Scarce Resources?

[La Comédie Noire]

A lot of capitalists and even some environmentalists say a fairer distribution is impossible because there is simply not enough. Environmentalists have some very sophisticated arguments regarding the amount of energy that would be needed in order to lift us all out of poverty.

What are some counter arguments to this?

[¿Que?]

Fairer distribution is not impossible, although it might mean, at least in the short term, a little bit of sacrifice where there is currently a significant amount of excess, say, oh I don't know, in the U.S.

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html

[La Comédie Noire]

Thank you for the post, but I don't know if I trust the source:

http://www.cato.org/people/jerry-taylor

[mikelepore]

Scarcity of resources makes it MORE important to have a more equitable distribution.

Suppose six of us are in a lifeboat in the ocean, and I'm sitting on top of the box of food and holding a gun. I tell the other five people, "The allocation will be: one percent of the food for each of you, and ninety-five percent of the food for myself."

The apologist for capitalism is sloppy with logic. How could any limitation of resources constitute a case for NOT making distribution more equal?

(Not to mention the fact that, under capitalism, the people who have to go without the wealth are the ones who produced it.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A lot of capitalists and even some environmentalists say a fairer distribution is impossible because there is simply not enough.

Not enough? Not enough what? And for what purpose?

The thing is, they're wrong. Even if we did nothing else, we could halve resource use and double global wealth (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068) simply by being using more efficient technology and practices.

We could do even more with even less if we had an energy-based economy like technocracy, as opposed to our current value-based one.


Environmentalists have some very sophisticated arguments regarding the amount of energy that would be needed in order to lift us all out of poverty.

I can't say I've come across them myself. The idea that we would need 3 planet Earths in order for every human being to live a first-world lifestyle is based on naive extrapolations of current technology and practices, neither of which are static.

[Luisrah]

I live in a volcanic island, but we produce most energy out of oil, though there are ways of making this island energetically autonomous, by using geothermic energy and water. Studies were made on this, that it was possible, but the bourgeoisie makes money on the oil, and they're the owners of the energy company here.

Another example is waste reduction. Ever wondered about all those packets and boxes and bottles go after you use what's inside?
Maybe we do need 3 planets for everyone to live like we do, but that's because we waste too much, not because we actually consume too much.
Money is made out of producing boxes and bottles, and plastic stuff and whatever.
If instead of buying a box of cereal everytime your's finishes, you had a plastic bag that you could go to the market and fill with cereal when you need, you'd save tons and tons of waste, that could be used on something more important.
This goes for water and drinks, wine, flour and whatever you can think of.

[chegitz guevara]

I live in a volcanic island,

Sure, rub it in, sitting there in your secret lair, stroking your white cat ... bastard! ;)

Seriously, environmentalist arguments are based on capitalism and states that were under siege and needed to industrialize rapidly, like the USSR. A rationally planned, democratically run socialist/communist society will produce enough for all without the environmental devastation that is a result of capitalism and survival socialism.

A good article, slightly related. http://monthlyreview.org/100301magdoff-foster.php

[Muzk]

The growing wrath (http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1977/wysbas/ch1.htm)

Even though it's 30 years old, I still think it gets the point across, and it's not a hard read.

TL;DR: there's enough food.

[Technocrat]

A lot of capitalists and even some environmentalists say a fairer distribution is impossible because there is simply not enough. Environmentalists have some very sophisticated arguments regarding the amount of energy that would be needed in order to lift us all out of poverty.

What are some counter arguments to this?

There is a very good argument against this:

Capitalists are using the perspective that there is not enough to give everyone what they WANT.

However, there are definite limits as to what a person is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of consuming, even given free access to consume as much of whatever they want.

Since there are HARD LIMITS on what a person is physically capable of CONSUMING, it is theoretically possible to meet ALL of a population's consumption requirements.

The only question to be answered, then, is "does the area in question have sufficient resources, technology, and trained personnel to meet the consumption requirements of all people living within that area?"

This is closer to the actual definition of abundance and scarcity. Economists like to redefine abundance and scarcity into absolutes, using the argument that human WANTS are infinite. As I've explained above, this is a meaningless argument - human beings have a limited capacity to consume anything and so it is entirely possible to supply them with everything they could possibly consume (which includes both basic needs as well as desires).

Economists say that scarcity will always be a fact of life as another way of saying that there is no alternative to market economics.


Environmentalists have some very sophisticated arguments regarding the amount of energy that would be needed in order to lift us all out of poverty.These arguments are based on current patterns of resource use. For example, if it is assumed that the "prosperity level" would require a resource consumption equal to what the average North American enjoys today, then we could only support around 100 million people, world wide. However, alternate forms of social organization may require much lower resource input to achieve the same standard of living, or an even higher standard of living, than the average North American enjoys today - see Technocracy.

If we can reduce the resources needed to attain "prosperity" to 1/3rd or less of what we are now consuming (in North America), then we could sustainably support 1-2 billion people. This is about what the population of the planet was during the 1920s.

I recognize the 2 billion figure is controversial but it is well supported by science and has been arrived at independently by several different research teams. Of course, the number changes if you redefine what "prosperity" means. (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html)

[Die Rote Fahne]

if we worked we could help make land that is not fertile, fertile.

Through that each locale can grow it's own food.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I live in a volcanic island, but we produce most energy out of oil, though there are ways of making this island energetically autonomous, by using geothermic energy and water. Studies were made on this, that it was possible, but the bourgeoisie makes money on the oil, and they're the owners of the energy company here.

Another example is waste reduction. Ever wondered about all those packets and boxes and bottles go after you use what's inside?
Maybe we do need 3 planets for everyone to live like we do, but that's because we waste too much, not because we actually consume too much.
Money is made out of producing boxes and bottles, and plastic stuff and whatever.
If instead of buying a box of cereal everytime your's finishes, you had a plastic bag that you could go to the market and fill with cereal when you need, you'd save tons and tons of waste, that could be used on something more important.
This goes for water and drinks, wine, flour and whatever you can think of.

You could also put most of the effort in harnessing a mere 1% of volcanic energy & it could help fuel the entire island.

[Common_Means]

A lot of capitalists and even some environmentalists say a fairer distribution is impossible because there is simply not enough. Environmentalists have some very sophisticated arguments regarding the amount of energy that would be needed in order to lift us all out of poverty.

What are some counter arguments to this?

The argument that a fairer distribution of resources is impossible due to their inherent scarcity is nothing more than a regurgitation of bourgeois ideology. To understand the flawed logic of such a position, the essence of the system much be examined.

For instance, the capitalist cares nothing of a product's use-value, only it's exchange-value. In fact, the only use-value the good has for the capitalist is the fact that it can act as the vehicle to augment his/her money. It is from this context that one would argue that resource scarcity dictates the unevenness of distribution. However, if the exchange relation is considered further, we know that the good, whether it be for the stomach or mind, must reach market to be sold. It is through the feedback of the market that the capitalist calculates the required production and so on. Of course, each producer does not exist in a bubble, but rather operates in competition with one another.

If we re-examine the scarcity of resources from within this very basic construct, we begin to see the immense about of wastage that is involved. Think about when you go to the nearby box store. Consider the vast array of goods you are exposed to. They are not all going to be sold. In fact, the majority of them will go to waste - this is exceedingly apparent at grocery stores. Of course, given the amount of surplus-value the capitalist obtains from just one sale, the goods gone to waste can be acceptable. In cases where they are not, the company simply fails.

This system has been hailed as greatly efficient. Indeed, in terms of defining the winners and losers, it is. However, this efficiency should not be confused with an efficiency of resource distribution. As your every day experience will show you, it is extremely wasteful and inefficient. Alas, as long as exchange-values rule the day, capitalism's appearance of efficiency will remain.

EDIT: Oops, I didn't really address energy. But for that the function of the oligopolies could be cited: inter-firm cooperation and scientific innovation becoming regressive after the centralization of capital.

[Technocrat]

The argument that a fairer distribution of resources is impossible due to their inherent scarcity is nothing more than a regurgitation of bourgeois ideology. To understand the flawed logic of such a position, the essence of the system much be examined.

For instance, the capitalist cares nothing of a product's use-value, only it's exchange-value. In fact, the only use-value the good has for the capitalist is the fact that it can act as the vehicle to augment his/her money. It is from this context that one would argue that resource scarcity dictates the unevenness of distribution. However, if the exchange relation is considered further, we know that the good, whether it be for the stomach or mind, must reach market to be sold. It is through the feedback of the market that the capitalist calculates the required production and so on. Of course, each producer does not exist in a bubble, but rather operates in competition with one another.

If we re-examine the scarcity of resources from within this very basic construct, we begin to see the immense about of wastage that is involved. Think about when you go to the nearby box store. Consider the vast array of goods you are exposed to. They are not all going to be sold. In fact, the majority of them will go to waste - this is exceedingly apparent at grocery stores. Of course, given the amount of surplus-value the capitalist obtains from just one sale, the goods gone to waste can be acceptable. In cases where they are not, the company simply fails.

This system has been hailed as greatly efficient. Indeed, in terms of defining the winners and losers, it is. However, this efficiency should not be confused with an efficiency of resource distribution. As your every day experience will show you, it is extremely wasteful and inefficient. Alas, as long as exchange-values rule the day, capitalism's appearance of efficiency will remain.

EDIT: Oops, I didn't really address energy. But for that the function of the oligopolies could be cited: inter-firm cooperation and scientific innovation becoming regressive after the centralization of capital.

When an economist uses the word "efficiency", they aren't using the term the way a scientist or engineer would use it - to refer to the efficient use of materials. They mean "efficient" in terms of allocating money where it should go - which translates to "people get what they deserve".

If we are using the science or engineering definition of "efficiency", then capitalism is the LEAST efficient system ever devised. No system - the former USSR included - has ever come close to the market system's inefficiency in terms of per-capita consumption of resources.

[Common_Means]

When an economist uses the word "efficiency", they aren't using the term the way a scientist or engineer would use it - to refer to the efficient use of materials. They mean "efficient" in terms of allocating money where it should go - which translates to "people get what they deserve".

If we are using the science or engineering definition of "efficiency", then capitalism is the LEAST efficient system ever devised. No system - the former USSR included - has ever come close to the market system's inefficiency in terms of per-capita consumption of resources.

Thanks for the elaboration; you clarified it better than I.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow by Peter Kropotkin is very relevant to this.

[CartCollector]

I found another good explanation of economic efficiency:

Like rationality, nearly everyone thinks efficiency is a good idea. Neoclassical economists adore using this word, especially when addressing the public. But the meaning of “efficiency” always depends on what you choose to count. For example, suppose five firms all manage to lower by the same amounts the production cost and selling price of a standard product that they all produce. One does it by cutting its workers’ pay, another by working them longer hours, another by getting materials at lower prices from a poorer country, another by replacing some of its workers with robots, and another by inventing machinery improvements that allow it to cut work hours with no loss of output, profit, jobs or pay. Are all of these changes equally efficient (or inefficient)? A neoclassical economist will answer yes, because the five firms all end up producing the same product at the same cost and selling it at the same price. For them that is all that matters.

The prevailing mainstream also holds that in the realm of public affairs its concept of “efficiency” can and should determine the net balance between the positives (total benefits) and negatives (total costs) that would result from an economic policy or act. In place of public debate economists would substitute “cost-benefit analysis”. But any such analysis depends on the consequences selected and the kinds of “measurements” made. No efficiency claim is ever based on an identification of all the consequences, and quantitative quesstimates of the future inevitably have a crystal-ball dimension. In the final analysis, “efficient”, like “beautiful” is little more than a way of expressing a positive opinion.


From here: http://www.paecon.net/PolicyImplications.htm

[AK]

Resources aren't scarce, it's just that there is an entirely unbalanced distribution of them - making them appear to be scarce to most when they are, in fact, plentiful.

[Common_Means]

Resources aren't scarce, it's just that there is an entirely unbalanced distribution of them - making them appear to be scarce to most when they are, in fact, plentiful.

Assuming we're not talking in the context of millions of years, all commodified resources are, in fact, scarce. That is, a finite amount exists. This is not, however, the same as saying that inherent to scarce resources is the unequal and uneven distribution of them.