has been degenerating from there, as he insists that he's correct and that I've been "running from him".

One cannot attempt to debunk the definition of set within the set itself.
I assume you mean that scarcity cannot be debunked within the context of economics. Please correct me if that's incorrect.

Economics is a science; it is not moral or what have you,

Hah. Asshat begs to differ. I can't remember exactly what he said. It was something to the effect of (loosely paraphrasing) "very little of economics is hard science".

Tiassa

04-23-04, 06:14 PM

Wes -

Insisting over and over doesn't count as an argument.

Your misogyny doesn't count as an argument.

Your dishonesty doesn't count as an argument.

For example:

Tiassa: Right, Wes. You didn't say what you said.
Wes: What the fuck are you talking about?

I like how you pretend the words you write have no meaning. Check your own record:

Wesmorris: If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system.
Tiassa: Neither of you has established that accounting for the difference between necessity and desire within the generalized notion of demand equals negation or revocation of "supply and demand."
Wesmorris: Well, I didn't write what he said, but I can infer because of my significant skills with understanding what I read. These comments are not directly related . . . .

You chose to split hairs about whether or not you and 15ofthe19 meant exactly the same thing while running and hiding from the common point, that you both are invoking "new" systems that reject, negate, or operate without "supply and demand."

You didn't write what he said. You certainly didn't write what you said:

Tiassa: Neither of you has established that accounting for the difference between necessity and desire within the generalized notion of demand equals negation or revocation of "supply and demand."
Wesmorris: Well I won't speak for 15 but I haven't attempted to establish that relationship. Your innattention to the conversation isn't condusive to conversation, but then again.. I've grown to expect this from you, you sorry fuck.

See? You bug out again. You haven't attempted to establish that relationship?

That's beside the point. And if you're as smart as you claim to be, you knew that. So how fucking smart are you, Wes, if you're playing dumb in order to run from having a discussion with me, whom you find so damned inferior?

Answer: you're not smart, Wes. Get used to it.

You have attempted to establish the relationship by inventing it and asking me to explain it. From where do you get it? Or are you just too stupid to understand the question?An invitation from you is a veiled insult, you fucking liar.An insult from you is a poor excuse, you coward. Ever see a cigarette butt on the sidewalk after it's rained a couple times and the crows have picked at it and decided it's not worth swallowing? That's what an accusation from you is worth. Especially coming from that obsessive, hateful platform of yours.

Is it that you're unwilling to look at your own argument honestly? Or are you unable? Are you afraid, Wes, or just too damn stupid?

Wes, you wrote the following: If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system.

What I would like to know is where you got such a silly idea, and why you're dragging it into the discussion now?

Is that too hard a question for your intellect to comprehend, Wes?

Why are you inventing sidebars to distract the discussion? Are you afraid to consider the emptiness of your own, "It is because I say so," excuse for an argument?

Answer the question, Wes. It's a simple question: What does the creation of a new system without concepts like supply and demand have to do with anything?

Don't make excuses. Don't hide behind 15ofthe19. Don't run for the hills hating women over your shoulder as you do. Just answer the question if you're at all capable.

I mean, for someone who allegedly hates dealing with me so much, you put an awfully large effort into dragging this discussion out.

Just admit it, Wes. You made a mistake sticking yourself into my discussion with 15ofthe19. Otherwise he could have done all the cussing for you, and you could have carried out your hallelujah meeting with the enthusiastic throngs drawn to lick the wisdom from your very lips.

Look, just answer the question about where you get that stupidity about operating without supply and demand, and then we can move past this latest of your grievous errors and get back to the topic you attempted to establish and have spent most of the time fleeing from as if it was the Devil. (please note the amusing irony that you fabricated an entire post on the subject "you're running from the point" while exactly running from a number of excellent points made in the post to which you are responding. *smirk* and you still don't see it. do you see how fascinating that is? man that's some corn in some shit right there) Please note that we're stuck on this tangent because you're simply afraid to address other issues. Keep smirking. If you're looking for shit, you might check your own drawers right about now.

Have some self-control, man.