15ofthe19 said:
North korea is not a communist country.
The anthropic principle, evolution and economics.
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
North korea is not a communist country.
Hmm ...
Gesundheit.Tiassa said:
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 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:
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.
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":
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:
We have moon rocks.
It's just that getting them is really, really expensive.
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.
Yes, you have misunderstood. You're being a little too exacting. 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. 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, 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.
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--
--calm down, Beavis. Don't make me smack you.wesmorris said:
Last edited:
tiassa said:
Much ass of the grassy persuasion.
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.
It seems obvious to me that quantity isn't the problem. In this facet of the economy I think it mostly logistics and corruption.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Light hearted sarcasm?
How do you reach that conclusion? I don't see that you've addressed it either. Please correct me again if I'm mistaken.
:bugeye:
Perhaps you'll reconsider as that is obviously mistaken.
Certainly.
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.
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.
I said the same thing in my prior post (worded quite differntly) and you didn't quote me. Whassup?
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.
Perhaps.
Yes you're right, but that holds no bearing on the topic at hand.LOL. It is no myth. There are mythical notions about it, but the fact that they are limited is irrefutable.
Sounds like conspiracy theory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe you're right.
Allright then.
I HAVE NO TP!
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.
What? I said for your amusement. Lighten up, Wes.
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:
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.
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:
(2) Are you serious? (See above point; seriously ... you're trying to have this discussion and you don't recognize the name Adam Smith?)Tiassa said:
(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?
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."
No, not at all. I was looking a couple centuries at least too early. Somewhere around the demarcation of the Atlantic.
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.
What natural condition forced us to stop building the rockets to get us there and back?
That "impossibility" is a choice.
Welcome aboard what?
In the meantime ... what's that about an endorsement?
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.
Because it really is as simple as that.
Given your response to Cannan's summary of Adam Smith, I question that judgment. It's a comparative example.
So you say.
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.
I would agree.
The system is already at severe risk; the species is in peril without a paradigm shift.
True. The removal of artificial manipulation of the standard of living will generally be helpful, but it must be undertaken carefully.
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.
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.")
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.
Well, originally because the myth profits someone. But after a while it becomes ingrained, a natural presumption that few question:
I won't say this one's simple. It's simple to say, simple to quote, but it's tough to figure.
A curious condition that can bring us to a natural impasse.
tiassa:
Are you intentionally avoiding the point?
I assert that you are intellectually dishonest as you have now repeatedly ignored the entire premise of my post(s). You didn't notice the following theme:
Why would you ignore this (for instance (and to keep it short and to the point which you keep ignoring))?:
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.
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))?:
wesmorris said:
IMO, the above is simply irrefutable and you completely ignore it in your post.
The concept of scarcity is a recognition of the limitations on the procurement and utilization of resources, and you have ignored that thus far. Address it directly please, or I believe your "natural impasse" has been reached.
Tiassa:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Right. We choose an economic paradigm that demands poverty, that demands "winners and losers" for reasons that, at their roots, depend solely on themselves and a lack of human innovation.
I can't believe I'm having a discussion of economics with people who won't acknowledge Adam Smith. This is a little like having a discussion of Christianity without mentioning the Bible or its contents. A little like discussing American freedom without mentioning the Constitution or what it says. Actually, quite a bit like.
Sorry, it just blows my mind. I mean, if you want, I'll even give you a counterpoint, but it's by Lyndon LaRouche, who considers "Why Adam Smith is Worse Than Karl Marx." It is, of course, one of LaRouche's tantrums, especially by the time you get down to the Clockwork-Orange decay.
If you don't think my repeated citation of the idea that scarcity is a presumption, that it is artificial, relevant enough to the assertion that scarcity is a myth to respond to, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Are you intentionally 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--
--and then reiterate your point--
I refer you to Roget's II: The New Thesaurus:
At any rate ....(Roget's II: implement) said:
(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:
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 refer you again to the Cannan summary, or else Smith's Wealth of Nations itself regarding natural and artificial impediments.Tiassa said:
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 ....
I consider this downright disrespectful, Wes.
What about using classic economic theory (e.g. Cannan summary of Smith) and citations from economics textbooks to argue that the limitations on procurement and utilization of resources are artificial equals ignoring your point?
So, what's up, Wes? Why are you being so damn rude?
I 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.
Last edited:
So you say. That and a buck fifty still won't get you a latte. You haven't done much to show that error.
And as I have argued, from econ textbook citations to Adam Smith himself, is that the limitations on resources are artificial.
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.
Ultimately limiting compared to what? An objective need? Hardly. A subjective desire? Yes.
Why would you think I'm talking politics, Wes?
You keep saying things like that while failing to address my points that refute your point.
Keep whining, Wes. The record is clear.
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.
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.
Last edited:
tiassa said:
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 could possibly produce 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)
As artificial as 2 + 2 = 4.
Last edited:
Tiassa,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 in economics is a bit like god in religion that way, isn't it?
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.
And that scarcity is chosen. Just because people adhere to a myth doesn't mean it's not a myth.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.tiassa said:
Sufficiency would be inferred from a the calculations in the formula I spelled out above.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
You keep bringing morality into a suggestion where it does not belong; it is absurd.
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.
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.
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.
This is absurd. The destiny of man is an unknown. We could have simply come out of the ocean or trees to sightsee.
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.
No. The assumption is that man can acquire all the resources he may need . Until that eventual is reached, resources are scarce.
Last edited:
guthrie said:
I'm not sure what you mean so I don't know.
No it is correct regardless of the time period in question.
Who is we? I have been talking about it since tiassa first introduced the notion that scarcity is mythical.
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.