And what, pray tell, are our ‘needs’? Why do we NEED anything? We don’t need to live. There’s no NEED for anything. You’re dictatorially determining my needs. If I WANT to be X, then I NEED Y. There.
Not all sicknesses can be cured on your own. I mean, certain cancers can be gotten rid of through chemo. But if you don’t have health care, you can’t afford the treatments. According to you, you don’t need it. So if you can’t afford it, you will die…therefore, it isn’t needed. But the same can be said about food then. There are plenty of sicknesses that require a form of healthcare treatment. Like most(if not all) STD’s. Or anything involving bacteria and requiring medication.
But aren’t there more than enough drug companies to provide sufficient competition? I’m not talking about illegal drugs like cocaine. I am talking about prescription drugs. To some, those prices are way out of control. The costs are very high, and many can’t afford them. But I guess that is normal under the free market…and there is “sufficient competition.”
Not true. I can easily just say I don’t accept cash for particular goods. That is very possible. I can say that what the hell can I do with cash? Cash has very little use besides trading. You can’t eat cash, it doesn’t provide very good protection, and you can’t build with it.
Couldn’t you say the same thing about the dictionary? I disagree with your Thesauraus statement. Also, I used the same website you used to describe your definition of scarcity. Also, just because you found your definition from a dictionary does not prove that the words are what they say in the dictionary. You have simply avoided the argument, and tried to discredit the Thesaurus itself.
Demand arise out of plain wants. Demands are not seperate from wants. As you have said, it depends on the “context” of the word. Please use your logic Arman. Also, we don’t care about their specific wishes and dreams. Economists don’t care or even want to analyze those things. We do know that they exist, and they do contribute to demand. To say that wants don’t contribute to demand is quite silly. You said economic growth is based out of expectation. Also, the will, means, and plans to consume come from wants. Are you saying that when I demand something, I no longer want it? But also, if I can not afford something, does that mean I don’t demand it? So I guess beggars really don’t demand anything, right?
You are going to have to define “needs” vs “wants” then. To me, I can argue that all goods are “needed.” And of course, you can’t define something by using the word.
Another way to prove that scarcity exists is through opportunity costs. The mises website managed to post an article explaining scarcity…and why it exists.
“In a world of scarcity, every choice requires that something else of value must be given up, and the highest-valued alternative given up is the opportunity cost.”
This is true in all situations. Economic teachers best example of this is going to class. Every kid in class knows that they could be doing something else right now than going to class. I shall use myself as an example. I have a class tomorrow at 9 am. By going to this class, I have given up playing my favorite video game. But alas, I can say that after my class, I can play this game, and nothing was lost. But this is not true. That time between my class has been lost for playing that game.
Basically, it follows the idea of “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” If scarcity did not exist, there would be no cost. So tell me Arman, explain to me an action I can do that has no cost to it. If you can, then that particular item has no scarcity.
thanks xahrx - I was trying to follow the logic stream of this exchange, and the union topic struck me from left field (like, what the heck?!)
Looking through the dictionary, I decided to look up the word “want.” I found this:
–verb (used with object)
| 1. | to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one’s dinner; always wanting something new. |
|---|
| 2. | to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often fol. by an infinitive): I want to see you. She wants to be notified. |
|---|
| 3. | to be without or be deficient in: to want judgment; to want knowledge. |
|---|
| 4. | to fall short by (a specified amount): The sum collected wants but a few dollars of the desired amount. |
|---|
| 5. | to require or need: The house wants painting. |
|---|
–verb (used without object)
| 6. | to feel inclined; wish; like (often fol. by to): We can stay home if you want. |
|---|
| 7. | to be deficient by the absence of some part or thing, or to feel or have a need (sometimes fol. by for): He did not want for abilities. |
|---|
| 8. | to have need (usually fol. by for): If you want for anything, let him know. |
|---|
| 9. | to be in a state of destitution, need, or poverty: She would never allow her parents to want. |
|---|
| 10. | to be lacking or absent, as a part or thing necessary to completeness: All that wants is his signature. |
|---|
–noun
| 11. | something wanted or needed; necessity: My wants are few. |
|---|
| 12. | something desired, demanded, or required: a person of childish, capricious wants. |
|---|
| 13. | absence or deficiency of something desirable or requisite; lack: plants dying for want of rain. |
|---|
| 14. | the state of being without something desired or needed; need: to be in want of an assistant. |
|---|
| 15. | the state of being without the necessaries of life; destitution; poverty: a country where want is virtually unknown. |
|---|
| 16. | a sense of lack or need of something: to feel a vague want. |
|---|
Also through the thesauraus, it equated want with demand. It also equates want with a need.
Now, looking at the thesaurus, I see that scarce means not enough or deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand. Now, looking at demand, in the verb tense, it is asking or the desire of something. Isn’t a want the same thing when used in the verb tense? You have your demand, and I give you the want. They use the frickin word as its definition. Please explain this.
That is what I’ve been telling you. And yet you try and tell me that this sentence doesn’t make sence because wants and demands are the same thing.
Exactly, because when you demand something, you are laying your money down and taking it..You aren’t wanting it anymore, but are having it.
Exactly. Demand must have the want coupled with means and intention.
No, they are not in position to demand anything, until they take their mooched quarters to the liquor store and demand some wine.
The patent laws sell monopolies to these companies, and the protection is far far far too extensive. In Canada, generics were allowed 5 years after the patent grant, and then generic companies would pay 10% of sales to the patent holder. That law was struck down about 10 years ago thanks to the lobbying efforts of some international drug companies.
You’re too much. A dictionary can be used as a thesauraus, but a thesauraus is not a dictionary.
Why can the word “limits” be used in the place of scarcity? If you mean “limited”, why must you use the word that has the connotation of shortages surrounding it? There’s not enough apples in the US to fill all the demand for fruit. There are not enough oranges in the US to fill all the demand for fruit. There is enough fruit in the US to fill all the demand for fruit. There are limits, but it does not follow that there are shortages.
Good argument. Well made.
You object to my word “need” as being too subjective. Fine, then. There is enough resources in the market to fill what every individual believes his/her basic needs to be, plus excess. There are never enough resources in the market to fill every want. When scarcity sets in, and basic need as seen by the individual cannot be obtained in the market, then all exchanges become impossible. Scarcity does not drive exchanges. Excess does.
Need can only be used if it’s applied to a want. If I want to experience life for another 50 yrs, then I need to live. If I want to experience a good book, then I need to read. If I want to taste good food, then I need to eat.
What would it mean to say, my car needs gas if I or no one else wants to go anywhere in it?
So the fact that you cannot define needs without the context of want and want is unlimited, then the resources to meet the needs of your wants are scarce.
If wants didn’t play a VITAL role in economics, there’d never be an improvement in goods and services. If economics is merely supply and demand, there’d simply be a continuation of the status quo of supply and demand (which would’ve required wants to even get to the current status quo). Because man wants to be able to be anywhere at anytime, he invents things to help him satisfy that want. In the current era, we see the manifestation of these wants in the transformation of the car. 100 yrs ago (has it been that long!?) we were driving Henry Ford’s line of Model A’s and model T’s., but today we’re driving Ford Expeditions. Why invent cars? Was it so that they could be demanded?
Since there is no dictator of our minds, we are left w/ our infinite (or nearly so?) wants. Like I said before, man doesn’t act economically for the mere sake of economics. Man acts economically in order to satisfy his wants. I think you’re trying to define everyone else’s wants. You may not say that, but when YOU say that WE need this and WE need that, you’re taking on the role of WANT God, defining our desires for us. That’s why I think it’s important to keep wants in the hands of each individual man or you become oppressed by another.
It depends on the context of the word, just like you said. Scarce does not mean shortage. It simply means “insufficient.” Insufficient doesn’t necessarily have to equate to “shortage.” But if you want to put it that way, yes, there is a shortage simply because there aren’t enough apples in the US to fill the demand for apples.
Silliest thing I’ve ever heard. You are too much. I guess you do not believe in synonyms then. That is what the thesauraus is all about.
You mean, government granted monopolies to these companies. Don’t say laws, since laws themselves don’t do anything. Better yet, say “politicans” granted monopolies to these companies, since you love semantics. Secondly, how does this address my statement? Also, so what if that happened? Care to explain the after-effects of such things? Do you believe in government protection of certain industries?
So even people in refugee camps can’t demand anything either, correct? Since they aren’t using money to pay for their stuff, they are like the beggar.
Alas, I have shown that want and demand have similar meanings with each other. They aren’t so different as you make them seem. Read my previous post about it.
False. This is false in every way, shape, and form. There are people who need medication, but are unable to fulfill this basic need. There are those who starve everyday, and can not fulfill this basic need.
Excess doesn’t drive exchange at all. If excess is the basis of an economy, why would I ever want to create more jobs? Why would I ever want to produce more? Isn’t that just wasteful then? Why would I want to waste resources constantly? Why do I need to increase production…if the market itself simply creates “excess.” Maybe a crap load of choices, but not goods themselves.
Basically Arman, what he is saying here(correct me if I am wrong paraynoid) is that wants and demands work together. They exist together. They aren’t seperate. Once you go and buy something, it’s still a want. To say that all demands are fulfilled, therefore, there is no scarcity, ignores wants. If there was no scarcity, there would be no more wants. That is what the garden of eden was like. The garden of Eden had no scarcity. That is why wants didn’t exist in the garden of eden. What else was there to achieve? What else did we desire? If there is no scarcity, there is no such thing as a “want.”
Arman, I have come to a realization. You say that minimum wage prevents excessive exploitation. But exploitation is a part of running, so it is necessary. I am also assuming from past arguments that the one with the power is the one exploiting. We must also prevent excessive exploitation all around, correct? Therefore, besides the use of minimum wage, we should also have minimum prices…so that consumers do not exploit businesses…since consumers have more power than businesses, correct?
Needs are in fact wants. It does not follow that wants are in fact needs. That wants are unlimited does not mean that needs are unlimited. That there must always be a shortage of resources to fill your outermost wants, does not follow that there should ever be a shortage of resources to fill your needs, regardless of what you have determined your absolute needs to be, and regardless of the fact that I cannot phylosophically determine what your needs really are today.
Synonyms are not equal words, but of a similar meaning under certain usages. Do you believe that ‘rob’ means ‘produce’??? But if synonyms have equal meaning, then Pairunoyd’s string proves that ‘rob’ means ‘produce’
NO. There are enough apples to fill the demand for apples, but if there were no other fruit, then apples could not satisfy all the demand for fruit. Apples are in limited supply. Apples are not in short supply.
You remind me of my grandson trying to walk him through the store. Try and pay attention. Try to keep up. And please try to stop asking the questions that I’ve already explained to you. Food excess should have government protection. Nothing else really matters. People can expect government protection on the validity of information provided, of the safe efficacy of the drugs that are marketed to them. The industry does not need or deserve protection from the government. I said that competition will always control prices, and you brought up pharmaceuticals. Like I said, unless the government does something really stupid, like prohibit certain goods, or create monopolies for certain goods, competition will always control the price.
The business is disposable. People are not. The only business that we cannot live without is the farm, and so minimum prices on farm produce might well be in order.
That some needed resources are out of reach of some individuals does not at all indicate that there are insufficient resources in the market, but only that some elements of stagnation are in place.
When I don’t understand a statement I say so. Don’t try and explain someone else’s statement to me. The fact that it is so very difficult to acquire any comprehension from you for any validity to anything I say shows to me that you are severely handicapped when it comes to interpreting anybody’s statement. Even if you could interpret it better than I, my faith in your intellect renders your explanation quite invalid.
No they can not. Government can’t do any of this. You of all people should know this. The FDA has failed in this regard.
Yes it does. If some resources are out of the reach of individuals, then that means there are insufficient resources in the market. I mean, I would assume that those individuals are “part” of the market.
If businesses are disposable…then so are people. You can not have a business without people. Show me a business that operates with no person running it. Any particular “minimum price” on food? How would you go about increasing the price of food? Would you follow FDR’s idea and destroy food in order to raise prices(they already do this with oranges. 1 billion oranges are destroyed each year to help orange farmers.) The idea that we must not be dependent on foriegn food. It is like politicans saying we must not be dependent on “foriegn oil.” The arguments apply in the same way.
Nothing but an attack on my character. Is this how you win arguments?
You seem to always assume that if A = B…then automatically, B != A. Wants are needs…needs are wants. Needs are unlimited. Wants are unlimited. As he said, if I want X…then I NEED Y. If this statement is true, then needs are unlimited. Because there is always a shortage of resources to fulfill wants, it does follow that there is a shortage to fulfill needs, based on the statement that if I want X, then I need Y to fulfill X.
One more thing Arman, I believe your food argument should apply to water sources as well. We should have government protection of water, since water is essential to survival, just as much as food. Also, are you applying this to all food and all companies? I mean, not all farmers are “small businesses.” They are large corporate entities. The government practices much of the stuff with food you advocate today. Subsidies for farmers, protection against foriegn competition, paying farmers to not grow food(in order to increase prices). Most people would disagree with such a practice.
Secondly, we can easily live without food. We have enough vitamins supplements to fulfill our energy needs. So farms are disposable. We don’t need farms to live. We can easily live off of meat and other animals. So farms can be gotten rid of.
Does anyone else notice that Xevec’s arguments are getting more and more absurd?
Farms are the first business. Without a supply of excess food, there can be no economic activity at all, and we are back to hunters/gatherers.
This is not a protection of the excess, but trying to create the scarcity that the fool economist thinks the economy runs on.