In a way, yes. “Demand” in the common every day English usage means “want”; a person who is hungry wants and demands a loaf of bread regardless if he can afford to pay the $2.67 for a loaf nowadays. In Economics, the jargon “Demand” means the quantity of bread that people who are willing and able to exchange $2.67 for a loaf of bread. Our friend Armen has been using the word “demand” in the Economics sense (i.e. price dependent) instead of the common English sense without evening realizing it. There is no over-capacity for any item with price on it if all those who want it for free (e.g. the penniless hungry who wants a loaf of bread for free) are counted as demand, in the common English sense of the word. There is always more common English “demand” (or “want”) than there is supply of any tangible item which usually has a price on it; therefore, all such items are scarce.
You can not ignore international trade anymore. For example, Japan relies HEAVILY on international trade.<
Reliance on this or that demands scarcity in the real sense of the word. There is no scarcity. There is nothing that is not in a region that is needed for that region to be wealthy. You over analyse. Yes, the evaporation of the US auto market is leaving Michigan in some transition pain. But there is no scarcity. You have as much agreed to that, though in a convaluted way. Everything is limited, but NOTHING is scarce. There is nothing lacking in your town for your town to have a vibrant economy even if it were to be suddenly isolated from the rest of the world. Yes, some economies have gotten used to international trade, and if cut off would have some minor transition pains, but I stress, MINOR. International trade is froth. It always has been and it always will be.
He offered another one from investopedia.<
And Greenspin offered another from the economist. These aren’t definitions but discussions. Within it is said that what is meant is limited resources. Again, use the words that have the meaning that you want to convey. And then Jim uses Miriam webster and tries to redefine what demand means. Economists are not good linguists. They should stick to mucking up economic understanding, and leave the mucking up of the language to those people who have the credentials for it.
When we talk about the possibility of oil scarcity, you know we aren’t talking about a supply that is limited but in excess of demand. And yet you get confused, because you know that there is no real scarcity in the economic world; and the real reason that you are so confused, is that you have allowed the language to be confused by idiot economists.
Using the word scarce when what is meant is limited, is unwarranted, fear mongering propaganda that is designed to obfuscate and confuse. Until you decide to use words only in the meaning that is generaly accepted and verifiable by a dictionary, you will remain confused, and like your professors before you, will propagate your confusion
Whoever started this corruption of vocabulary was a very stupid man (probably Keynes). Do we really have to perpetuate his stupidity?? Why do you guys feel the need to defend his misnomers?
Really. How far do you take this argument? Is there nothing lacking in my property for me to have a vibrant economy, even if it were suddenly isolated from the other properties around me? If not, where is your arbitrary cut-off point? Even if New York City were suddenly isolated from the rest of the world–the East, Harlem and Hudson rivers, say, fill with lava, and all electronic contacts are severed–it would run out of food fairly quickly, and if people can’t eat they can’t make a vibrant economy. Minor transition pains?
Oh right, since nothing is scarce, food will fall like manna from the skies.
Really, so folks in the military and technical professions aren’t allowed to use their jargon anymore, since it’s not generally accepted and verifiable by a non-technical dictionary? And you say this will make things less confused?
Rubbish. You were shown definitions (not ‘discussions’) that illuminate the meaning of the term within economics. The term is neither confusing nor problematic, provided one acknowledges the context it is used within. You may no longer plead ignorance. Stop skirting around the issues by delving into debates on semantics and address the actual economic issues.
Really, so folks in the military and technical professions aren’t allowed to use their jargon anymore<
When I say there is no scarcity,you for some stupid reason think that I mean there is no limit. When I show you that there is no scarcity, there is no argument, but only confusion over the meaning of the word. You allow that there is always excess supply exceeding demand, but when I expand that argument to international trade, your ascension crumbles, and you are quite certain that there is insufficient supply.
I call for clarity. I percieve that this coruption of word meaning is deliberate obfuscation that difuses argument by confusing argument. I state that argument is better difused over better understanding.
Who is this “you”? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here, besides yourself, “allowing” that “there is always excess supply exceeding demand”, or having “no argument” to the ‘there is no scarcity’ statement.
If you mean scarce when you say scarce why do you demand that scarce must mean limited when you use it? The meaning is changed because it is well understood that there is no scarcity as scarcity is generally defined.
Again, when you say that the minimum wage doesnt cause unemployment, are you not saying what I’m saying above, in principle?
And this?
I don’t believe anyone here besides you has allowed that supply always exceeds demand. No one here has made that claim. But please, stop avoiding the statements we present to you arman. You said that international trade means nothing. So let me get this straight. If japan tomorrow cut itself off from the rest of the world, everything about Japan would remain the same? I am talking about no more imports or exports. They become self-sufficient. They would grow their own food, and provide their own resources. Do you believe that they could do this and maintain the type of economy they have today?
"When we talk about the possibility of oil scarcity, you know we aren’t talking about a supply that is limited but in excess of demand. And yet you get confused, because you know that there is no real scarcity in the economic world; and the real reason that you are so confused, is that you have allowed the language to be confused by idiot economists. "
No, that isn’t what those people are talking about. The people who fear that we have hit peak oil, actually believe that there a lack of supply. That there is actually NO more oil left in the world.
“And then Jim uses Miriam webster and tries to redefine what demand means. Economists are not good linguists. They should stick to mucking up economic understanding, and leave the mucking up of the language to those people who have the credentials for it.”
Wow, did you just call Merrium webster an economist? First off, according to Wiki, it’s not even a real person. Look up what Merrium webster is:
Please read up on noah webster. This statement here shows two things:
-
saying anything said by an economist is automatically wrong…with no logical backing.
-
claiming merrium webster is an economist, when no such real person existed.
Arman, why do you dodge is question? It is a simple yes or no answer. I did not see any of this here.
Again, when you say that the minimum wage doesnt cause unemployment, are you not saying what I’m saying above, in principle?<
No. It is not just that business can adjust to buy the same labor, but that the consumer adjusts to the higher wages by spending them on more labor services.
Nathan,
you have shown yourself oblivious to any understanding that I try to convey to you. Even when I have convinced you of a point or two, you act like you haven’t learned anything. I have told you repeatedly that you are very difficult to get focused. In order to convey any understanding, some focus is needed. The rest of the people here are not as prone to scatter the conversation all over the map, like you are. You really should get more protein in your diet. It would reduce your sugar highs, and negate your need for ritalin.
I have given you plenty of attention over the past year, and appreciate the attention (what little you could muster) that you have given me, Please allow the conversation with the others on this thread to develope without your input.
Awfully presumptuous, aren’t we? You’re the one who has been dodging points and derailing the debate so far.
Dodging points?? I don’t think so. Ignoring the propaganda? Certainly! Derailing the debate?? By seeking clarity??
I don’t see what question Nathan is referring to. If it was important to him, why did he not just reiterate? And all that fluff and nonsense about the name on a dictionary? How is that pertinent?
I am debating 4 or 5 people. If I am at all controlling the debate, then it is an indication that I know what I am talking about.
Really now Arman? You haven’t been dodging points? Let me re-post an argument:
Really. How far do you take this argument? Is there nothing lacking in my property for me to have a vibrant economy, even if it were suddenly isolated from the other properties around me? If not, where is your arbitrary cut-off point? Even if New York City were suddenly isolated from the rest of the world–the East, Harlem and Hudson rivers, say, fill with lava, and all electronic contacts are severed–it would run out of food fairly quickly, and if people can’t eat they can’t make a vibrant economy. Minor transition pains?
Oh right, since nothing is scarce, food will fall like manna from the skies.
Please respond to this
It is well understood that excess food is the prerequisite for any economic activity. Yes, should New York be suddenly cut off from the world, it would have trouble growing its gardens in the concrete. There is lag time for food to grow, and so the food source is the only industry that should be at all protected by the government. Every regional government should take measures to ensure that sufficient food is available from its locale. The international trade in basic food puts our well being at the mercy of foreign governments and foreign traders. No other industry matters. International trade in food should be very soundly discouraged. Excess food is better stockpiled than shipped abroad, putting ourselves at risk and ruining the potential profits of foreign farmers in their leanest years.
So that is the cut off point. In order to have a vibrant economy, there must be excess food.