From his perspective, he is accusing you of making personal attacks…and not really making real arguments. He in a way is saying that you should be removed from this debate if you are not willing to debate. He is saying that you have evaded arguments(by not answering yes/no questions…for example "is your argument similar to that of “…”) and dismissed arguments simply because they are propaganda(it is equally dumb as dismissing something as wrong because it was said by a democrat). This is in every sense, a threat…but it is totally justified…from reading the things I have written above.
Because it is a poorly qualified non-response. I am taking the time to debate this, so I expect some effort on your part. How is it excess resources? The company has to cover costs for sending out this mail (perhaps the costs it incurs are minimal, has that crossed your mind? if so why are they minimal? what about that, contemplated it?); It estimates that the expected returns from doing so will exceed its costs. Entrepreneurs always seek out potential demand to see where they should divert their productive activities and gain a profit (as opposed to a loss) - so as not to malinvest (this supports rather than denies the existence of scarcity, if it isn’t clear enough.)
Want is unlimited. Unqualified want is not what I mean, and I have said so. Purposely misrepresenting the meaning of what I have said is not an intelligent argument.
That demand is at all sought out clearly illustrates that demand falls short of supply. If supply was at all short of demand there would be no possibility (or very low possibility) of mal-investment.
Not at all. Are we assuming all demand is satisfied? I mean, is demand limited? Is supply limited? I must first know this. If demand is unlimited, then scarcity exists. It can not exist, since supply can not be higher than infinity. But you must specify the “demand” you speak of. From your dictionary defintions you posted, which one are you using?
What does “unqualified” want mean? When you say unqualified…are you referring to the beggar that wants food and can’t pay for it?
Doesn’t really give much definite direction there does it?
By demand, I mean
“1.to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right:” or "9.Economics. the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demand#.
In my usage, demand does not mean plain want. Pretending that my meaning is unclear is being purposely obtuse.
This isn’t scientific evidence for anything, and does not prove your point. Just because your extremely biased sample (in the statistical sense, i.e. non-systematic, non-random, some have a higher chance than others of being included, and non-representative of the general population) doesn’t contain anybody “displaced” by minimum wage hikes does not indicate, by any means, that there were no or few people laid off.
Just as, by your faith alone, you can eliminate scarcity, redefine the role of business to something nobody here’s ever seen and deduce “correct” conclusions from erroneous data.
As someone of the age group that is most commonly seen on Facebook, as well as a user of the site myself, I can vouch for its non-representability of any population less limited than “internet-savvy, internet-connected 16-25 year olds with a good deal of free time on their hands”. There are large groups of people within the age group that do not wish to use Facebook; others are “represented” on Facebook, but are not active enough to notice someone’s request somewhere regarding whether or not they have been affected by the minimum wage increase; a lot, in addition, may rest in where on Facebook you asked this and how it was phrased. In the statistical sense, it’s an extremely biased sample. While Facebook might be suitable for informal uses, data gleaned from it are not scientific, and can’t be used to support or refute an economic principle.
If there were no scarcity, I would be seriously surprised that I get so little junk mail. If people need to push resources towards consumption, they’ll logically increase the demand for paper–and since, you claim, the supply of paper is in excess of the demand, they would get their paper, so that higher demand for paper for junk mail would translate into a deluge of mail in my mailbox every afternoon orders of magnitude higher than what I currently get.
It was enough to change my opinion. But then you should know how easily I’m swayed.
I say that everything is limited and nothing is scarce. Your argument contends for limited. Your argument says nothing about scarcity.
Arman, I first was under the impression that you rejected the economic definition of demand. Now right here, you are using it. Yes, in economics, we usually call that “quantity demand” to inform to people that when we say “demand” we are meaning “the desire to purchase with the power to do so.” But this does not follow that scarcity does not exist, and that business pattern is to over-produce ALWAYS. Secondly, read this:
"Scarcity (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/scarcity.asp) The basic economic problem which arises from people having unlimited wants while there are and always will be limited resources. Because of scarcity, various economic decisions must be made to allocate resources efficiently.
When we talk of scarcity within an economic context, it refers to limited resources, not a lack of riches. These resources are the inputs of production: land, labor and capital.
People must make choices between different items because the resources necessary to fulfill their wants are limited. These decisions are made by giving up (trading off) one want to satisfy another."
This was posted by JimS. With your definitions that were given, this is consistent with the dictionary definition. Yet, you argued against it. He even said before this post, you are using the economic definition and didn’t even realize it. I now wonder if you are truly against economics, since when you say demand, you are using the economic definition.
Your meaning is now clear when you said that. First off, you can’t use both of them like that because the first one is using it as a verb, while the economic definition is a noun. You can’t say it in a sentence that both has a verb and noun pre-tense. The first definition refers to a sentence like “I demand money.” The second definition you provide is a sentence like “the demand for apples is down.” Secondly, even using this definition, you can not come to the conclusion that supply is in excess of demand because people refuse to buy the product.
If it is limited, then it is scarce, by every meaning of the word. To be scarce, is to be limited. Taken from wikipedia:
In economics, scarcity is defined as a condition of limited resources, where society does not have sufficient resources to produce enough to fulfill subjective wants. …
As we all know, subjective wants are unlimited. And of course, just because you have the ability to buy something, does not mean you are willing to buy it. I mean, I have the ability to buy cigarettes, but I do not demand them.
Arman, I suggest looking at this Wikipedia article about Scarcity.
FTA:
Goods (including services) that are scarce are called economic goods (or simply ‘goods’ if their scarcity is presumed). Other goods are called free goods if they are desired but in such abundance that they are not scarce, such as air and seawater. Too much of something freely available can informally be referred to as a ‘bad’, but then its absence can classified as a good, thus, a mown lawn, clean air, etc.
Where goods are scarce it is necessary for society to make choices as to how they are allocated and used. Economists study (among other things) how societies perform the optimal allocation of these resources — along with how societies often fail to attain this optimality and are instead inefficient.
For example, we may all want to own gold jewellery. The amount of gold available, however, is limited, so it is necessary to make choices as to how it is allocated. In a market economy, this is achieved by trade. Other ways to make this decision involve tradition, community democracy, and government top-down or centralized command. In the market, individuals and organizations, such as corporations, trade resources amongst themselves, reallocating resources to where they are most wanted by those with purchasing power. In a smoothly operating market system, the rate of exchange between different resources, or price will adjust so that demand is equal to supply. One of the roles of the economist is to discover the relationship between demand and supply and to develop mechanisms (such as pricing, incentives, or penalties) to achieve an optimal outcome (in terms of consumer welfare).
:
To be scarce is to be limited, true. To be limited does not mean to be scarce. If demand is sought out through marketing, then demand is short of supply. If demand is short of supply then things are not scarce but only limited. There is no scarcity.
Oh my! The economist is actually supposed to develop mechanisms to adjust the market? How is that moral?
Marketing’s job does not necessarily mean demand is short of supply. There are many forms of marketing. It isn’t always “looking for new consumers.” It is sometimes trying to re-enforce the same customers you have. Maybe drawing people away from competition. It isn’t always looking for “brand new consumers.” To be scarce is to be limited. To be limited is to be scarce.