Hey there, that's a huge job you've done here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I transferred the thread to Word, read it and searched it, and it just itches me to say this, even though I'm a linguist and know next to nothing about economics: I think the whole issue of scarcity being a myth is due to this kind of thinking: There are things that we consider resources. A fact of reality is, that we cannot measure how much of resources is there altogether. We don't know how much petroleum is still there, neither how much iron ore, nor can we be sure about the amount of rice produced this year. If we cannot know how much of it is out there, we can neither say that there is plenty, not that there is little. In this sense, scarcity IS a myth. How scarce something is, according to this line of thinking, depends on knowing exactly how much of it is there -- hence the example of the stranded man on an island with military food resources, counting them and calculating that he has enough for 300 years. Only that in this case, it is clear how much of it is there -- while in real world, we don't know. What lead me to think so is this: (highlights by me) However, the point that we don't know how much of it is there and that we therefore cannot say whether there is plenty or little, is not a practical basis for a theory. We cannot build a theory on something we have no hard evidence for. It's like discussing how much brain power we use, when we don't know how much brain power we have -- it's pointless. We can of course also build a theory insisting on scarcity being a myth as presented above. This then produces a lot of sideways though, as some of the fancy misters quoted by tiassa have shown. Anyhow, it breeds out into the most dangerous kind of idealism, IMO. So we have to use an approach that does allow us to say something about things and to measure them somehow, hence the different approach to resources: Just thought I'd drop a note. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!