> On Jan 18, 1:33 pm, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:>> On Jan 16, 3:09 pm, Puppet_Sock
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Does that mean it is desirable for populations to continue
>>> to increase. Of course not. I'd say we are just a tad above
>>> the optimal population already.
>>
>> Hmmm...I wonder why you say that. I don't even know how one would
>> calculate "the optimal population" - where, in what context, under
>> what political/economic system?
>
> Btw, I'd be prepared to defend the theoretical idea that a free market
> economy can accommodate *any number* of people you throw at it.
> Theoretically it should be able to handle an *unlimited* number of
> people - the US economy virtually did just that in the late 19th/early
> 20th Century.
Hmm, so a finite population, say that of the US in the 19/20th C, is an
example of an unlimited, i.e. infinite, population? Did you have a point to
make, other than making the one on your forehead bigger?
>
> The only reason to assume the opposite is on the fallacious notion of
> "scarce resources". (As you may recall, this is the fallacy in the
> premise of the Friedman/Stigler essay "Roofs and Ceilings" that I've
> discussed on HPO). There are no scarce resources under capitalism. All
> resources are (for all practical purposes) infinitely expandable.
>
Duhhh, here's a free economics lesson for you, Fweddy. Scarcity is a fact.
In relation to human needs and desires sufficient resources do not exist to
satisfy them. Scarcity exists wherever the demand for a good exceeds the
demand for that good. Scarce goods command a positive price in a market
economy. Most goods are, you weddy Fweddy, scarce goods.
Fweddy, where does this planet store an infinite amount of anything, other
than randian stupidity which is certainly not scarce?
> Of course this isn't possible under socialism where the economy - and
> therefore innovation - is strangled.
>
So how did the USSR beat the US into space? How could this be, Fweddy?
> Fred Weiss
