The anthropic principle, evolution and economics.

[Tiassa]

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]

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]

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]

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, tiassa

And 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, [b}Wes[/b], 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 it

Now, 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:

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]

• 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]

Honestly this makes me think you are completely insane and have no real understanding at all about how goods are produced

Look, 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.

 

[wesmorris]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Tiss,
A response to my post?

 

[Tiassa]

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]

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]

Sounds like a religion to me.

 

[wesmorris]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Tiassa]

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]

"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.