The fall of Capitalism. Is it getting close?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi
Food, cars, shelter, clothes are just laying around for anyone who wants them?

Of course they are.

If what you say is true, then there logically must be a person or group that is withholding necessities from people.

You mean, perhaps, the legal system?

That statement is just plain wrong.

You don't seem to have thought this through.

[kabbes]

Oops! We appear to have entered jmullaneyland again! Everything we want is just lying about waiting for us to pick it up. No goods need be manufactured. No services require labour. Everyone could just sit about watching TV all day if only we got rid of pesky money.

Sadly though visas to jmullaneyland are seriously restricted, forcing us to merely take the 10 minute tour. Everybody back on the bus.

pan

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by kabbes
Oops! We appear to have entered jmullaneyland again! Everything we want is just lying about waiting for us to pick it up.

kabbes -- you are the one who said there is some problem with scarcity. Which is demonstably false. What you really mean is: due to rust and decay at some future point you are worried there may be a scarcity. Right?

[Mr.Zambezi]

Well since there are indeed enough cars for everyone on the planet, and enough food, and land and clothing, jmull please give me all of your posessions.

I can't see any good in arguing about the existence of scarcity, or the concept that people put money and labor into creating things for the sole purpose of making a profit any more than arguing the color of the sky. You win, jmull.

Now I am going to go out and pick cars off of the car tree in my back yard.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi
Well since there are indeed enough cars for everyone on the planet

Um, I did say there hasn't been any scarcity (of needs) in the US for the past 50 years.

[Lemur866]

Run! Run for the hills!

A thread on economics is effectively over once jmullaney enters.

He'll make a statement. Others will innocently correct his bizarre statement. He'll reply with even more bizarre statments (ie farmers don't work hard). The whole thread will degenerate into an attempt to pound some sense into his head, but that is impossible because Jesus explained it all to him and he's not about to change. The only alternative is to ignore what he says, but once he's contradicted he won't stop putting out flame-bait until everyone gets bored.

Ah, well...it was fun while it lasted....

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by jmullaney

Of course they are.

This is either the most bizarre statement I have ever read on this board (and that's saying a lot), or we have a fundamental disagreement as to the definition of the word "scarcity".

Scarcity does not refer to the sum total of goods available in the world. It refers to whether each person in the world has the goods he needs/wants. To put it simply, I don't have anything that I need to survive. I have no wheat to eat growing in my back yard, nor cotton to make clothes, nor orange trees from which to get my vital Vitamin C, nor oak trees, or a oil derrick, or solar panels with which to heat my apartment so that I can survive the winter. In fact, I don't even have a back yard. For me, all of these things are "scarce". I must take action to obtain them, so that I do not die.

So long as I (and the vast majority of, at least, Americans), do not have the means personally available to survive, we have to have a system of getting things necessities to me. Now, someone out there has them. For most of these things, it's a farmer. But he has needs, too. He needs building materials for his home, fuel, and whatever else he doesn't grow/raise himself. Hence, we have capitalism.

BTW, don't denigrate "wants". Without wants, such as art, music, culture, etc., we survive, but our lives are "nasty, brutish, and short."

You mean, perhaps, the legal system?

Of course, blame the lawyers. Capitalism existed long before the rise of lawyers, and the elimination of lawyers would make the machinery of capitalism run rougher, but it would still run. Remember, the vast majority of lawyers are transactional - their job is to anticipate problems that may arise, and avoid them/plan for them ahead of time IOW, their job is to make it easier for people to get what they need/want, not create impediments to people getting what they need/want.

You don't seem to have thought this through.

Same back atcha, pally.

Sua

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Lemur866
A thread on economics is effectively over once jmullaney enters.

Sorry if I've defeated my arch-nemesis Smoke & Mirrors once again!

[erislover]

Well, might be, anyway, but I think the idea of scarcity that Sua and Mr. Z are debating with jmull deals not with true scarcity but relative scarcity. The latter is more commonly understood to be a distribution problem.

I think that's what he's saying, anyway. that there is enough stuff out there for us en todo, but there are distribution problems inherent in capitalism which create a scarcity on needed goods.

But, I'm still not sure about what a "needed" good is, but that's what he seems to be saying.

Until he comes clearer, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. But go easy on him, guys.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
I must take action to obtain them, so that I do not die.

So, if you are surrounded by apples, they are scarce because you have to bed over to pick one up? Are you sure I'm the one making the bizarre argument here?

BTW, don't denigrate "wants".

Wants are OK.

Of course, blame the lawyers.

I'm not blaming the lawyers. Mr. Zambezi's statement that cars, for example, aren't just lying around for anyone who wants them is false. I can look out my window and see over a hundred cars just sitting there. Utilizing one of them may take a little ingenuity on my part, but if I want anyone of them I can surely take one if I so choose. They are not scarce.

[Lemur866]

Relative scarcity. In one sense, there would be enough cars for everyone in the US to get one. Some people have no cars, some people have one car, some people have two, some people have dozens. Simply take one car from the people with two, and x-1 from the people with x, and give those cars to the people with 0. Everyone would have a car. So, cars are not scarce.

But, what are the unintended consequences if we do this? Ah! Why would anyone buy a car, if all they have to do is get one from someone who has two? Why would anyone have more than one, if they have to give it away to someone who has none? Obviously, no one is going to buy a car in this scenario. No one buys cars, and why would anyone make cars? After all, if you make cars you would be obligated to give away all of them except one, right? So, people stop making cars, except as a hobby. Pretty soon the existing cars start to break down. But there are no new cars made. Pretty soon, no one has a car.

Ah well, how about we simply create government factories...cars will be manufactured with tax money, and distributed to everyone for free. Sure, we can do that. Except experience has shown that these cars are going to be three or four times as expensive, and are going to be junk. We can get into all the reasons for this, if need be. And where does the tax money come from? You cannot generate tax money, since no one has any income. Why work at making cars when you are going to get one for free anyway? So the government car factory fails unless we use force to compell the people to work there.

So, everyone gets everything for free, so no one works, so nothing is produced, so there is nothing to get for free, and everyone dies. Now, jmullaney, you don't want everyone to die now, do you? So you can see how your plan might be impractical absent robots who work for free without complaint, right?

[Alessan]

In other words, Joel, your philosophy has not been approved for use on humans.

[erislover]

I don't believe jmull said anything of the sort. Not in this post.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by jmullaney

So, if you are surrounded by apples, they are scarce because you have to bed over to pick one up? Are you sure I'm the one making the bizarre argument here?

And where the f**k are these apples? Looking out my window, I don't see any. None underneath my desk, either. On the subway this morning, I didn't see a single freaking apple. I may also point out to you that where I am, it's winter, so there aren't going to be a new apples in the area for several months.
Nor did I see any bread, milk, etc.
I would submit to you that if you are seeing apples everywhere: 1) adjust your medication; and 2) DON'T EAT THEM!! I don't know what they are, but they ain't apples, and you might get sick.

I can look out my window and see over a hundred cars just sitting there. Utilizing one of them may take a little ingenuity on my part, but if I want anyone of them I can surely take one if I so choose.

And if you take one of them, you have denied it to whoever had it in the first place, thus making a car scarce for that person.
It's time I leave this thread, before I do something that gets me banned.

Sua

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
I would submit to you that if you are seeing apples everywhere: 1) adjust your medication; and 2) DON'T EAT THEM!!

LOL! Remind me to freak out like this next time someone asks me a hypothetical question. Where are these dogs really spelled cat?!?

And where the f**k are these apples?

Well, believe it or not, they have these new fangled places called "stores." They call them "stores" on account of things being "stored" there? Get it? Yeah, I thought it was a little corny the first time I heard it too, but I guess the name has caught on.

I may also point out to you that where I am, it's winter, so there aren't going to be a new apples in the area for several months. Nor did I see any bread, milk, etc.

So, exactly how many feet away does something have to be from you before it becomes "scarce." Ten feet? A hundred? A mile or two?

if you take one of them, you have denied it to whoever had it in the first place, thus making a car scarce for that person.

No, no. There's plenty more. Besides, in an hour I will take one of them and not do any such thing. Maybe I'll even go get an apple....

[Mr.Zambezi]

So anyway, I was at this auction bidding on breaths of air. I bid four cars, but the guy next to me bid five cars. Eventuially it went to the guy in the fron row with the bad toupee for 80 cars. I only had twenty cars and 5 houses because the crop hadn't been that good on my infinite plot of land.

So after I left and shoveled the food off my car, I drove past the store that sells light to fill up my headlights. a gallon of light only costs about 2 airplanes nowadays because the airplane crop was bad and the light crop was good this year. Of course, the food was coming down so heavy it was hard to see and it made the gold roads slippery.

I went to my billion square foot house where my 250 million kids were working an infinite amount of time in the endless fields--just for the heck of it. I bought the house for nothing because everyone had one so they weren't worth anything. Or maybe It cost a billion dollars because the amount of a good available doesn't affect price. I can't tell the difference because I never bothered to go to any of the infinite number of universities due to the fact that everybody has everything they want ever since the Legal System was outlawed by a non-existent legal authority which doesn't exists because of its own laws.

So I watched the nicks game on one of my million big screen TV's. The score was 1,000,000,0001 to 1,000,000,0001 because all atheltes are equally talented under the new illegal law that no one can have more than another. Thank god there are an infinite number of minutes in the game. It was horrible when one team had to lose to the other.

Anyway, my point was that this guy had a really nice toupee which I would like to have, but I can't seem to find one. I think I will find him and steal it. After all, there is nothing I can offer him that would make him give it to me willingly since everyone has everything they want. Maybe they should pass a law so that everyone has such a nice toupee.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
I don't believe jmull said anything of the sort. Not in this post.

Thanks ARL. I think my opponents are clearly taking the insanity high-ground on this one.

[Lemur866]

ARL, you can't, you really can't, know the horror in store. Try nosing around for some old threads on economics...but be prepared to have your mind and soul shriveled by Secrets Man Was Not Meant to Know. We're not just reacting to what Joel is saying in this thread, but in all the [shudder]...other threads...

[erislover]

Lemur

Yeah, maybe, but I've been that unpopular guy in oh-so-many econ threads too. I don't see problems in a lot of things that people take for granted as a problem like, say, public education or socialized medicine. Free market economy and all of that.

As well, jmull has been amusing the living shit out of me lately and I just wanted to jump to his defense because, in this thread at least, he is being misrepresented.

If I may speak for him again, I would say that the point he is trying to make IMO is that the fall of capitalism s nowhere near to close. No even within sight. People discuss things like "the poor are being segregated" and "the wealth divide increases" and so on, and as he is pointing out, all the stuff the poor people want is right there in front of them. For the taking. It is merely a matter of what one is willing to do to get the stuff. There isn't really any scarcity in that sense, unless you mean scarcity of effort.
But, I may be proved wrong yet

[Sterra]

If he is right its in spite of himself . Its all semantics really though. To a person who wont break the law apples that arent his and are 2 feet away might as well be a million feet away.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
Well, might be, anyway, but I think the idea of scarcity that Sua and Mr. Z are debating with jmull deals not with true scarcity but relative scarcity. The latter is more commonly understood to be a distribution problem.

I think that's what he's saying, anyway. that there is enough stuff out there for us en todo, but there are distribution problems inherent in capitalism which create a scarcity on needed goods.

But, I'm still not sure about what a "needed" good is, but that's what he seems to be saying.

Until he comes clearer, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. But go easy on him, guys.

Scarcity exist in every economic system known to man it isn't artifically created. Only so much lumber can be produced per year, only so much steel can be manufactured, and only so much labor is available. There's no distribution problem inherent in capitalism. If there were we'd be waiting 2 hours in line for a loaf of bread.

Marc

[pantom]

I just wanted to thank Mr.Zambezi for that post. Very entertaining.

Carry on.

[Measure for Measure]

Never before in the history of capitalism, such high percentage of wealth has been accumulated by such few percentage of people.

No. Share of assets owned by richest 1% of population:
In 1929: 44%
In 1976: 20%
In 1998: 36%
Share of net worth owned by Forbes 400 in 1998: 2.6%

Source: 2/01 Scientific American: Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finance, Forbes 400.

Furthermore, IRRC, the richest 400 or so individuals around the turn of the century owned more that 2.6% of the country's assets. (Probable source: A. Chandler or Drucker??)

While I am not particularly happy about the growing income inequality in the US (or wealth inequality, as indicated above), I see no signs of imminent revolution.

To those who believe that a rising tide invariably lifts all boats:

Average Hourly and Weekly Wages of Production and Nonsupervisory workers, inflation adjusted 1982 dollars:

Date..........Hourly............Weekly
1980.......... 7.78............275
1985.......... 7.77............271
1990.......... 7.52............259
1995.......... 7.40............255

Source: Statistical Abstract

Total per capita output in the economy rose over this period. Alas, blue collar workers did not share the benefits of this growth. Conditions are particularly dismal for those whose primary labor skills involve a strong back. The rich get richer and...

My understanding, though, is that real blue collar wages have turned up over the past 5 years. OTOH, the 1973-1980 period was even uglier.

[erislover]

Scarcity exist in every economic system known to man it isn't artifically created. Only so much lumber can be produced per year, only so much steel can be manufactured, and only so much labor is available. There's no distribution problem inherent in capitalism. If there were we'd be waiting 2 hours in line for a loaf of bread.

Well, I wouldn't say that. Just because something is limited in quantity doesn't make it scarce.

[dal_timgar]

is there a scarcity of clothes if women have 3 closets full and won't wear it because they let someone tell them it is out of style? $57 billion spent on TV advertising last year. what effect does that have on scarcity?

Dal Timgar

[msmith537]

Originally posted by aynrandlover

Well, I wouldn't say that. Just because something is limited in quantity doesn't make it scarce.

Uh...well...Actually that's exactly what it means!

The definition of scarcity (according to the rest of the world) is that peoples needs and wants for a particular product are greater than the amount of that product available. That describes just about EVERY product! That is also why you can afford some thigs and not others.

[eponymous]

jmullaney,

Scarcity...

I think it might helps matters a bit by clarifying what is meant by scarcity. Most economists address the issue of scarcity not in terms of how much "stuff" there is, but in terms of making choices.

[erislover]

Originally posted by msmith537
Uh...well...Actually that's exactly what it means!

Hardly exactly what it means. There is a limited number of hydrogen atoms in the universe. Think that's scarce? Is ocean water scarce?

Dal Timgar again precedes me in his brief posts. Clothes aren't scarce. Cars aren't scarce. Food isn't scarce. This stuff is all over the place. Its there for the taking with minimal effort. This is a limited quantity good that is not scarce.

Are molecules scarce because there's only a limited number of elements, or a limited number of forces to combine those elements together?

Or, perhaps, is the scarce thing really only the effort required to get these "scarce" goods?

jmull and I have the dubious pleasure of living in the greater Boston area where housing is "scarce." That is, it is limited in quantity. There is 98% housing. In other words, there is 2% available housing that is not currently being rented or lived in. Doesn't sound scarce to me. So long as there is a surplus, right? Exactly?

I am not saying, of course, that there are no scarce goods, merely that most of the goods that are required to live a very comfortable life are right out there waiting to be taken, purchased, whatever. Doesn't sound very scarce to me.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by eponymous
jmullaney,

Scarcity...

I think it might helps matters a bit by clarifying what is meant by scarcity. Most economists address the issue of scarcity not in terms of how much "stuff" there is, but in terms of making choices.

Your absolutely right, but its like arguing with small children. They just don't get it.

They go to the store and see aisle after aisle of some product. Lets use "bread" as an example. "Well, theres enough bread here for everyone! Bread can't be scarce! The evil supermarket is hording all the bread and keeping it from the masses. They should just share all their bread!"

Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that every loaf of bread, widget, BMW, nut, bolt, or apple results from an investment in time, labor and capital. People just don't "give stuff away" because they could spend that time and effort doing something else.

That jmullaney guy who said that

I can look out my window and see over a hundred cars just sitting there. Utilizing one of them may take a little ingenuity on my part, but if I want anyone of them I can surely take one if I so choose. They are not scarce.

obviously has no clue. First of all if you are implying that cars aren't scarce because you can steal them, then that is a very bizare statement. It is also false because economics still applies.

Most people don't just go out and steal stuff they like because the personal risk outweighs the benefit. It's not worth it for me to lose a $70k job and spend the next 5 years of my life in jail for stealing a $40,000 Lexus that I can't drive in public anyway. A dirt port crackhead has nothing to lose but can gain some crack money if he steals and sells that same car. Even in the criminal world, economics still apply.

In any event, there is still scarcity because there are not enough Lexuses (Lexi?) on my block for all the crackheads in Roxbury to steal.

[erislover]

Maybe the oxygen will get the brain working properly because no one has said anything of the sort that would cause you to post this:

Originally posted by msmith537
Your absolutely right, but its like arguing with small children. They just don't get it.

They go to the store and see aisle after aisle of some product. Lets use "bread" as an example. "Well, theres enough bread here for everyone! Bread can't be scarce! The evil supermarket is hording all the bread and keeping it from the masses. They should just share all their bread!"

Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that every loaf of bread, widget, BMW, nut, bolt, or apple results from an investment in time, labor and capital. People just don't "give stuff away" because they could spend that time and effort doing something else.

Anyone who thinks so

obviously has no clue.

We "get" it, guys. What you think we're saying is not what we are saying.

Allow me to bold it to make it clear. No one is implying that people should give their stuff away. No one is impling that people should steal. No one is implying that money serves no purpose.

All that has been implied is that until there is a true scarcity of necessary goods capitalism will do just fine. We do not have a true scarcity of necessary goods. Thus, capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Thanks.

[dal_timgar]

centuries ago in europe the diamonds came from aluvial fields in india. THEY WERE SCARCE. only the rich and royalty had them.

there was a frontline episode on diamonds years ago. with the diamond mines in africa and todays transportation diamonds ARE NOT SCARCE. jewelry stores are everywhere, they have more diamonds than anything else. BUT DAIMONDS ARE A GIRLS BEST FRIEND. women are nuts. these broads have some of us spending big money on useless COMMON rocks. de beeres has the nerve to make ads telling us how many months salary to spend on a ring. HOW MANY WOMEN BELIEVE THAT CRAP?

i'd rather buy oriental rugs.

it's supply and demand but demand is can be psychological.

Dal Timgar

[eponymous]

Originally posted by aynrandlover

All that has been implied is that until there is a true scarcity of necessary goods capitalism will do just fine. We do not have a true scarcity of necessary goods. Thus, capitalism isn't going anywhere.

Well, I would disagree. We (in the US) don't have a SHORTAGE of necessary goods. But scarcity still abounds.

Again, economists make a distinction between the two - scarcity is about making CHOICES. Look at it this way, if you decide to respose to this post, you have made a choice. A choice out of an infintite amount of other choices you could have made. By choosing to respond to this post, you have giving up the opportunity to do whatever you could have done. And that giving up of the choice/choices you could have made is the opportunity cost of the decision you made. In a market economy (capitalism), prices reflect those opportunity costs.

Scarcity arises due to the conflict between human's potentially infinite capicity of needs/wants versus the finite resources that human actually have (time, labor, resources, etc.). Because of this conflict, humans have to make choices. Economic systems arise to deal with this situation.

I think the whole problem stems from the definition and use of the term scarcity. Use shortage - you'll get less flack from the economists.

[erislover]

eponym

Well, you've sort of lost me. I understand the economist's idea behind defining scarcity in that way, agreed. First day of economics class, IIRC.

If we start out with assuming the infinite and having only the finite I think we've got a platonist vs constructionist problem here.

As well, we were discussing (albeit undefined) necessary goods. My original beef was that that term is very subjective and thus, as it stood so far in the thread, meaningless for debate purposes.

Opportunity cost in an econ sense refers to what I mentioned about the only thing being scarce is effort, no? What are you willing to do to get said good? Scarcity in a goods sense means there are more people wanting this good than is available by any means. Scarcity in an opportunity-cost sense is that there are a finite number of ways to expend effort to aquire goods, and so we need to maximize our good intake while minimizing effort. Well, there again is that funny "need" term. But anyway, if all people have the same amount of time then it, really, is the least scarce of all things, wouldn't you say?

Just tossing some ideas out.

[Mr.Zambezi]

We are having that age old problem wher ethe lay definition is different than the professional definition. It is like debits and credits in accounting. YOu can add money to the account with a debit.

Scarcity, as an economic concept is widely understood and accepted. In common parlance, it may mean a different thing. unless we agree on the meaning of the term, arguing about it is pointless (because there is a shortage of points.)

Now I am going to make myself scarce

[msmith537]

Originally posted by dal_timgar
centuries ago in europe the diamonds came from aluvial fields in india. THEY WERE SCARCE. only the rich and royalty had them.

there was a frontline episode on diamonds years ago. with the diamond mines in africa and todays transportation diamonds ARE NOT SCARCE. jewelry stores are everywhere, they have more diamonds than anything else. BUT DAIMONDS ARE A GIRLS BEST FRIEND. women are nuts. these broads have some of us spending big money on useless COMMON rocks. de beeres has the nerve to make ads telling us how many months salary to spend on a ring. HOW MANY WOMEN BELIEVE THAT CRAP?

i'd rather buy oriental rugs.

it's supply and demand but demand is can be psychological.

Dal Timgar

Demand IS psychological. It's all based on our own perceptions of how much we are willing to spend for something. The only reason we buy things like diamonds or cell phones is we think we "want" or "need" them. But you'll love this:

Yes diamonds were originally valuable because they were RARE (not SCARCE in the economics definition, but I understand your meaning. I don't feel like continuing the "scarcity" debate). That drove the price up. Until recently, nearly ALL diamonds were distributed by deBeers (some diamonds come out of Russia now). Because deBeers had a monopoly, they would intentionally limit the supply in order to drive the price up!




-----

Originally posted by aynrandlover
But anyway, if all people have the same amount of time then it, really, is the least scarce of all things, wouldn't you say?

Ever cram for an economics exam the night before the test? Time gets REAL scarce around 2:00am when you still have 6 chapters to go!

[eponymous]

Originally posted by aynrandlover

Well, you've sort of lost me. I understand the economist's idea behind defining scarcity in that way, agreed. First day of economics class, IIRC.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to muddle the issue.

As well, we were discussing (albeit undefined) necessary goods. My original beef was that that term is very subjective and thus, as it stood so far in the thread, meaningless for debate purposes.

I agree - what defines a necessary good?

I think you would agree that the most economic advanced countries of the world whose market system is capitalistic (in whatever form) have done a good job of meeting most people's basic needs - if not actually, then potentially. Now, you can certainly argue what those basic needs are and whether they are, in fact, being met by everyone in that country. That's a whole 'nother debate.

Opportunity cost in an econ sense refers to what I mentioned about the only thing being scarce is effort, no? What are you willing to do to get said good?

Right, what "price" are you willing to pay to chose doing something, buying something, making something, etc.? That price is the opportunity cost - the cost of making that choice by foregoing alternative choices.

Scarcity in a goods sense means there are more people wanting this good than is available by any means.

Well, I (and other economists) would consider this a shortage (there is more of something demanded than is actually supplied).

Scarcity in an opportunity-cost sense is that there are a finite number of ways to expend effort to aquire goods, and so we need to maximize our good intake while minimizing effort.

In general, you're correct.

Well, there again is that funny "need" term.

I agree, need is a very subjective term. The "wants" of previous generations often become the "needs" of current generations. It still boils down to making choices.

But anyway, if all people have the same amount of time then it, really, is the least scarce of all things, wouldn't you say?

If everyone that has lived, is living, and will live had the same amount of time to live their lives, then scarcity would still exist. Because my needs/wants are different from your needs/wants, are different from his/her needs/wants, etc. Multply that by eveyone alive (or who lived and is yet to live). And factor in changes in peoples' wants and needs.

Put another way - if everyone has an infinite lifespan and all their needs/wants could be met instantaneously, then scarcity would not exist. That because all my choices could be satisfied. I've sacrificed nothing - no opportunity cost.

To sum, economics deals with making choices. Whether the economic system in place is pure Communism or pure Capitalism (and varients in between), scarcity will always have to be dealt with.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by eponymous
Whether the economic system in place is pure Communism or pure Capitalism (and varients in between), scarcity will always have to be dealt with.

True. And my point is: scarcity, in general, doesn't exist in the present. Thus, we move into the realm of theory -- theoretically, without capitalism, at some future point scarcity would result.

But, this is ultimately a theory that hasn't been tested, except by replacing capitalism with systems that have even more constraints and overhead, such as communism or socialism or feudalism, etc.

As such, I don't have any data to support the idea that this theory is false, any more than anyone here has data to support the idea that this theory is true.

[eponymous]

[quote]Originally posted by jmullaney

True. And my point is: scarcity, in general, doesn't exist in the present. Thus, we move into the realm of theory -- theoretically, without capitalism, at some future point scarcity would result.

Not sure what your getting at. Scarcity still exists. It will always exist as human beings have finite existences. Humans will always have to make choices as to what their needs/wants are. And the range of choices/decisions that humans have available to them far surpasses the time, energy, labor, goods, etc. that exist. Various systems can be used and have been used in helping humans make choices - but scarcity (the conflict between humans unlimited wants/needs versus finite resources) will always be present.

Market capitalism is an effective allocation system in helping humans make choices and meet their needs/wants. Many of these needs/wants are being met by many societies that have adopted capitalism, but as those wants/needs are met, new ones arise.

I don't think we're in disagreement as to the benefits of capitalism. Just trying to clarify what economists and other mean by scarcity.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by eponymous
Scarcity still exists. ... ([T]he conflict between humans unlimited wants/needs versus finite resources) will always be present.

People have limited needs. But I don't think people have unlimited wants. If they did, everyone would be constantly miserable because their wants are consistently not met by society. I don't find that to be the case. You may find specific examples of people who are driven by unreasonable wants (conquering Europe, for example) but I don't think that in turn means infinite scarcity in the practical sense (there's only one Europe). A society could not survive long if it did not meet its members wants.

[erislover]

jmull

I know what you mean. In light of infinite wants our petty finite haves would keep us damn near suicidal!

But, I think I can beat ep to the punch on this one in that it is assumed that the human race will never stop desiring things. That is, you have finite wants, but were you to have those things there would still be more for you to want.

To say otherwise would be to say that you would be happy never learning another thing again, never performing any specific action, etc etc. This scarcity refers not just to goods and services but time spent aquiring them, time enjoying them, etc etc.

I consider that a bit of a stretch, but you know how those economists are

[eponymous]

Originally posted by aynrandlover

But, I think I can beat ep to the punch on this one in that it is assumed that the human race will never stop desiring things. That is, you have finite wants, but were you to have those things there would still be more for you to want.

To say otherwise would be to say that you would be happy never learning another thing again, never performing any specific action, etc etc. This scarcity refers not just to goods and services but time spent aquiring them, time enjoying them, etc etc.

You are correct, sir!!

I consider that a bit of a stretch, but you know how those economists are

True, it is somewhat of a stretch (I am not an economist); but it is a useful assumption in studying and explaining economic behavior.