The anthropic principle, evolution and economics.

[wesmorris]

Insistence that the subjective value of things establishes the objective truth of scarcity?

The subjectivity of value doesn't much effect that it takes some amount time and consideration of space to move an object from A to B. If there is value, scarcity is true... PERIOD. Value creates demand. Demand is dependent on supply. Blah blah. Frame it however you want, it's still "studying the distribution of resources", which means you have to move shit from one place to another. Time and physical constraints are direct logical consequences. I call that idea "scarcity". Basically, "if you want some stuff to be somewhere at a time, you might have to plan some stuff for it to happen" or much more simply stated "resources are scarce". If you don't like the semantics, feel free to offer a better word. Okay how about "time constraints". Set your English to Pee See translation device such that when you see me type the word scarcity in the context of economics, you should hear "time constraints" or whatever.

I have no idea what Utopia it is you think you can create with your politics, but I do know that no matter what the result, no matter what the system implemented to attain it, it's still subject to the idea of scarcity as I've just defined it. Of course if you were a clever designer, you might be able to automate a number of your processes such that there is the illusion that supply and demand don't exist... but that doesn't mean they don't.

I'd think if you were anywhere near as intelligent as you consistently claim you are, you'd be able to see that pretty easily and this confrontation wouldn't have been inevitable.

On a theoretical note I might think that a system of diverse value is much stronger(on second thought I'm sure that would depend significantly on boundary conditions), than a system of uniform value, as if you remove the base of diversity in value, you would remove the driving force in improving efficiency (like the theoreticaly monopoly out of control in the long run))

It seems to me that you simply refuse to understand what someone says, in favor of what you insist that they say, even if they insist that what you are saying they're saying isn't what they're saying.

Yet you criticize the reading comprehension of other people?

And with a nice smirk...

Perhaps it's your lacking reading comprehension? No? Hehe. Oh I see... it's everyone who isn't you. It seems so unlikely to me that I keep forgetting that you insist it's true.

 

[gendanken]

Hype:

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

Nope. Cheer up little one, I read it but had nothing as insighful to reply with. Economics is a touchy subject with me.

No one should be made to feel like Dumbass-Dubya. No One.

Tess:
Thread's done died but I feel I owe at least a reply-

Is necessity the Mother of Invention, or is desire?

A hybrid of both. Yet notice that those sired by necessity are not only timeless but tend to morph themsleves into keystones.

As an analogy: regardless of what you or I might think of the notions of God or "God's will," disbelief (such as it may be) does not change the fact that some hoser somewhere just strapped some dynamite to his chest or picked up a rifle: God is great.

Godamn have you got a way with making metaphors look like visual guano. Something like being in a hurricane, one reads them and gets lost in your references.

What made the resource scarce, especially in the gas crisis, was not nature itself, but human choices. And rather silly ones, at that

And here you have a point, something I've learned in this thread.

Choices, read:
The predictions were emotional and political reactions. A few years earlier, oil explorers
discovered enormous new oil provinces on the North Slope of Alaska and below the
North Sea off the coast of Europe. Experts estimated in 1973 that the world had
consumed only about one eighth of the readily accessible crude oil. The five Middle
Eastern members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were
able to hike prices not because oil was growing scarce but because they had managed to
corner 36 percent of the market. Later, when demand sagged and the flow of fresh
Alaskan and North Sea oil weakened OPEC’s economic stranglehold, prices collapsed.


It gnaws the shit out of me that you have a point, still does, but fair is fair. I actually understand you, fancy that. Tiassa of all people.

But this does not a political argument make. What is the difference between the scarcity of air as a result of the necessity of breathing and the scarcity of grain as a result of something like the North Korean regime?

Methodology, human corruption, ignorance and bad politics.

Loyalty to things having to be one way and not the other.

Don't we have to be alive in the first place in order to have an applicable economy, and not just be part of an abstract one?

If you are saying an economy exists outside of abstracts, like duh.

Of course, I feel what you are pointing to here is the corruption in our models mimicking what seems to be law as soon as there are needless concepts and loopholes that one uses in order for it- as in system- to function.

As in poverty being some kind of necessity.

The natural economy goes on almost flawelessly- timelessly- for billions and billions of years with all organisms living fairly comfortably (double adverb).
Yet as soon as we find a human model there are oil shortages because of depleted sources? No. Spoiled goods? No. Scarcity? No.

Oil shortages because of a dethroned Sha, political turmoil, and an Arabian embargo. A shortage- a crisis- as a response to human insecurity in a belief, a system, a politic. All of it emotional.

And yes, you're on a huge part of what shows the myth of scarcity. A friend of mine is pursuing some interdisciplinary environmental sciences degree, and just did a section on organic farming in Cuba; I'm quite happy to see you mention it. Part of what happens when people are happy is that arbitrary demand decreases. It's not the fastest for the technical evolution of society, but it does lend against the myth that the land can't support us.

Yes, Cuba was the catalyst. It was my hearing about it on some documentary that reavealed to me what you were getting at.

Now I have Cuba to blame for making it look like we've actually........aggreed on someting. Yikes.

Lastly:

Yes, need invoked by another's choice.

Whatever the fuck you mean by my lung's need for air as being a need invoked by another's choice is beyond me.

 

[Tiassa]

Whatever the fuck you mean by my lung's need for air as being a need invoked by another's choice is beyond me.

I do stand corrected; I did read your passage wrongly. The breath you waste trying to strangle me is your own loss. And your own choice.

Look ... some can choose to have a problem with differentiation in the Universe, but I'm a monist and I don't, so I'm having a hard time figuring out what the problem actually is. I mean, technically, I'm the one that's supposed to have problems with differentiation.

I'm not even relying on the inability of a human being to demonstrate that reality is not an illusion as the foundation of my argument. Only if we wish to nitpick scarcity to such a point.

I'm all for the potential metaphoric applications of "economy," such as economizing one's movement or conduct, but is it really applicable to start counting up all your cells and trying to figure out what they're doing?

Seriously - scarcity is the microwave pizza being in the freezer and not appearing instantly in one's bloodstream? Scarcity is the necessity of differentiation? Guess what? Those things are all choices, too. Nobody says you have to eat. Nobody says you have to continue breathing. Nobody makes you the victim but yourself.

Two levels of scarcity:

• "Political" or applicable: If N people need 10n worth of a resource per capita, and circumsances make available 100n units, the resource will still be managed and distributed so that only, (x)N is available, and (x) will necessarily be less than 10. This is the problem with scarcity and demand in the sense that "supply must always trail demand."

• Abstract: Scarcity is the existential condition. Everything is scarce always.

There's a thousand other degrees, but the one is obviously too narrow for the intended discussion according to our topic poster, while the other defies any real applicability.

(How long can this discussion go on before it's even ready to argue whether or not human nature can be presupposed to bear this or that consistency of behavior?)

In order to devise a theory that is generally applicable regardless of circumstances, how does one account for the seeming dualistic opposition of the constant and the variable, or the rational and the irrational?

Apparently by trying to pretend that everything is constant or rational. Which, of course, means that rationality and consistency are ... scarce. But that's not an essential part of the discussion by any means.

 

[gendanken]

Gonna milk this baby down to a scarcity in its bloodsupply, are we?
Damnit. Look:

Ever factor yourself into why it is people don't get you? Thought I had you but lo behold

Seriously - scarcity is the microwave pizza being in the freezer and not appearing instantly in one's bloodstream? Scarcity is the necessity of differentiation? Guess what? Those things are all choices, too. Nobody says you have to eat. Nobody says you have to continue breathing. Nobody makes you the victim but yourself.

You post this shit.


Metaphorically speaking: are you saying that the other camp is insisting on counting all the body cells in deducing a workable system to describe it?

In order to devise a theory that is generally applicable regardless of circumstances, how does one account for the seeming dualistic opposition of the constant and the variable, or the rational and the irrational?

That is why no system lacks flaws.

All systems attractive only in their comaprison with others- Democratic vs. Socialist, Checks and balances vs. Theocracy, relativism vs. absolutism, all the isms in the bible but NONE are inherently perfect.

They have flaws. Who is saying any system exists to deal with opposing dualities......... regardless? They exist to deal with them in spite of, some better than others.

Is this what you mean by Wesmorris' mention of 'isness'?
You, sir, are sin awful with metaphors.

 

[15ofthe19]

Having a busy schedule with many daily obligations makes one acutely aware of the scarcity of time. No matter how early I get up in the morning, or how late I stay up at night, I simply can't find a way to fit more than 24 hours into a day. I've grunted, screamed, growled, and whined, but no matter what I do, the sun still comes up at a predictable time and sets at a predictable time. I don't get it? There are days where I really need 28-30 hours to fit everything I want to do into the day, but it never works.

So with that being said, I am still trying to wrap my brain around this notion that my scarcity of time is a myth. I really wish I could believe in that notion. I got to work at 8:28AM today and didn't leave my desk until 5:36PM. I ate my sandwich while I entered some sales orders. Shit, I never even went to the can, and I had three diet Dr. Peppers. But even so, I still didn't get all of my calls returned. What the fuck happened? Where is my extra time? I want my extra time dammit. I've got deadlines.

It occurs to me that this mythical proposition is something hatched and dispersed by those that simply have no experiential foundation in the ways of the market.

 

[gendanken]

15 blah:

It occurs to me that this mythical proposition is something hatched and dispersed by those that simply have no experiential foundation in the ways of the market.

Why don't just stop being a cunty little asshole?

You will never grasp what an Other is saying simply becuase you are far too entrenched in your own thinking, your own motive, your own model where clearly you have no incentive in even thinking the Other person has a point when you are so far up your own colon you're mumbling.

What does Tessie even mean by scarcity? Do you know? Have you a clue? Or are you too busy getting cutthroat over the word 'mythical' like I was when first entereing? Too busy getting personal? Vindictive, maybe? Perhaps too focused on being a schoolteacher?

Have you heard of Cuba?
Do you know what is meant by emotional politics?
Bad choices?

No? Then sit the fuck back and read the whole thread instead of polluting it with your plebian sarcasm.

 

[gendanken]

Courtesty of our lovely friend, el Quincenero:


"I read your latest rant on the anthropic thread. Here's the rub...I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. You may nave that ability, much like myself, to be so sarcastic and so obscure as to be perceived as obtuse.

Nevertheless, thanks for responding, and I hope you're having a great Monday night.

I'm starting to think that I might enjoy your rants as much as any one poster on this forum. You make me laugh my ass off, and that can't be a bad thing now can it?

Rizzle. "- 15of19

Wassamatta, monsiuer? I'm as serious as cyanide here yet you'd rather deal with it.............in private?

Gasp! Not afraid of little girls are you?

 

[Tiassa]

You post this shit.

That "shit" is defined by the topic.

So ... just to be clear about that:

• "Seriously - scarcity is the microwave pizza being in the freezer and not appearing instantly in one's bloodstream? Scarcity is the necessity of differentiation? Guess what? Those things are all choices, too. Nobody says you have to eat. Nobody says you have to continue breathing. Nobody makes you the victim but yourself." (Tiassa)

This is a reference to an earlier post of Wes', in which he wrote:

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

(Boldfaced accent by me.)

And that reference is tied onto the prior paragraph:

• "I'm all for the potential metaphoric applications of "economy," such as economizing one's movement or conduct, but is it really applicable to start counting up all your cells and trying to figure out what they're doing?"

Which, of course, brings us to the obvious point:

Metaphorically speaking: are you saying that the other camp is insisting on counting all the body cells in deducing a workable system to describe it?

That's pretty much the problem.

Let us revisit an earlier post of Wes':

• "Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss fundamentals of economics. I think I've come up with a generalized model that is applicable regardless of the details."

(Boldfaced accent by me.)

What is a "generalized model" of economics that is "applicable regardless of the details"?

Economic relationships exist on a fundamental level in nature. But here's the catch: they're irrelevant to their subjects. A shark understands food/not-food. It does not understand compound interest on a savings account, nor why saving money is bad for "the economy."

Likewise, a dormant volcano suffers a "scarcity" of magma. A star maintains a delicate balance of natural elements and processes; binary systems sometimes result in the dramatic "consumption" of one star by the other. Planets emerged from a distribution of resources that could, in theory, be quantified economically.

None of it matters. A star is. When it runs out of fuel, it will undergo various processes and cease to be. If a tree falls in the forest, who cares?

So there might be a difference between an arrangement of matter which seems to follow rational processes and one which seems to not.

If a star runs out of fuel, it ceases to be. If a living organism runs out of fuel, it dies. Stars do not hop about their environment collecting new resources, do not exhibit what we consider deliberate behavior. It seems to be reasonable to start accounting for certain acceptable (arguable, tenable) presuppositions.

A slightly different circumstance than, "In any model of a system, you can make assumptions as you see fit."

And while Wes does concede that one hopes to be realistic in those assumptions, that's part of the underlying issue from my first post in this topic.

I question the viability of the assumptions for the reasons outlined from the outset; this, I'm told, is irrelevant to the theoretic model built from those assumptions.

The insistence on counting cells is a reflection on the degree to which the presumption of scarcity according to such an abstract standard is inapplicable. Everything becomes a resource, and in the end we pick an arbitrary (?!) point at which we say, "Okay, this is where the model becomes relevant to us."

Time is a resource, you are a resource--your thoughts and efforts; food, water, air, heat or elemental response. Some of these, obviously, are resources. And yes, we can, if we choose, nitpick differentiation. But coming round the mark, how does that degree of economic study apply to observable reality? Regardless of the circumstances?

What is the cost of a bowel movement? How do you represent it? Well, there's the time spent manufacturing and distributing it (labor), the food to produce it (materials), and the body to exploit the material resource (utilization technology). Additionally, there's the cost of running water, if you have it; of toilet paper, if you have it; and also any sewage fees or septic tank maintenance you might eventually encounter.

What is the overhead on one bowel movement?

And at what point do we say, "Counting our sh@ts so precisely is just a little anal-retentive"?

Yes, it requires air to breathe. The only resource that's scarce, then, is will. Air isn't scarce because you have to breathe; it's scarce when it's polluted or absent.

Applicable regardless of the circumstances? How do we apply the idea to the economy of oxygen distribution when air is truly scarce--e.g. should one choose to scuba, or go out and mine the asteroid belt?

I feel I'm "out in the galaxy," still, insofar as these potential applications are concerned. But ... regardless of the circumstance?

Is this what you mean by Wesmorris' mention of 'isness'?

I wanted to comment, also, that "no system lacks flaws" reflects a universal scarcity of a fundamental resource: "perfection."

That aside, I'm unsure how to respond to your take on "isness." My only direct reference to it was circumstantial, part of discussing the topic post, but the existentialist aspect is another of those underlying themes, the subtle current beneath the eddies.

A not entirely irrelevant tangent:

• "They exist to deal with them in spite of, some better than others."

I just wanted to artificially isolate this statement and turn it for consideration vis à vis a consideration that does, admittedly, reek of politics:

• Does "economy" (or recognition thereof) exist as a tool to assist humanity in dealing with its existence and progress as a species, or does humanity exist subservient to "economy"?

I stand firmly with the former: there is utility in identifying economic trends and schemes. But we must bear in mind certain considerations about the "way things are" (see my first response to this topic), otherwise we fall victim to the notion that what we see is all that can possibly be.

And, as microscopes put an end--well, mostly--to talk of demons and disease, so, too, should the idea of "resource creation" at least cause a re-evaluation of the notion of fixed resource and fixed wealth quantities. Talk of resource creation has been around for three centuries or so; sure I can't pull a new tree out of my ass instantaneously, but just as technology itself can increase resource potential not by finding new resource stocks per se (although that is a big part of technology, too ... it's a long long way from divining rods), but also in extraction and utilization. And the relationship between resource and its actual use ... at this point, I think we'd be running in circles if I went on.

Everything that is is. But at some point examining the model will be inefficient because of the necessary resources for examination. Analogously, would you spend a million dollars to get two-million dollars worth of gold out of the ground? Would you spend a million for a billion? (In theory, of course. You may have little care for gold or the money that can be had by its possession and sale. Something about "subjective value" goes here, but I'm not sure what.) And if we put down a theory that nitpicks differentiation, I think we're treading into inapplicability due to the resource prerequisites of devising and examining the model.

It's like looking at some of the Christians you may or may not know and wondering, as some might cause you to wonder, "If it's your soul on the line, how do you not have time to know what you're talking about?"

Or the voter. If it's your money, or your child's education, or your job security on the line, shouldn't you at least have a clue what's going on before you go into the ballot box?

And look at the communicative economy of an election cycle: it's a bad investment insofar as many words and much effort bring little return. The political handlers have figured out how to fill up that demand for information, how to satiate it with gruel instead of steak or, as some might prefer, a grilled portabella cap. Many voters haven't the time to study fifty years' worth of history just to figure out the candidate is lying. Many haven't the will. Or the resolve. Or ... anyway, this isn't actually about politics. Politics just serves as a nice example.

However, instead of a narrow view of an information overdose, our current discussion seems to be hung up on how broadly we might view, well, scarce information. (Normally, I would use something like "scant," but ... hey ... y'know?)

We run into a problem of efficiency because the model is so far-removed from the applicable reality that it's a hell of a leap back in order to establish the context of the particular against the broader vista of the general.

You, sir, are sin awful with metaphors

Don't take this wrongly, but I try. Comfortable metaphors slip right by people. At least they seem to. And I know they can go right by me if I don't stop and dwell on them anyway. I suppose it has something to do with the comfort of the pre-judgments (I choose that term specifically) of any given situation we draw from experience.

But yes, I know.

 

[Tiassa]

Tell that to Claudio Guttierez . . . .

It occurs to me that this mythical proposition is something hatched and dispersed by those that simply have no experiential foundation in the ways of the market.

I haven't dragged this one out because it's a small part of a lot of reading that I have yet to finish. But I thought you might like it.

But be warned, you may not like it. In addition to addressing such issues as--

Let us now take the concept of "scarcity" and try to explicate it.​

--it also involves some thoughts along the lines of--

Let us now recall what is normally understood by "definition" in the logical sense.​

Just ... it's just a heads-up before you go diving into it.

The whole thing is available here, but the specific chapter I'm reading from in this post is here.

Oh ... and what's this about the ways of the market? You might want to check in on Wes' castigation of such narrow applications; he's working with an idea for a model that should be applicable regardless of the circumstances.

And the marketplace? Well ... remember when I asked you, "And if the present context is itself a myth?"

 

[wesmorris]

With a star or a shark, there exists no demand.

Your assertions about scarcity are political bastardizations of the simple truth that, once demand exists, time is a constraint that could kill you.

Humans demand not to die from starvation or exposure(for the most part).

Hence, time constraints are serious.

That doesn't at all imply jack shit about any of your thus far irrelevent points. Your argument does not at all effect the boundary conditions of the system.

If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system. I think you'll fail, as time contraints can/will always kill people if not taken seriously.

Sure, demand is choice. You can separate it into types of choices like 'gotta have it to live' and 'superfluous' and whatever else... but it doesn't really change the fucking fact that if demand exists, time/space constraints (scarcity) are applicable. They may be negligible, they may kill you. It depends eh?

Regardless, determinations as to "which choices are valid" are wholly political. As such, your pages and pages of diatribe is plainly irrelevent - and I mean very plainly.

Of course a large point of contention with you is that I simply fucking cannot stand you for a number of reasons that I've already beat to death.

That does not however change the fact that you are simply way off and you don't understand this very well or something. If demand exists -> scarcity. Choices, in the context you insist is relevant (which is of course, your goddamned runaway threadjack, but it's amusing how much you'll type in irrelevance) are mostly "how do we deal with scarcity" or "should we allow this demand"? If you don't allow the demand, then the scarcity of the resource disappears. How complicated.

Can you see how that in no way invalidates the idea of scarcity? I think maybe you can, but refuse to admit it.

Of course if there is no demand, there is no scarcity.

Would you like to argue that demand doesn't exist?

Do you have a better model? "Supply and demand" is beautiful due to simplicity. I have a difficult time envisioning how any system you could formulate couldn't be reduced back to supply and demand, but shit maybe I'm just not thinking creatively enough. It seems though that even if you create some other model, it is inherently constrained by time, thus.. no matter what model you set up (unless you can transcend space and time and get food there somehow, or pull a jim jones where everyone decides to permanently abandon demand), scarcity is fundamental to it.

So yeah, the simple model I've set up so far is applicable regardless of circumstance as of this point. You have made ONE, count it, ONE point that is correct and relevant so far, and that is the bit about the cells and adding them up blah blah. This is in a sense what I've discussed, but your point is really spun. This is about identifying that the body has cells and how those cells behave.

As I mentioned in the opening post however, it could be that I'm just stating the obvious. I'm not sure I've heard it put quite the way I have, and this is also how it all fits in to my overall philosophy... so... I posted it. *shrug*

 

[15ofthe19]

I for one am eagerly awaiting the unveiling of this entirely new paradigm shift into a system where the laws of supply and demand are negated. It certainly bodes well for remedying my tendency to bemoan the fact that some of the best material things in life can be cost prohibitive for all but the richest of the rich(Damned Rich People....we hates the preciouzzzzzzzz). Under the new system I will finally get that house on Lanai that I've been hankering for, and the best part: It wont cost me anymore than my old brick rancher in lowly ktown. That's going to be sweet.

On a lighter note, Fluffy Bunny, if you aren't mature enough to handle getting a PM from me without parading it around like an 8 year old arrogantly shoving her new toy in the faces of the less fortunate kids then I will be forced to cut you off. Try and show some modesty in the future. I'd hate to see you fall into the Xev file at the bottom of the wastebasket.

 

[wesmorris]

One of the brightest people I know personally and haven't seen in years said something to me tonight that made me think of this thread. He generally leans left but is a pretty independent thinker and we were in a borderline discussion of politics/economicsishness. I was explaining my thoughts on the notion of lacking accountability in society and gave him a big schpeal about it which he, being intellectually honest (or to be fair, perhaps it was that he was a little buzzed and sleepy), agreed with.

He looked introspective for a second and said "You know what? I just hate people for what they want."

I thought that impressive and again, relevant to this thread.

 

[Tiassa]

A request for clarification from Wesmorris and 15ofthe19

To quote each of you:

• Wesmorris: "If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system."

• 15ofthe19: "I for one am eagerly awaiting the unveiling of this entirely new paradigm shift into a system where the laws of supply and demand are negated."

Now then . . . Would either of you like to please answer a simple question of what the one has to do with the other?

Neither of you has established that accounting for the difference between necessity and desire within the generalized notion of demand equals negation or revocation of "supply and demand."

Wes - I would invite yo to go back to your post which opens with a quote from 15, a quote from me, and then your commentary, "Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss the fundamentals of economics."

Therein you'll find your first claims of impertinence. However, if you check closely, you'll find that you are being impertinent by taking my discussion with 15ofthe19 regarding economic viability in the present context and attempting to wrangle that minor but metaphysical complication into a platform from which you might advance your broader point. Of course, I reminded you of this a while ago: "No, as I read the topic, you inserted your own context into a discussion I was having that might well have eventually resolved these issues."

Additionally, Wes, I remind you that I long ago made the note about applicability and posted my apologies for my prior error.

And yet, this is what you come up with? "If you want to create a new system . . . "? Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.

15ofthe19 - I would invite you to consider the wisdom of letting Wes set your course.

Think for yourself, man.

———————————————​

• "Presuming that supply must trail demand is a huge problem. Sure, I'm among a circle of people who joke that we wouldn't survive without our computers and high-speed connections, but the scarcity of my computer depends on my desire . Making this scarcity, dependent on extraneous desires, so central to the economic function means that other, more necessary resources will be disrupted in their implementation."

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

• "The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is . . . subjective; that is, humans decide for reasons rational and irrational (largely irrational) what the value of something is. That value can make something seem scarce no matter how much there is. The scarcity seen in the resource becomes a product of our own minds. I figured 'scarcity is a myth' to be a bit more workable an idea than, 'scarcity is a delusion.'"

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

• ". . . this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire."

• "The scarcity of your or my Porsche should not be resolved by making food scarce for others."

• "The scarcity of having to breathe (e.g. necessity) and the scarcity of my testicles for you to kick (e.g. desire) are lumped together in considerations of supply necessarily trailing demand."

• "The value of things, when necessity remains unaccounted, is as mythical as anything else, and that's one of the things that sets scarcity to hiding religiously behind a wall of orthodoxy."

———————————————​

At any rate, I just wanted to review what you seem to have missed the first time around.

It does occur to me to wonder whether you simply don't understand what you're reading, or whether you're just ignoring it in the first place and seeking to be obnoxious prigs.

Please state the case that accounting for necessity within demand equals an attempt to negate or revoke the laws of supply and demand.

Because I don't see how you arrive at that point other than by means of being utterly and completely stupid from the outset. And while you might go to tremendous efforts pretending toward such an end, it would just be easier if you came out of the closet and admitted you're not up to dealing with the issues you've invoked.

 

[wesmorris]

A request for clarification from Wesmorris and 15ofthe19

Why would someone of your station require any sort of clarification? I think it's because you're of nowhere near the station you've convinced yourself you are.

To quote each of you:

• Wesmorris: "If you want to create a new system, (without concepts like supply and demand), plealse do so and then illustrate how time contraints don't matter within your system."

• 15ofthe19: "I for one am eagerly awaiting the unveiling of this entirely new paradigm shift into a system where the laws of supply and demand are negated."

Now then . . . Would either of you like to please answer a simple question of what the one has to do with the other?

Well, I didn't write what he said, but I can infer because of my significant skills with understanding what I read. These comments are not directly related. You have to take my comment out of context to relate it to his. My comment was in the context of prospecting for alternative models for supply and demand. 15's comment was specifically making fun of the fact that you seem to pretend that the constraints of time and space are simply not pertinent. Since you're so convinced that time and space constrains are mythical concerns, well basically he's anxiously awaiting the implementation of your cool new policies that magically circumvent reality.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you're too stupid to understand that for yourself?

Neither of you has established that accounting for the difference between necessity and desire within the generalized notion of demand equals negation or revocation of "supply and demand."

Well I won't speak for 15 but I haven't attempted to establish that relationship. Your innattention to the conversation isn't condusive to conversation, but then again.. I've grown to expect this from you, you sorry fuck.

Try reading it again moron.

I'll spell it out for you I guess, but I'm sure your cunt will rape my words of their intended meaning: I explained how the existence of demand (regardless of there it's via necessity or [/i]desire[/i], directly infers the logical consequence of scarcity. As such, the only means I could see to refute the argument is to reject the existence of demand, or the validity of the concept. You're pissing around bullshitting about choices, all of which lead to demand, which lead to scarcity. Still you don't see your irrelevance.

Wes - I would invite yo to go back to your post which opens with a quote from 15, a quote from me, and then your commentary, "Well, the intent of this thread is to discuss the fundamentals of economics."

An invitation from you is a veiled insult, you fucking liar.

Therein you'll find your first claims of impertinence.

Which, if you were even remotely honest, intelligent or capable of actual communication.. you could understand. Of course lacking these admirable qualities, you cannot help but fail miserably.

However, if you check closely, you'll find that you are being impertinent by taking my discussion with 15ofthe19 regarding economic viability in the present context

And if your cunt weren't so goddamned all-encompassing, you'd see that the the source of my objection is your fucking change of topic. Economic viability in the present context is only remotely related to the fundamentals of economics and wholly irrelevant to your claim that scarcity is mythical. I would think that someone who accepts the responsibility of moderation could at least attempt to stay on topic. I also think that a reasonable person might honestly consider the objection of the topic poster. YOU however, consistently demonstrate yourself as clearly incapable.

and attempting to wrangle that minor but metaphysical complication into a platform from which you might advance your broader point.

Ah, blaming everyone else for your inadequecies is your forte`. You wear it well. If you would like to debate the degree of importance of whichever metaphysical complication you find trivial, do so. Otherwise you're still irrelevant. How shocking. Perhaps if you're going to bitch about some non-existent ploy to advance some sort of rhetoric, you might spell it out eh? Fuckhead.

Of course, I reminded you of this a while ago: "No, as I read the topic, you inserted your own context into a discussion I was having that might well have eventually resolved these issues."

Pardon me for inserting insisting that you stay on topic. If you want to start your own thread, please do so. Hell you're free to do what you want. You want to go off topic, fine. I'm free to call you on it, show your irrelevance blah blah.

Additionally, Wes, I remind you that I long ago made the note about applicability and posted my apologies for my prior error.

Disengenuous dirtbag. Your apology consisted of what? This:

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

The problem is that your apology is false. I might have considered it were your premise true. I DO wish to discuss the applicability of the theory, but can't seem to get past your problem with scarcity. It took until a post or two ago for you to have your first relevant point about the issue. I am looking at it from an apparently impractical perspective. Knowing what I know about systems, operations research and linear algebra though, I'm not convinced that this approach is necessarily impractical. I would and have however, agreed that it might not practical or particularly insightful. That is in fact, the intended discussion. As such, your apology, like over 99% of your commentary in this thread, is completely irrelevant. Seemingly, you're quite skilled at missing the point. I'd guess it's your lack of education.. but maybe it's just your fucked up attitude (which also prohibits the possibility of you ever actually getting educated).

And yet, this is what you come up with? "If you want to create a new system . . . "? Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.

Man. Such squandered potential in you. It's baffling. It's difficult for me to imagine the sick mess in your twat that yields such obvious nonsense. I'm not paying attention? I probably shouldn't be, but I am.

15ofthe19 - I would invite you to consider the wisdom of letting Wes set your course.

Think for yourself, man.

WHAT A FUCKING PRESUMPTUOUS CUNT YOU ARE YOU FUCK. How in the shit you get off saying shit like that I cannot fathom. It's fucking fascinating though, I'll give you that. Wow. I'll just let 15 defend himself on that I guess, but holy fuck man, you are a sick bitch. You really think I'm "setting his course"? LOL. Perhaps I misunderstand. You're joking right?

• "Presuming that supply must trail demand is a huge problem. Sure, I'm among a circle of people who joke that we wouldn't survive without our computers and high-speed connections, but the scarcity of my computer depends on my desire.

The problem is, that it's not really a presumption. It's stated as such because it's a logical consequence of demand (in any form). For instance: At the current time, there's no way to know exactly how many people exist. You have to know that in order to plan for enough food, water, blah. So even in the most basic case of real need, supply trails demand. You have confused a matter of priority with a problem with a theory.

Making this scarcity, dependent on extraneous desires, so central to the economic function means that other, more necessary resources will be disrupted in their implementation.

"

It's central because it's real. I gotta feed my family. I'm not sure what's in the coffers at the moment. I have to track it. I have to figure out what I'll need for whatever period of time. The fact is that if you ignore the reality of scarcity you end up doing stupid shit like exhausting the earth's entire resource base. Time and space constraints are central to the idea of distribution. Game over, you're wrong. Oh and so you don't think I'm dodging you I'll say what I said before regarding your point about choice (many of which you consider extraneous):

"Sure, demand is choice. You can separate it into types of choices like 'gotta have it to live' and 'superfluous' and whatever else... but it doesn't really change the fucking fact that if demand exists, time/space constraints (scarcity) are applicable. They may be negligible, they may kill you. It depends eh?

Regardless, determinations as to "which choices are valid" are wholly political. As such, your pages and pages of diatribe is plainly irrelevent - and I mean very plainly."

- though that may be too succinct for you.

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

It's hard to believe you claim I'm not paying attention. Read this:

"With a star or a shark, there exists no demand.

Your assertions about scarcity are political bastardizations of the simple truth that, once demand exists, time is a constraint that could kill you.

Humans demand not to die from starvation or exposure(for the most part).

Hence, time constraints are serious."

• "The value placed on a resource that makes it scarce is . . . subjective; that is, humans decide for reasons rational and irrational (largely irrational) what the value of something is.

Rationality too, is subjective.

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

So what? Anything that has value is scarce since if that value induces a demand you end up with scarcity as a result. So I guess if you don't induce a demand based on your value, you've got no scarcity issues. I'd guess however that if people did that, anarchy would reign as we would be basically reduced to animals. I think one of the facets that sets us apart in the animal kingdom is our propensity to value things. I value my computers greatly. I use them to increase the efficiency of business conditions in my little corner of the world. What I value in doing so is of special importance to me, and is valid from my perspective, in that I know what I'm doing in my niche. I would not expect you to value what I do, but I would expect you to see the possibility that my valuing a bigger hard drive for a computer I need to store a bunch of data on could actually increase the probability that someone somewhere else ends up with something to eat tonight, rather than starving. One of the strengths of a diverse, social species is specialization. I can do things that you can't and vice versa. Your responsibilities in part determine what you value. I may value that hard drive and you may think that my value of it is wholly superfluous and unneccessary. However, since each of us might not necessarily agree with the value of the other, it becomes imperative that we are each allowed to seek the satisfaction of our demand... whether or not we can actually attain the supply is in this context, a matter of politics (which is governmental, which is an organization of people in similar predicaments, each with a specialized skill set, things that are valued, etc.) What if you won't get off your ass to plow the field to feed the starving unless I give you a BMW? Should I force you? Isn't that explicit slavery? Ah I see, I should get someone else to do it. What if they suck at it and everyone starves because of it? Ah fuck this is another thread too. There's more to this but I'm spent.

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

What else could it be? Our minds are the only known habitat for value.

The scarcity seen in a resource is a function of its availability, unless you're playing politics.

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

"

Too bad both are simply stupid, and that you're the kind of asshole that can't admit when he's been corrected.

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

So you see demand as "some amorphous vanity"? It's funny that you understand the subjectivy of value, but then place a subjective value judgement on demand without recognizing having done so. It is this point at which you have just (I assume unintentionally) shown your allegiance to the idea that demand doesn't exist. Maybe it's demand shouldn't exist unless I say so. I bet you didn't see the relevance of my friend's realization either eh? It was directed at you, as you are doing what he does without the benefit of his realization. To be fair, I hate some people for what they want too I suppose.

• ". . . this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire."

Yeah right, I wasn't talking about politics, remember? I'm baffled that you can't see that determining what is necessary and what is desired is a sea of gray. I'm sure that 99% or better would see food as a necessity, but can you not see a valid perspective from which it is not? It kind of depends on what you're trying to achieve eh? One way to curb population growth is through starving people. Palletable to most? Not really, but true? Uhm, well yeah.

• "The scarcity of your or my Porsche should not be resolved by making food scarce for others."

Says your bleeding, dirty cunt. I generally agree with you on that, however, I am in no way convinced that the scarcity of the porche is making food scarce for anyone else. Food is scarce for others because of corruption, because of warlords, because of people who don't fucking care if somone else starves and steals the funds for their food. Of course the wealth of the US certainly plays into the availability of resources in other parts of the world, but then again... well, that's a whole thread in and of itself. Governments are responsible for the welfare of their people. Okay nevermind for now. Start a thread and post a link if you want to discuss that in detail.

And again, the scarcity of my (non-existent) porsche or a starving person wherever, doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the implicit relationship: demand->scarcity. Pretending that it isn't real doesn't make your problem go away, though I realize you insist otherwise.

• "The scarcity of having to breathe (e.g. necessity) and the scarcity of my testicles for you to kick (e.g. desire) are lumped together in considerations of supply necessarily trailing demand."

You have yet to demonstrate how categorizing demand impacts the validity of scarcity. It effects the degree of scarcity of a particular resource, but not that the resource is finite (at any given time) to begin with. Even if you have "free energy" you still have to make sure that the machine to acquire the "free energy" is in working order. If you fail to do so, your resource might become so scarce as not to exist.. eh?

• "The value of things, when necessity remains unaccounted, is as mythical as anything else, and that's one of the things that sets scarcity to hiding religiously behind a wall of orthodoxy."

LOL. Value is as mythical as consciousness. I contend that I exist (and as such, I am aware of myself and thusly conscious). As such, I value things as only I can. That is no myth.

It's funny that you said it yourself: "value is subjective". Yet you can't maintain the consistency required to logically adhere to your assertion? Everyone's value is subjective except yours? If you listed everything that everyone valued at any given time, or over a brief period of time.. do you think that every single list generated would have even one common element? I'm not sure, but I'd bet no. What does that imply? You seem to simply assert your value as superior (your continued assertions that scarcity is a myth is nothing less than a value judgement). Of course you are more than entitled to remain whatever kind of jackass you want to be. I'll do the same.

At any rate, I just wanted to review what you seem to have missed the first time around.

You mean you glossed over every point that has shown directly that you're stupid in favor of your pet theory "I'm king". I admire the pride in a sense, but find it misplaced. Damn the subjectivity of value eh? You'd rather be borg I guess.

It does occur to me to wonder whether you simply don't understand what you're reading, or whether you're just ignoring it in the first place and seeking to be obnoxious prigs.

It's amazing that the possiblity that you might have done exactly what you seem to accuse 15 and I of doing seems to never have crossed your mind. If it did, you failed to make it apparent. It those imaginary tattered banners must be distracting for your sick ass.

Have you noticed the subjective value that I've assigned you? Hehe. I don't totally discount your worth you know. In a sense, you are yang to me. You're entertaining as well, so it's not all bad - just mostly, considering that you basically disgust me and all.

Please state the case that accounting for necessity within demand equals an attempt to negate or revoke the laws of supply and demand.

Perhaps instead of basking in your disgusting, smarmy, unwarrented superiority complex, you could tell me what part about my two prior post you don't understand.

Oh, and since your reading comprehension is uhm, so lacking.. I explained it again within this post.

Because I don't see how you arrive at that point other than by means of being utterly and completely stupid from the outset.

So you're proposing the theory that I'm "intentionally pretending to be stupid"? You're serious? To me, that warrents the theory "this asshole must be unintentionally stupid". It's funny that you'd accuse someone with an obviously superior comprehension of the subject matter to be "pretending to be stupid". Because you probably don't realize it: This is one of the many reasons you are scorned.

And while you might go to tremendous efforts pretending toward such an end

Ah you are privvy to the motivations of all who cross your path eh? You are disgusting. If you were even remotely good at doing so, my opinion would differ. It's funny that you can't see your own problems, even when they are thrust in your face over and over and over. It reminds me how you blame the failure of your relationship with your partner all on her. It takes two to tango dumbass.

, it would just be easier if you came out of the closet and admitted you're not up to dealing with the issues you've invoked.

Oh so my thread was established as a dodge of your argument that didn't as of yet exist to me? I could have sworn I established the thread for the exact reason to deal with the issues it would invoke. I could have sworn that during the thread, I've exacty dealt with the issues I've invoked, and that you have spewed little but politically chareged, hypocritical garbage to refute a point that I didn't suspect was even up for debate. I could have sworn that my efforts thus far in this thread were for the most part (besides just slamming you because of my extreme distaste for you) to demonstrate the flaws in your analysis of scarcity... (and implicite to that effort, why scarcity is a necessary consideration regarding economics). If you could show a valid, reasonable point as to why scarcity should be ignored, or isn't a rational consideration I would be very impressed and yield the point. The fact remains and has been clearly demonstrated though: your analysis is off topic (not to mention, quite muddled and inconsistent).

 

[wesmorris]

.... try to remember ....

Pretending that it isn't real doesn't make your problem go away, though I realize you insist otherwise.

 

[Tiassa]

My comment was in the context of prospecting for alternative models for supply and demand.

And? What does that have to do with creating a new system without concepts like supply and demand?

stupid
sorry fuck
moron
cunt
rape
fucking
cunt
fucking
Fuckhead
dirtbag
fucked
sick
twat
FUCKING
CUNT
FUCK
shit
shit
fucking
holy fuck
sick bitch
shit
ass
Should I force you ?
suck
fuck
I'm spent
asshole
bleeding, dirty cunt
jackass
stupid
you basically disgust me
You are disgusting
dumbass

You really should try constructing an argument, Wes.

It's funny that you'd accuse someone with an obviously superior comprehension of the subject matter to be "pretending to be stupid".

Keep flexing your musclehead, Wes. Stop and think about the fact that you're religiously insisting on an inapplicable definition that you expect to apply under any circumstances. You haven't supported it. You haven't backed it. You've merely wailed like a baby the whole time, run from the myth of scarcity, and hidden yourself behind a misogynistic wall of profanity.

Think about the fact that you find a question of whether or not the presuppositions are valid irrelevant to the theory built from those presuppositions.

Think about the fact that you're raving like a blue-faced preacher on the Sabbath.

Stop posing, Wes. Start thinking.

I mean, I noticed you didn't actually answer the question. Rather, you just ran and hid from it like a punk.

Right, Wes. You didn't say what you said. You said something else instead.

We know, we know.

 

[wesmorris]

Now T, I asked very nicely that you stop pretending it isn't happening. Sort of pointless I realize, as you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're simpy incapable.

"run from the myth of scarcity".

LOL.

Idiot.

 

[Tiassa]

• Pretending that it isn't real doesn't make your problem go away
• I asked very nicely that you stop pretending it isn't happening

Wes, you ought to drop the condescension, especially in light of your dishonesty.

After all, the value of things, as you've hammered home, is subjective.

That certainly makes it "real."

Yet you've come full circle to appeal the fact that people exist in the first place in defense of your rejection of necessity.

Show me how air isn't necessary.

Poseur.

 

[thefountainhed]

In all seriousness, why has this degenerated into a philisphocal debate? One cannot attempt to debunk the definition of set within the set itself. Economics is a science; it is not moral or what have you,

 

[wesmorris]

And? What does that have to do with creating a new system without concepts like supply and demand?

If you are too stupid to see that this was directly and indirectly addressed in the post in question, it is not my fault.

You really should try constructing an argument, Wes.

I did it and faired pretty well. Sorry you're too stupid to have caught it.

Keep flexing your musclehead, Wes.

I don't have one to flex.

Stop and think about the fact that you're religiously insisting on an inapplicable definition that you expect to apply under any circumstances.

But that's not a fact. I have considered the proposition and found it to be as stupid as the piece of shit who proposed it. That "time and space" are contraints that apply in any distribution scenario is again, not my fault. Further and again, if you were able to show how this isn't true I'd be impressed. That FACT is though, you haven't and apparently can't. Your argument has been refuted and shown as directly irrelevant, muddled and confused and you continue to ignore it. Apparently you have little recourse if you're going to continue to claim that you're right and your "issues" leave you little option but to stick with your mental flatulance.

You haven't supported it. You haven't backed it.

Oh? So since your problems don't allow you to actually comprehend what has been laid out at your feet a thousand times.. I have failed to support it. I supported it over and over and over. Is it because I didn't post a link to someone else's irrelevant essays that you find my argument lacking support? You are despicable you raggedy cunt.

You've merely wailed like a baby the whole time, run from the myth of scarcity, and hidden yourself behind a misogynistic wall of profanity.

It's fascinating that you're so dumb. I haven't wailed at all. I haven't run from anything and the only woman around here that I hate is YOU, you sorry piece of shit. The "mysogynistic profanity" is just for you, asshat. I hope you don't like it, but don't really care either way.

Think about the fact that you find a question of whether or not the presuppositions are valid irrelevant to the theory built from those presuppositions.

It's sad that your lacking depth leaves you with such a shallow analysis. Perhaps you just have to characterize my total anihilation of your argument in such a way to try to hang on to those imaginary tattered banners, such that you have a constant reminder of just how smart you know you are. LOL. You fucking jackass. You see, I have no problem questioning the assumptions. I didn't expect it, but I don't have a problem poking around to see if they're valid. The problem is that you simply ignore anything that counters your opinion. I've demonstrated exactly why you're wrong and you claim I'm.. uhm oh yeah "running from your argument". LOL. You're stupid, geto over yourself fuck off, eat shit. Ack you suck.

Think about the fact that you're raving like a blue-faced preacher on the Sabbath.

Think about the fact that you're a sorry little cunt who can't comprehend what he reads.

Stop posing, Wes. Start thinking.

I see, so thinking that's too far over your head doesn't count? Please demonstrate clearly how I haven't been thinking. Some might contend that my thinking in this regard is clearly superior to yours. I'd be one of them, though only mostly to antagonize you.

I mean, I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.

If you're going to claim that I didn't answer a question, you could at least quote the question.

Rather, you just ran and hid from it like a punk.

Did I? Kind of weird how I broke down every line in your post and reponded to it directly, and you posted the curse words I used, ignored everything else and now accuse me of "running and hiding like a punk". You're fucking pathetic, and I appreciate you putting it on display for all to see. You're a fucking sham.

Right, Wes. You didn't say what you said.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You said something else instead.

I said exactly what I said, I don't know what the fuck your cunt made you hear.

You see, here at sciforums we often quote the material we're criticizing in order to clarify this kind of shit.

We know, we know.

"We" is it now? You're the only one complaining. You mean you and uhm.. the other people in your sorry skull? I'd wish bad things upon you, but a fuckstick with an attitude like yours simply brings it on himself, so I get my wish. That's good stuff.

Gawd you're disgusting. It's cool though. A good analogy is like the first time you ever saw a piece of shit with corn in it or something. Disgusting as shit, but goddamn fascinating at the time. Now since you don't actually have anything of substance to say: GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY THREAD.

(please note the amusing irony that you fabricated an entire post on the subject "you're running from the point" while exactly running from a number of excellent points made in the post to which you are responding. *smirk* and you still don't see it. do you see how fascinating that is? man that's some corn in some shit right there)