"Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message
news:12256fc1-cdbd-44c1-9d5a-4ff3c15224e2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 12:41 pm, "Tim" q.con> wrote:

Well, ironically, on that very last point, you are correct that "it is
a response to scarcity".

What you fail to grasp is that it has solved the problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, do me a favour, find me a prominent business person, business owner,
business reporter, what have you, ... who agrees with you. Cite some real
evidence and numbers. You talk of infinite resources. Ask yourself how such
a statement could be made by one who resides on a most definitely finite
planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The mere existence of an unfulfilled want doesn't constitute
(economic) scarcity.

-----------------------------
Well from an economic pov I posit that it does. For over 80%% of the people
on this planet scarcity is a harsh reality faced day in day out till death
do them part.
------------------------------

It's not as if we exist in a desert and there is
insufficient water.
--------------------------------
No, only some of us live in deserts. However, it is a well documented fact
that fresh drinking water is scarce. According to the Britannica 2005
Almanac citing WHO statistics only 90%% of Americans had access to clean
drinking water in 2000. In East Africa only 44%%. How can you argue, from
those
numbers, that there`s enough water?
------------------------------------------
In fact we are surrounded by water. We
are...err...flooded with it. But yes, we have to pay for it. That it
doesn't come free doesn't mean it's scarce. In fact not only is it
available in abundance, but in time it will very likely get more and
more affordable so that even more people can purchase it easily. So
much for its scarcity.
-----------------------------------------

Errrm, you are equivocating sea water and fresh drinking water.

------------------------------------------

Not at all. You are dodging my challenge to the "field of economics".

-------------

LOL. What challenge? You're talking out of your ass! Find me an oil tycoon
who thinks there is infinite oil, twit.
-------------
I am well aware what most economists say on this point. As we recently
discussed here, most economists also once thought that "labor" was the
source of economic value. Well, they were as wrong about that then as
they are now about "scarcity".
----------
Only in your half-baked fantasy outlook on the world.
----------
Try thinking for yourself for a change.
------------
Try thinking period.
-----------

As I suggested, walk into any supermarket or Wal-Mart. Watch people -
ordinary people - walk out with their carts overflowing with goods.
Sure, they've made trade-offs but certainly not because of the
scarcity of any of the goods. Whatever they might have passed up or
traded off, producers would be happy to produce in far greater
quantities - double, triple, quadruple production. But no, they won't
do it for free. But that has nothing to do with its scarcity.
----------------------

You're still out to lunch. That they produce whatever they produce has
everything to do with scarcity. As does the person begging for change
outside of the supermarket and whether he's there because he's a lazy bum
who chooses to do nothing or he's got some problem(s) that society doesn't
like to wear is irrelevant to the issue of scarcity. Granted he could, given
the former lazy case, choose to better himself and improve his lot. But
scarcity would still remain.
-----------------------
You could have argued that it is money (income) which is scarce, i.e.
that people have limited incomes.
--------------------------
Money is scarce, that's what gives Fiat money its value.
--------------------------
But capitalism has solved that problem, too, with a constantly rising
standard of living - the ability to have more of what we want for less
work. (Capitalism solved this problem, btw, not through "labor", but
through investment in technology which yields continually improving
productivity - the ability to produce the same amount of goods with
ever *less* labor).
---------------------------
Ever specialized labour actually. You still don't have a clue. And you are
yet to cite any evidence. Whose def. of standard of living are you referring
to?
---------

"...by definition a scarce good is a commodity where the quantity
demanded exceeds the quantity supplied at a price of zero and thereby
is a
good that commands a positive price in a market economy. So stupid,
why
don't you point out some goods, in fact any good, that's on the market
for
free. And there you will find a non-scarce good." - Tiny Tim (in his
very own words)
-----------------------------------

Yeah, but where the fuck do the words "fulfilling arbitrary whims", that you
attribute to me, appear in that, straw-man?
--------------------------------------

Even your vaunted economists wouldn't say that. They are not free - as
most goods aren't - because there are costs involved in producing them
- and luxury cars are costlier to produce than ordinary cars. But
those added costs have nothing to do with scarcity. Not long ago
computers were very expensive. Now comparable computers are in fact
virtually free - or cost pennies (current computers of course aren't
comparable - they have far more power).

-------------------------

Wrong again. You watch, some wank will market vintage computers in say 20
years, they'll create a fad, they'll create scarcity, and those penny
computers will sell for hundreds.

Take, as a hypothetical, this example. You are in a terrible plain crash.
Only you and a very wealthy investor survive. You have an old, socially
alienating, outdated and ugly laptop that, back in the world, you'd have
difficulty giving away. You also have a now seemingly primitive sat. phone,
it's 15 years old, weighs 3 pounds, and is guaranteed to prevent you getting
laid if you're seen with it. But wait! Mr. Investor's phone and laptop were
destroyed in the crash. He has a disk with vital data that needs to be
communicated ASAP. He's got 15 mins to get it to Tokyo or he stands to loose
billions! I'll let you try to finish the scenario. Good luck.

-------------------------------

Btw, you also could have argued that our labor is scarce - not really
our labor, but our *time*.

----------------------

Labour is scarce. Just not enough to effect business owners too much when
they can ship jobs overseas. Magic stars **noted**. Meaningless, but noted.

------------------------

However, capitalism has solved that problem, too, by vastly increasing
the productivity of labor. If in fact we paid workers on a comparable
scale to the labor they used to exert in relation to their output,
we'd be paying them pennies an hour now, i.e. a worker circa 1900
could produce only a tiny fraction of what a worker today can produce.
So, it obviously has nothing to do with his "labor". It has everything
to do with the technology which he now has at his disposal - and he
did absolutely nothing to provide that technology.

---------------------------

But we need evidence. Not vacuous assertions. Now you seem to be equating
labour and technology, so again you look stupid.
---------------------------
Anyway, this is probably already too much for you to absorb, so I'll
stop here.
-------------------

Well I'm still here, at the end, but feeling empty. What was there to
absorb? Is one supposed to simply bow down every time you make assurances?
You make many claims about capitalism and economics and this and that but
you offer no support for your claims. Well then, in a way, you were right to
stop.