No, it’s not. Combat means the use of violence. Government intervention, especially through the use of violence, can only exacerbate economic scarcity. Whatever scarcity they are trying to alleviate, now the wielders of violence would need a share of the resources too.
Because scarcity is a permanent economic condition, a war on scarcity just means permanent war, and permanent imposition of government control of all resources that are in demand (less available than all wants).
Where did we ever say we are trying to “combat scarcity?” Secondly, it’s common knowledge that resources are limited. People realize that there is such a thing as “non-renewable” resources. Why do you think the green movement is so popular? I believe at certain points, it takes it too far(like using government tax dollars to subsidize ethanol production). But re-using and realizing that we have limited resources is a fundamental part of our lives.
Tell me something, if government decides to restrict foriegn imports of food, won’t local farmers here simply raise the prices of food, because of the lack of competition? The government does provide funds for others. I mean, halliburton has certainly benefitted from government policy. But at the expense of other people. Government does help people…by transferring wealth from one sector to the other.
But why not government protection of health care? I mean, we certainly need health care to live. Without health care, food doesn’t matter anymore.
I would think words like “lack of consumer spending” gives license to politicans for monkeying in the market. Also, you have never really defined what is meant by “excess” since in order for their to be excess, everyone(and I mean everyone) has to have satisfaction with all goods. So I guess beggars are satisfied with their lot in life, right?
One more thing, saying we should “protect excess food” is basically saying we should protect wasting food. You are basically promoting an mis-allocation of resources. I mean, you can have in a country food being destroyed or thrown away…and people are still starving. Do you not remember FDR’s slash and burn policies? He was destroying crops because they were in “excess.” He was trying to help farmers not lose their jobs. I believe this is a perfect example on how to protect our food industry.
Arman, if someone didn’t have enough ‘stuff’ to sustain their life, would that ‘stuff’ be considered scarce?
Do you have problems with reading, or just with comprehension. That the grocer has a thousand cans of corn does not make him more powerful in the exchange than the customer. There are other grocers, and there are other things that the dollar can be spent on. The possibility that the grocer will sell the corn is far far less than the possibility that the customer will find something that he will want to spend his dollar on. That the grocer has the means to conduct thousands of transactions does not make him as powerful in the single transaction as the customer is. In any transaction, it is the guy giving the cash that has the power of choice, and not the guy giving up whatever he is giving up for the cash. The cash transaction is not equitable.
You don’t. Politicians do. And they use economic jargon to bolster their platform. Scarcity means shortage, less than what is needed. To redefine it as you want to gives politicians power to deceive.
There is plenty of competition between local farmers. There is no scarcity of competition. A nickel or two on the loaf of bread is not going to cause economic chaos to the consumer, but it will make a huge difference on the farm, especially when it comes to the possibility of paying for storage.
Without food, nothing matters anymore. People are living without healthcare all over the world. They often survive.
There is personal scarcity, but not scarcity on the macro level. There are more than sufficient resources in the market to fill everyone’s need. Stagnation occurs when the mechanics of the exchange have put too much of the resources out of the reach of the majority of the population.
Uh huh…like they really survive. Tell that to Africa…who’s people are dying of aids every single day. They live in misery and sickness. Also, can you give proof of that? I highly doubt countries in Africa which have excess food(which I am assuming under your logic) are living perfectly fine without health care. If you are sick and dying…why should one care about food? Also, water is more important than food to survive.
But competition is certainly less if it is between local farmers…than it is against global farmers. Also, how far are you going to take the “local farmers” argument? Should Illinois stop foriegn imports of Idaho potatoes to help local farmers in Illinois? Should Chicago, IL stop foriegn imports of food from Springfield, IL? That certainly is “foriegn.” Should we not buy foriegn food from our grocery store so that we can grow our own food ourselves to prevent shortages?
Politicans certainly must not do that…but you are blaming definitions for that problem. So your solution is to change the definition to stop politicians? But alas, you want to make sure there is “excess food” so you want politicians to ensure this…by simply isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. But I ask, how far do you take your logic? Read my posts from above.
I say there is stagnation right now, because too many people can not get the things they need. I say 100% of the population are not getting the things they need. Therefore, stagnation has existed all the time. They are not getting the things they need because of constant demand of all goods.
By your argument about the corn, and the dollar, you make it sound like the dollar is a good within itself, which is not true. Trading a dollar is like bartering in a sense. The dollar is a represenation of a good, which is how you can come to the conclusion that the dollar is a debt. Also, it assumes that people will ACCEPT that lousy piece of paper. You can do a hell lot more with a can of corn, than you can with a dollar. You are assuming too much power with that silly piece of paper. I mean, if you brought that dollar to say…europe, I doubt most local stores would accept such a lousy piece of paper.
With your transaction analysis, you have gone away from the original argument. Keep the scope focused. Think only of that ONE transaction. How is the guy buying 100 cans of corn for $1 more powerful than the guy giving the 100 cans of corn away with $1? Do not bring any third parties into the analysis.
If only JimS had said that…which he didn’t. He never argued that the grocer with the thousand cans of corn makes him more powerful in the exchange. The exchange is EQUAL. They both have equal power in any cash transaction. To say one has more power, is simply saying one party is getting more benefit than the other. So if I buy a loaf of bread from a friend of mine for $3…is he gaining more than I am? Did he benefit more from the transaction than me? According to your sentence here, the person giving the money has more power. So in my example, I benefitted from the loaf of bread exchange more than my friend. So applying it to the macro, consumers have more power than producers. Cash is somehow essentially more important to the health of an economy than actual products themselves…since actual products have less usage than cash(even though cash by itself is pretty useless.) So any sort of idea that businesses can exploit consumers is simply impossible, right? Also, how can you assume that everyone wants cash in a transaction?
So let us say the price of a loaf of bread falls too low. What should the government do to ensure the farmer is making enough money? Let us say people do not want to buy any more corn(very possible). Also, how high must the import tax be to ensure people will not buy overseas(I mean, they can continue to buy overseas…if people demand it enough…so your idea of a high tax simply will not stop people from their dependence on foriegn food).
I’d appreciate it if you guys could consolidate your next replies into single posts instead of multiple fragmentary posts.
If you are dying, then you don’t really need anything.
I do not think I am the one changing the definition. You want scarcity to mean limited. You say that this has become a matter of fact within the economist’s community. I say that the world at large has a completely different connotation to the word, and if you mean limited then say limited and not scarce.
Is more than more than enough not rather redundant?
With perfect information, yes. Unfortunately, the item being sold is sometimes not exactly as it appeared to be at the time of the transaction. That’s what fraud laws are all about.
So then you agree to my point about health care.
Well, I did prove to you that Scarce and Limited are synonymous with each other. I showed that in a previous post. Secondly, I disagree with you that the world at large has a completely different connotation with the word. People do believe resources are scarce. That is why the green movement is such a big deal.
I do not believe that local competition is “enough.” I say it lacks competition. Of course, how can you argue against that? There is no objective standard to having “enough.”
Fraud laws do not prevent such actions. In reality, no law prevent unwanted actions. If they did, prisons would not be necessary. Laws are designed to punish for such actions. But fraud happens all the time, and people are not punished at all. Have you ever ordered food from a restaurant and found it to be awful? Did you have that person arrested for fraud? Did you sue the restaurant for giving you bad-tasting food?
But even with perfect information, the consumer is always more powerful than the business? Yes or no?
If not having enough of something to sustain your life is scarcity, then guess what - everything is scarce.
It doesn’t matter how much you drink, eat, exercise, rest and take care of yourself, these things will not sustain your life. If they did, people would live forever. You can modify sustain and say, 'postponing death due to starvation, dehydration, etc., but nothing will truly sustain you.
Man acts economically to meet his wants. He doesn’t get up and only ask what demands he can make. Otherwise, he wouldn’t do the drudgery of work. He wants to be able to demand more and that want for increased demand determines how he behaves ECONOMICALLY. You say wants aren’t important. Let someone hold you prisoner and torture you and see how badly you want to escape, even at a high risk to your life. This incentive to escape torture is the same incentive people feel when they incur costs and risks to get what they want, to escape their predicament. You’re dictatorially proclaiming that man only wants what YOU say.
How long must something sustain life before it’s no longer considered scarce?
How do you define the life or the state of being that it’s sustaining, e.g. minmal brain function, happy, successful billionaire?
In order to say the economic use of the term scarce is wrong, you must not only determine how long a thing has to sustain but you have to determine what it’s sustaining. Now that I think about it, maybe this is some of what was meant by “the pursuit of happiness.” The alleged goal of the formation of a limited government republic is to allow man to pursue his happiness and the reason man has unlimited wanting is not solely because it’ll get him where he wants, but simply because the mere act of wanting or pursuing the want is in and of itself a reward or a want. Man wants to want! To say this pursuit isnt important is to say that a want isn’t a want.
No. If you are really dying then you don’t need healthcare. If you are sick, you will get better or you will die. Either way, you don’t NEED healthcare.
Unless government tries to outlaw an industry, like it does in the drug trade, always there will be sufficient competition to control prices. If prices move too high because of a lack of competition, this only serves to attract new investment that will reduce prices through competition.
Why do you ask the question that I just answered?? The business is less powerful than the customer in the individual transaction, just as the worker is less powerful than the business in the individual transaction. Cash transactions are not equitable.
Thesaurus listings are suggestion of words that might work well within a very specific context. Do you understand Parunoid’s word list that creates the synonym string from rob to produce? The meaning of the word is often dependent on the context, and just because you found a Thesaurus suggestion does not prove that the words are always, or even usually synonyms.
No. I say that the wants are infinite and indefinable. Demands are not plain wants, but arise out of the will, means and plans of the consumer. I dismiss wants that are not yet demands as they are none of our business. I do not mean to dehumanize the consumer, but say that their secret wishes and dreams are way beyond the scope of any economist’s investigation.
Are you accusing me of being unmindful of my mortality?? Rather audacious of you, seeing as I just lost my wife. Sustenance of life is an ongoing endeavor. Defining your needs over your wants is somewhat an involved philosophical discussion, but there is a point that the discussion becomes moot. There is in the market sufficient resources to fulfill all needs. There can never be sufficient resources to fulfill all wants. Defining scarcity according to wants rather than needs renders the connotation meaningless, just as defining life to mean eternal living renders the connotation meaningless