Post scarcity society [Archive]

JazzRemington

17th April 2007, 20:37

Sort of - but only if those artificial products themselves are not scarce. Usually "artificial" replacements are not as scarce, but they are still finite in quantity.

The mainstreadm economic approach to scarcity is that there's never going to be enough for everyone if they consume the thing (or things) all at once, which never happens. It's not like everyone on the Earth wakes up and decides to eat at McDonalds at once.

Also, scarcity is assuming human wants, which are infinite. Human needs on the other hand are finite: after so much food, you don't want anymore for a time. It also ignores the dynamics of production, by looking at supply of goods, or services, as if in a picture, ignoring the fact that production happens almost 24-7, so that there's an ever growing supply of goods.

Well this thread was created in response to Jazzratt's comment:

A post-scarcity society is possible even today. That's pretty much taken as read by most people.
So one of you is incorrect.

Meh, I'd have to see what JazzRatt means. Perhaps the framework is there and somewhat well developed, but I don't thik it's possible yet for at least maybe a few decades. But why can't we disagree on smoething? Because he's a communist and I am a communist, that means we have to agree on everything?

I do agree that in a true post-scarcity society, capitalism would become utterly irrelevant. However, I do not actually believe any such society will ever exist, because scarcity is a property of the physical universe.

It doesn't matter what some old and outdated theory states, the fact is that because of modern production methods and scientific knowledge, there is no excuse why there should be a shortage of food and necessities. Period.

Lynx

17th April 2007, 20:59

Scarcity is determined by the availability of energy and how efficiently that energy is used. How many energy units does the Sun provide the Earth each day? How much of that energy is consumed by the biosphere? How much is consumed by humans?

pusher robot

17th April 2007, 21:17

It also ignores the dynamics of production, by looking at supply of goods, or services, as if in a picture, ignoring the fact that production happens almost 24-7, so that there's an ever growing supply of goods.

Even still, they are still scarce simply because there is a finite quantity, and the cost of each additional good is nonzero.

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.

Great! But energy is a scarce resource. However much we have, there's more we could be doing with it. The universe itself appears to have a finite amount of matter and energy, making both of those things inherently scarce resources, albeit on an incomprehensible scale. You cannot, for example, convert matter into energy and still have the matter, or convert energy in to matter and still have the energy. Lack of entropy is also an (apparently) scarce resource. And of course, human thought is a scarce resource whose supply seems to be declining all the time.

I think you're confusing around the laws of thermodynamics.

For the most part, it's simpler than that, just the laws of identity and causality. A unit of mass/energy can only exist in one place at one time.

there is no excuse why there should be a shortage of food and necessities. Period.

Lack of shortages does not mean something is not scarce! It simply means that it is allocated properly!

We MUST use proper terminology here to have a sensible discussion. A post-scarcity society is NOT one in which everybody's needs are met. It is one in which everybody's wants are met as well, or at least a reasonable substitute. (For example, there can only ever be a limited number of ACTUAL Picasso originals, but the assumption is that in a post-scarcity society, an atomically perfect duplicate is just as good. There's only one REAL Earth one could be the overlord of, but an indistinguishable virtual Earth is assumed to be just as good.)

Star Trek (TNG) is a fictional example of such a society - between replicators, food generators, and holodecks, there was almost literally nothing a person could want for - though it was a point of many episodes how much scarce human labor and energy resources were needed to sustain this, and the limited ability of the Federation to construct capital ships was a pointed issue.

ComradeRed

17th April 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 12:17 pm

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.Great! But energy is a scarce resource. However much we have, there's more we could be doing with it.
Well, considering that nanotechnology is not only an artificial white blood cell and an extraordinarily small factory but also a sort of "supplement" to solar cells that (according to the math) makes solar power closer to 90 to 99.9...% efficient, there is no problem!

The universe itself appears to have a finite amount of matter and energy, making both of those things inherently scarce resources, albeit on an incomprehensible scale. You cannot, for example, convert matter into energy and still have the matter, or convert energy in to matter and still have the energy. Well, considering that humans won't be consuming up the entire universe's energy, this argument is irrelevant.

For all practical and non-semantical reasons, scarcity is no longer an issue using such measures.

If you want to play the "But the universe is a closed system!" game, go ahead but it doesn't change the point that scarcity is effectively antiquetied when nanotechnology comes about.

Lack of entropy is also an (apparently) scarce resource. And of course, human thought is a scarce resource whose supply seems to be declining all the time. Yes, your first sentence in this quote demonstrates this latter point quite well.

I think you're confusing around the laws of thermodynamics.

For the most part, it's simpler than that, just the laws of identity and causality. A unit of mass/energy can only exist in one place at one time.
A is A...so therefore matter exists only at one point in spacetime.

It does not follow.

Nor does "A is a cause of B" logically entail "Matter exists only at one point in spacetime".

JazzRemington

17th April 2007, 21:37

Even still, they are still scarce simply because there is a finite quantity, and the cost of each additional good is nonzero.

But production occures constantly, not just a few hours a day. There is always going to be good available, period. Regardless of how much there are NOW, there is goign to be more COMING soon enough.

We MUST use proper terminology here to have a sensible discussion.

Yes, we must. Hense, having a non-ambiguous definition and use of "scarcity."

A post-scarcity society is NOT one in which everybody's needs are met. It is one in which everybody's wants are met as well, or at least a reasonable substitute.

Needs are inherent in one's biology. You NEED food, you NEED shelter. Wants are learned and NOT inherent in one's biology. But even if a post-scarcity society operates by satisfying wants, doesn't your theory of utility say that at a certain point, one would theoretically not want something anymore?

And, I don't watch Star Trek. But the idea that because one person can't do two things at once does NOT support any assertion that scarcity should remain or cannot be overcome.

colonelguppy

17th April 2007, 22:04

you can reduce scarcity through new production techniques, but outright eliminating it is physically impossible.

Johngalt137

17th April 2007, 22:34

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 17, 2007 07:36 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 17, 2007 07:36 pm)
pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 09:57 am

This principle has nothing to do with economics. You can generally only do one thnig with anything at a time. It's really more of a law of physics.

It is a law of physics and a law of economics.
Good thing you're not an engineer, as you clearly cannot do the job.

I think you're confusing around the laws of thermodynamics. The first law is the conservation of energy; matter, as explained by special relativity, is convertible into energy (and actually, just recently, vice versa; energy was created into electrons!).

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.

[/b]
This assertion, even if true, does not prove anything.

Let us take, for example, the amount of energy to create the the beef patty for a mcdonald's quarter pounder. This is on the order of .55 kg * c^2, or about 50 million billion joules. To get a feel for what that would be like, if we somehow converted all of the energy falling on the earth from the sun for the entire year (!)into beef- patties, we could make enough quarter pounders to 5% of the worlds population for one day, if the only thing they eat in that one day is a mcdonalds quarter pounder beef patty (not an advisable thing to do). This also leaves the problem of what to eat the other 364 days in the year (365 if a leap year, yikes!). Therefore the argument that nano-technology will somehow eliminate scacity by converting energy into matter is hopelessly misguided.

Perhaps you instead meant that nano-technology would take existing matter and re-arrange it into other things, you are still limited by energy costs because it takes energy to rearrange matter, (yes, entropy applies here too).

None of this eliminates scarcity. All you have accomplished is to make goods and services cheaper. Even if you had *magical* nano-technology to create whatever goods you desired by violating the laws of physics, services will remain scarce.

--Higgs

colonelguppy

17th April 2007, 22:43

yeah, the practical implications of trying to create matter out of energyor rearrange matter to somehow solve our lack of recources are probably impossible to surmount, and basing success of a whole new economic system on this probably ins't a good idea.

Johngalt137

17th April 2007, 22:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:37 pm
Needs are inherent in one's biology. You NEED food, you NEED shelter. Wants are learned and NOT inherent in one's biology. But even if a post-scarcity society operates by satisfying wants, doesn't your theory of utility say that at a certain point, one would theoretically not want something anymore?

Needs for some things may also approach infinity.

Proof
Let us first define need as something which if not consumed would end ones life prematurely. If you don't get water for insance you die, not the instant you fail to get it, but about 3 days after you continuously fail to get it. There is also, therefore too little of a need, if you only get one cup of water over 4 days you may die.

Let us make an assumption (1) about healthcare, there is a possible cure for any disease or health problem and as more resources are spent finding this cure the higher the likelihood it will be found. In other words if two researchers search for a cure it is generally more likely to be found.

It is also generally known that healthcare correlates very highly with life expectancy in a logarithmic fashion. This means that there are diminishing returns to additional healthcare, and according to assumption (1) the marginal benefit of resources used for healthcare is never zero.

Using the need definition we find that healthcare is a need, because lack of healthcare will end one's life prematurly. Additional healthcare will extend ones life, and there is no limit to the amount of resources which can be benefitially used for healthcare. Therefore we find that the resources required to totally fulfill the healthcare need is infinite, and because there are finite resources, everyone's needs cannot be totally fulfilled.

--Higgs

pusher robot

17th April 2007, 23:12

A is A...so therefore matter exists only at one point in spacetime.

It does not follow.

Nor does "A is a cause of B" logically entail "Matter exists only at one point in spacetime".

Then call it an axiom if you wish. Rather than argue the finer points of logical validity, let's argue the substance. Do you accept, as an axiom, that a given unit of matter/energy can - observably - exist only in one place at a time? If yes, then this argument is irrelevant. If no, then why not?

Well, considering that humans won't be consuming up the entire universe's energy, this argument is irrelevant.

It's relevant because matter/energy are scarce in any volume of spacetime you care to choose that exists in the known universe.

pusher robot

17th April 2007, 23:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:37 pm
Regardless of how much there are NOW, there is goign to be more COMING soon enough.

We MUST use proper terminology here to have a sensible discussion.

A post-scarcity society is NOT one in which everybody's needs are met. It is one in which everybody's wants are met as well, or at least a reasonable substitute.

Needs are inherent in one's biology. You NEED food, you NEED shelter. Wants are learned and NOT inherent in one's biology. But even if a post-scarcity society operates by satisfying wants, doesn't your theory of utility say that at a certain point, one would theoretically not want something anymore?

And, I don't watch Star Trek. But the idea that because one person can't do two things at once does NOT support any assertion that scarcity should remain or cannot be overcome.

But production occures constantly, not just a few hours a day. There is always going to be good available, period.

Unless there are literally enough goods to satisfy 100% of demand, then they are still scarce. And of course, the larger issue is that the resources that those goods are made from are themselves scarce.

Yes, we must. Hense, having a non-ambiguous definition and use of "scarcity."

I am using the commonly accepted definition in this context.

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. Alternatively, scarcity implies that not all of society's goals can be attained at the same time, so that trade-offs are made of one good against others. Neoclassical economics, the dominant school of economics today, defines its field as involving scarcity: following Lionel Robbins' definition, economics is a science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

But even if a post-scarcity society operates by satisfying wants, doesn't your theory of utility say that at a certain point, one would theoretically not want something anymore?

Probably. That is why human wants probably are not infinite. However, we are not close to being able to satisfy everyone's wants, especially if you exclude goods that are already somewhat post-scarcity, like digital copies of intellectual works.

JazzRemington

17th April 2007, 23:55

I'm goign to respond to this anyway, even though he's banned.

Needs for some things may also approach infinity.

But once your need is satisfied, you don't need it anymore. Period. You can't eat enough food to "approach infinity." Besides, what's "approach infinity"? If I start to walk a few steps, am I approaching infinity ni the number of steps I'm taking?

Therefore we find that the resources required to totally fulfill the healthcare need is infinite, and because there are finite resources, everyone's needs cannot be totally fulfilled.

Having infinite resources means, by default, that an infinite number of needs can be satisifed. You've contradicted yourself. The reason why we have both an "infinite need" for health care and "limited resources" are complex and multiple, well beyond the scoop of economics.

pusher robot

18th April 2007, 00:03

Having infinite resources means, by default, that an infinite number of needs can be satisifed. You've contradicted yourself. The reason why we have both an "infinite need" for health care and "limited resources" are complex and multiple, well beyond the scoop of economics.

He said "finite" resources. That's opposite of "infinite."

Why was he banned?

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 00:04

Unless there are literally enough goods to satisfy 100% of demand, then they are still scarce. And of course, the larger issue is that the resources that those goods are made from are themselves scarce.

But what is scarcity? Not enough goods to satisfy human wants or needs at ANY time or at any ONE time? We can satisfy everyone's wants or needs at as they arise, anyone can do this because its easy. But everyone's demands at once, we can't and no system can do this.

I am using the commonly accepted definition in this context.

But do you mean in a static or dynamic sense? You aren't answering this. These are very different and important terms.

However, we are not close to being able to satisfy everyone's wants, especially if you exclude goods that are already somewhat post-scarcity, like digital copies of intellectual works.

That's what the textbooks say.

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 00:05

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 17, 2007 06:03 pm

Having infinite resources means, by default, that an infinite number of needs can be satisifed. You've contradicted yourself. The reason why we have both an "infinite need" for health care and "limited resources" are complex and multiple, well beyond the scoop of economics.

He said "finite" resources. That's opposite of "infinite."

Why was he banned?
He said both "finite" and "infinite." it's not clear what he meant. And I'm not a mod.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 00:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:55 pm
I'm goign to respond to this anyway, even though he's banned.

Needs for some things may also approach infinity.

But once your need is satisfied, you don't need it anymore. Period. You can't eat enough food to "approach infinity." Besides, what's "approach infinity"? If I start to walk a few steps, am I approaching infinity ni the number of steps I'm taking?

The answer to your question is in the proof section.

--Higgs

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 01:16

OK, I'll provide a more detailed view of why he's full of it.

t is also generally known that healthcare correlates very highly with life expectancy in a logarithmic fashion. This means that there are diminishing returns to additional healthcare, and according to assumption (1) the marginal benefit of resources used for healthcare is never zero.

Your assumption about the more resources put into finding cures results in a better chance of finding a cure is correct. But your reliance on marginalism provides faults in your reasoning. Because more healthcare means less benefit does not logically follow from the assertion that more healthcare means a higher life expentency. You do not connect them. Also, you cannot objectively measure the level of benefit one receives based on the marginalist paradigm, period. The end result of healthcare does not demonstrate the truth of the marginalist method of examining the means.

Using the need definition we find that healthcare is a need, because lack of healthcare will end one's life prematurly. Additional healthcare will extend ones life, and there is no limit to the amount of resources which can be benefitially used for healthcare. Therefore we find that the resources required to totally fulfill the healthcare need is infinite, and because there are finite resources, everyone's needs cannot be totally fulfilled.

You have faulty reasoning here. Your assertion that additional healthcare will extend one's life is correct but there is a limit, according to your own logic. If additional healthcare has diminished returns, then there will reach a point, even if it isn't zero, in which the individual is expected to no longer want healthcare. That is, according to marginalism that is.

But you've introduced something strange. First, you say that "resources required to fulfill healthcare need [are] infinite" and then "there are finite resources." What do you mean by "resources" as in the latter context? Are these resources different from those used to fulfill healthcare needs? How are these resources infinite and all others finite? If resources are finite wouldn't be extention healthcare resources be finite too?

And what do you mean by "needs"? Healtcare needs? If resources used to fulfill healthcare needs are infinite, then everyone's healthcare needs can be satisfied.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 01:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:16 pm
OK, I'll provide a more detailed view of why he's full of it.

t is also generally known that healthcare correlates very highly with life expectancy in a logarithmic fashion. This means that there are diminishing returns to additional healthcare, and according to assumption (1) the marginal benefit of resources used for healthcare is never zero.

Your assumption about the more resources put into finding cures results in a better chance of finding a cure is correct. But your reliance on marginalism provides faults in your reasoning. Because more healthcare means less benefit does not logically follow from the assertion that more healthcare means a higher life expentency.
Where do I claim that more healthcare is less benefit. I am in fact claiming the opposite, that more healthcare is more benefit.

Also, you cannot objectively measure the level of benefit one receives based on the marginalist paradigm, period. The end result of healthcare does not demonstrate the truth of the marginalist method of examining the means.

It is irrelevant whether I can measure exactly the level of benefit one receives based on anything. The important issue is whether or not I can illustrate that additional resources used on healthcare makes a positive impact on life expectancy, and I believe that has been shown in full.

Using the need definition we find that healthcare is a need, because lack of healthcare will end one's life prematurly. Additional healthcare will extend ones life, and there is no limit to the amount of resources which can be benefitially used for healthcare. Therefore we find that the resources required to totally fulfill the healthcare need is infinite, and because there are finite resources, everyone's needs cannot be totally fulfilled.

You have faulty reasoning here. Your assertion that additional healthcare will extend one's life is correct but there is a limit, according to your own logic. If additional healthcare has diminished returns, then there will reach a point, even if it isn't zero, in which the individual is expected to no longer want healthcare. That is, according to marginalism that is.

Whether the individual continues to want healthcare, the poster in which this argument is a response to stated that

Needs are inherent in one's biology. You NEED food, you NEED shelter. Wants are learned and NOT inherent in one's biology.

You can't claim that needs are the grounds that scarcity is abolished, then turn around and say that I am wrong based on someones wants.

Needs for healthcare become limitless as the individual approaches death because any disease or malfunction can, in principle be cured when enough resources are used for it. However, because diseases and malfunctions will recur with increasing frequency the amount of resources needed to avoid death by any individual for an indeterminate amount of time approaches infinity, because life expectancy approaches infinity much much more slowly than resources needed to continue living. Therefore that individual's needs have become infinite.

Furthermore can you show that this limit at which the individual does not want to use resources to prolong his life is small enough that scarcity can still be abolished?

But you've introduced something strange. First, you say that "resources required to fulfill healthcare need [are] infinite" and then "there are finite resources." What do you mean by "resources" as in the latter context? Are these resources different from those used to fulfill healthcare needs? How are these resources infinite and all others finite? If resources are finite wouldn't be extention healthcare resources be finite too?

What I am trying to say is that the resources needed to fill societies needs are infinite. Meaning that the amount of resources that one would need to have in order to fulfill the needs of everyone is infinity. Because there are NOT infinite resources scarcity exists.

And what do you mean by "needs"? Healtcare needs? If resources used to fulfill healthcare needs are infinite, then everyone's healthcare needs can be satisfied.

Needs is defined. You misunderstood, resources used to fulfill those needs is not infinite. The resources that one would need in order to fulfill those needs is infinite. Meaning that I require infinity of resource X in order to fulfill this many needs. I am not saying that there is an infinite amount of resource X. All resources are finite.

--Higgs

ComradeRed

18th April 2007, 01:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:34 pm
None of this eliminates scarcity.
Well if you say so, sock puppets are known for their oracular prophecies coming true :rolleyes:

All you have accomplished is to make goods and services cheaper. Well your lack of reasoning is proof enough for me to believe your illogical assertions!

You fail to prove how services would be cheaper, and your appeal to "supply and demand" economics is laughably absurd (it's been proven mathematically inconsistent (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56640), sorry chief).

Even if you had *magical* nano-technology to create whatever goods you desired by violating the laws of physics, services will remain scarce. Perhaps if you had some logic behind your assertion you would have an argument.

But you don't, instead you assume that capitalism will all there ever will be. This assumption is not really justified.

You can call it "magical" if you want, but the plain fact of the matter is that it's science grounded in reality. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it occultism.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 02:21

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 17, 2007 05:56 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 17, 2007 05:56 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:34 pm
None of this eliminates scarcity.
Well if you say so, sock puppets are known for their oracular prophecies coming true :rolleyes:

All you have accomplished is to make goods and services cheaper. Well your lack of reasoning is proof enough for me to believe your illogical assertions!

You fail to prove how services would be cheaper, and your appeal to "supply and demand" economics is laughably absurd (it's been proven mathematically inconsistent (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56640), sorry chief).

Even if you had *magical* nano-technology to create whatever goods you desired by violating the laws of physics, services will remain scarce. Perhaps if you had some logic behind your assertion you would have an argument.

But you don't, instead you assume that capitalism will all there ever will be. This assumption is not really justified.

You can call it "magical" if you want, but the plain fact of the matter is that it's science grounded in reality. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it occultism. [/b]
This is a non-statement. You detached the proof from the conclusion, simply so you could claim that it was a "prophecy". Have you no shame?

All you have accomplished is to make goods and services cheaper.
Well your lack of reasoning is proof enough for me to believe your illogical assertions!

You fail to prove how services would be cheaper, and your appeal to "supply and demand" economics is laughably absurd (it's been proven mathematically inconsistent (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56640), sorry chief).

Alright I mispoke, services may or may not be cheaper, and assuming that nanotechnology does increase the supply of goods I conclude that they will be cheaper.

Do you care to argue that increasing the supply of goods increases the price of goods?

Even if you had *magical* nano-technology to create whatever goods you desired by violating the laws of physics, services will remain scarce.
Perhaps if you had some logic behind your assertion you would have an argument.

But you don't, instead you assume that capitalism will all there ever will be. This assumption is not really justified.

You can call it "magical" if you want, but the plain fact of the matter is that it's science grounded in reality. Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make it occultism.

By magical I meant nano-technology which would allow for the breaking of the conservation of mass-energy.
I am not suggesting that nano-technology itself is magical. What I am saying is that the argument that you make, which claims that nano-technology would totally eliminate scarcity would require a different type of nano-technology than any that does exist or can exist.

What I find most interesting is your attempt to simply ignore and seperate the majority of the post in an attempt to cover up the issue. According to you nano-technology turns energy into matter in order to create superior goods:

red comrade

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.

The purpose of my post was to establish that it would be a terrible, terrible idea to use nanotechnology in that fashion due to the large energy requirements to create even the smallest goods, and that this would certainly not eliminate scarcity, because it would take a year's worth of all the sun's energy which falls on this planet to create enough food, using your nano-method, to last 5% of the worlds population one day! You, however, chose to use personal attacks, and logical fallacies (shifting the burden of proof), rather than responding to evidence against your original statement.

I can only speculate why.

--Higgs

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 02:30

Where do I claim that more healthcare is less benefit. I am in fact claiming the opposite, that more healthcare is more benefit.

Your asserting marginalism. Under marginalism, the idea is that more of something provides less return.

It is irrelevant whether I can measure exactly the level of benefit one receives based on anything.

It is relevent. If you can't measure something using a theory then what good is said theory that is supposed to be able to measure the thing?

You can't claim that needs are the grounds that scarcity is abolished, then turn around and say that I am wrong based on someones wants.

WANTING something and NEEDING it are very different things. I was only using YOUR logic.

Needs for healthcare become limitless as the individual approaches death because any disease or malfunction can, in principle be cured when enough resources are used for it. However, because diseases and malfunctions will recur with increasing frequency the amount of resources needed to avoid death by any individual for an indeterminate amount of time approaches infinity, because life expectancy approaches infinity much much more slowly than resources needed to continue living. Therefore that individual's needs have become infinite.

Eventually they aren't going to need it anymore because they'll die. Thus, it doesn't approach infinity.

Furthermore can you show that this limit at which the individual does not want to use resources to prolong his life is small enough that scarcity can still be abolished?

Again, what kind of scarcity are you talking about? Are you looking at this statically or dynamically? But the question, in any sense, is difficult to answer correctly becuase you cannot measure the mechanism that supposedly reaches a limit.

What I am trying to say is that the resources needed to fill societies needs are infinite. Meaning that the amount of resources that one would need to have in order to fulfill the needs of everyone is infinity. Because there are NOT infinite resources scarcity exists.

So, now healthcare resources are finite, despite your long assertion that they are infinite? Sounds like a crappy strawman.

However, there still is no support for the concept of scarcity. According to chapter 10 of The United Nations University Press', Volume 7, Number 3, "there are ample scientific and technological grounds for asserting that the world is capable of producing enough food to meet projected population increases for the foresee able future."

And, according to the document World Hunter Facts 2006, published by World Hunger Notes (with relevent citations provided), "World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day."

Hell, production increases yearly as new technologies are developed that are more effecient at using resources, include technologies that result in machines that can reproduce themselves, as seen here: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/background.html

But now I suspect you're going to assert some other meaning of scarcity, that raw materials themselves are scarce. But, this is faulty. Scientists are discovering ways of dealig with this all the time such as "getting close" to the development of synthetic spider webbing, which is stronger than steel: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97539&page=1

Also, artificial diamonds: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-artificial-diamonds.htm

Perhaps there are other synthetics, but I'll have to ask scientists on this as they are beyond the scope of my research.

But now perhaps you are going to tell me that by scarcity yuo mean that there is a short supply of labor? We have machines that are capable of doing a lot of what humans do, such as checking out groceries, maintaining inventory, and even production. See above about machines that reproduce.

pusher robot

18th April 2007, 02:43

Remington - a lack of shortage does not indicate a lack of scarcity! "Enough to go around" is not the same as "all you can eat."

You keep asking about time scales, but I don't see the distinction you are drawing. If a good is truly not scarce, it should be possible to satisfy any possible demand, from zero to infinity. If a good is "practically" scarce, there should be enough to satisfy everybody's demands at any given moment. Please read the definition I posted from Wikipedia. It is a good definition, I think - but if you disagree, please be specific as to your disagreement.

wtfm8lol

18th April 2007, 02:43

Your asserting marginalism. Under marginalism, the idea is that more of something provides less return.

the idea behind marginalism is that each additional unit of something provides less return than the previous unit.

ComradeRed

18th April 2007, 02:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:21 pm
Alright I mispoke, services may or may not be cheaper, and assuming that nanotechnology does increase the supply of goods I conclude that they will be cheaper.

Do you care to argue that increasing the supply of goods increases the price of goods?Well, I'm glad that mathematical proofs don't phase you, nor does logic apparently.

And that is a proof, unless you'd care to exercise your sophistry to redefine "proof" here.

By magical I meant nano-technology which would allow for the breaking of the conservation of mass-energy.
I am not suggesting that nano-technology itself is magical. What I am saying is that the argument that you make, which claims that nano-technology would totally eliminate scarcity would require a different type of nano-technology than any that does exist or can exist. There is no violation of the conservation of energy here, only a transformation of energy.

That's first year physics here mate.

But that's "not enough" to "eliminate scarcity" as only an infinite amount of matter would do so, for some reason.

This presupposes that the "demand" for any good is infinite which is a patently absurd assumption.

The purpose of my post was to establish that it would be a terrible, terrible idea to use nanotechnology in that fashion due to the large energy requirements to create even the smallest goods, and that this would certainly not eliminate scarcity, because it would take a year's worth of all the sun's energy which falls on this planet to create enough food, using your nano-method, to last 5% of the worlds population one day! You, however, chose to use personal attacks, and logical fallacies (shifting the burden of proof), rather than responding to evidence against your original statement. And yet you failed to prove your thesis.

Instead, you asserted it.

Perhaps using given matter, e.g. dirt, and using the subatomic particles given from that would work; that is probably the road they're taking now.

But frankly, your "proof" fails to debunk this elementary technical paper (http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm).

I'm unimpressed with your "proof" being generalized to the extent that all nanotechnological efforts are apparently doomed.

Why are you wasting your time here if your proof were true? Go out and tell the scientists and engineers working on it for their own good!

ComradeRed

18th April 2007, 02:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:43 pm

Your asserting marginalism. Under marginalism, the idea is that more of something provides less return.

the idea behind marginalism is that each additional unit of something provides less return than the previous unit.
Actually it's that the quantity derivative of a given function is negative.

That's the mathematical definition anyways.

But both of you are saying effectively the same thing, there's no reason to squabble over semantics here.

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 02:55

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)Remington - a lack of shortage does not indicate a lack of scarcity! "Enough to go around" is not the same as "all you can eat."[/b]

But according to marginalism, there would be a point at which the individual would be possibly stop.

You keep asking about time scales, but I don't see the distinction you are drawing. If a good is truly not scarce, it should be possible to satisfy any possible demand, from zero to infinity. If a good is "practically" scarce, there should be enough to satisfy everybody's demands at any given moment. Please read the definition I posted from Wikipedia. It is a good definition, I think - but if you disagree, please be specific as to your disagreement.

Because you seem to be assuming that people will show up en masse for something, which lacks objective emperical evidence and that production is static. Production happens all the time with machines, possibly 24/7. Static scarcity is basically when there isn't enough to satisfy everyone's needs at ONE point in time and dynamic would be being able to satisfy everyone's needs for ALL time. If we had, for example, a 1lb. of corn and 5 people we would probably have enough to feed them at this point in time, but perhaps a few weeks or months frmo that point, no.

wtfm8lol
the idea behind marginalism is that each additional unit of something provides less return than the previous unit.

Technically speaking you are correct, but perhaps a vulgar definition would be that more of something provides less return.

wtfm8lol

18th April 2007, 02:56

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 17, 2007 08:50 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 17, 2007 08:50 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 05:43 pm

Your asserting marginalism. Under marginalism, the idea is that more of something provides less return.

the idea behind marginalism is that each additional unit of something provides less return than the previous unit.
Actually it's that the quantity derivative of a given function is negative.

That's the mathematical definition anyways.

But both of you are saying effectively the same thing, there's no reason to squabble over semantics here. [/b]
thats exactly what i said. it just seemed to me that his way of wording made it sound like increasing the total number of input units decreased the total ouput, which it can, but certainly doesn't most of the time.

pusher robot

18th April 2007, 03:40

Originally posted by JazzRemington+April 18, 2007 01:55 am--> (JazzRemington @ April 18, 2007 01:55 am)
pusher robot
Remington - a lack of shortage does not indicate a lack of scarcity! "Enough to go around" is not the same as "all you can eat."

But according to marginalism, there would be a point at which the individual would be possibly stop.[/b]
Right - that point is "all you can eat." I'm suggesting that your statement that there is enough food to meet everybody's needs does not necessarily mean that we are satisfying everybody's wants.

But that's "not enough" to "eliminate scarcity" as only an infinite amount of matter would do so, for some reason.

This presupposes that the "demand" for any good is infinite which is a patently absurd assumption.

He was only noting that even given infinite free energy AND infinite free matter, human services would STILL be finite, and thus scarce.

t_wolves_fan

18th April 2007, 03:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:37 pm
Also, scarcity is assuming human wants, which are infinite. Human needs on the other hand are finite: after so much food, you don't want anymore for a time. It also ignores the dynamics of production, by looking at supply of goods, or services, as if in a picture, ignoring the fact that production happens almost 24-7, so that there's an ever growing supply of goods.

Putting aside the technical arguments for a moment, there seems to be inherent in Communism a requirement that the population's "wants" be...how can I put it...limited to a level below what those of us who are affluent westerners currently enjoy.

Is that correct?

And if so, how do you plan to put such a limit into effect?

Rawthentic

18th April 2007, 05:00

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 05:14

Right - that point is "all you can eat." I'm suggesting that your statement that there is enough food to meet everybody's needs does not necessarily mean that we are satisfying everybody's wants.

Ah, but here's the problem: it might not be "all you can eat." Marginalism states that at a certain point there's a strong incentive for an indviidual to stop because of diminished returns. It doesn't say WHEN or WHY. So you can't be sure if people will automatically stuff themselves full. People eat a wide number of calories: sometimes more than what is considered healthy and sometimes less. There's no objective, emperical evidence to support that each time a person eats he or she stuffs him or herself. Period.

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 05:30

Putting aside the technical arguments for a moment, there seems to be inherent in Communism a requirement that the population's "wants" be...how can I put it...limited to a level below what those of us who are affluent westerners currently enjoy.

Is that correct?

And if so, how do you plan to put such a limit into effect?

We have to remember that wants are learned, in one way or another. It's my opinion as a social science major that the West has high levels of consumption and waste, as well as obescity(sp), because of consumerism and a sort-of constant encouragement to consume well above what is actually needed in media and what not. That's not to say that having one's wants satisfied is wrong, but the problem is they are encouraging wants that are unhealthy, dangerous, and wasteful. In terms of unhealthy and dangerous, we have eating unhealthy foods or too much healthy foods. In terms of waste, a lot of what is thrown out could be reused or recycled (not to get into a green peace mode of thought, but it is true). Relatively speaking, Colonial America (though it was a long time ago) had little garbage because they were raised to consume frugally and obtain only what could be used.

But remember, something being learned presupposes the fact that it can be unlearned. Perhaps in a communist society children will be raised to not be wasteful of what they consume and perhaps it will be actively discouraged to do so. This may sound like a weak limit, but remember: humans are social, and they respond to social pressures.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 05:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:30 pm

Where do I claim that more healthcare is less benefit. I am in fact claiming the opposite, that more healthcare is more benefit.

Your asserting marginalism. Under marginalism, the idea is that more of something provides less return.

That is a straw man of marginalism and however much my argument resembles marginalism is irrelevant. Stick to the points that I make not ones you think you can stuff into my mouth to argue against.

It is irrelevant whether I can measure exactly the level of benefit one receives based on anything.

It is relevent. If you can't measure something using a theory then what good is said theory that is supposed to be able to measure the thing?

Would you like me to provide an exhaustive list of theories whose sole basis is not to measure something, but rather to prove its existence or would you prefer to retract the argument? I ask only because you later mention that you do research, so you should have a somewhat working knowledge of theories which do this.

You can't claim that needs are the grounds that scarcity is abolished, then turn around and say that I am wrong based on someones wants.

WANTING something and NEEDING it are very different things. I was only using YOUR logic.

If you are using my logic then this whole debate is irrelevant because I am right in the first place. If we allow wants to stand in for needs then scarcity is insurmountable. The point of my post was to show that even if we do things based only upon needs scarcity is still insurmountable.

So you had best pick, whose logic shall we be using, that which uses need or want to determine the existence of scarcity. Pick because I'm not going to debate you in circles forever.

Needs for healthcare become limitless as the individual approaches death because any disease or malfunction can, in principle be cured when enough resources are used for it. However, because diseases and malfunctions will recur with increasing frequency the amount of resources needed to avoid death by any individual for an indeterminate amount of time approaches infinity, because life expectancy approaches infinity much much more slowly than resources needed to continue living. Therefore that individual's needs have become infinite.

Eventually they aren't going to need it anymore because they'll die. Thus, it doesn't approach infinity.

This is untrue, because as shown previously, one's chance of living monatonically (sp?) increases with increasing resources even if life does not approach infinity the amount of resources that need to be consumed to prolong it does. These resources qualify as a need and because the resources themselves are finite, the finite amount of resources cannot match the infinite amount needed and thus scarcity always exists even when need is used to determine who gets what.

Furthermore can you show that this limit at which the individual does not want to use resources to prolong his life is small enough that scarcity can still be abolished?

Again, what kind of scarcity are you talking about? Are you looking at this statically or dynamically? But the question, in any sense, is difficult to answer correctly becuase you cannot measure the mechanism that supposedly reaches a limit.

You are claiming that you are uncertain as to whether or not economic scarcity can be abolished because, you don't know whether or not the vast majority of the population will choose to prolong their life even a small amount!?

My premise is that an individual will generally seek to prolong their life without limit. My argument is that people want to live as long as possible, therefore I do not need to know the exact benefit of an additional unit of resource. I simply need to know that the additional unit of resource has a positive impact.

You on the other hand are claiming that at a certain point an individual no longer wishes to use resources to prolong his life and therefore will not use an arbitrarily large amount of resources to do so.

What I am trying to say is that the resources needed to fill societies needs are infinite. Meaning that the amount of resources that one would need to have in order to fulfill the needs of everyone is infinity. Because there are NOT infinite resources scarcity exists. [1]

So, now healthcare resources are finite, despite your long assertion that they are infinite? Sounds like a crappy strawman.

Go back and read (and quote) the passage where I supposedly claimed that healthcare resources are infinite, reread quote [1], reread passage. Repeat until you get it.

However, there still is no support for the concept of scarcity. According to chapter 10 of The United Nations University Press', Volume 7, Number 3, "there are ample scientific and technological grounds for asserting that the world is capable of producing enough food to meet projected population increases for the foresee able future."

If food wasn't scarce it would have a price of $0. This is not evidence of lack of scarcity in the food market. The free market does not force a price to exist (If McDonald's was the global market, little packets of ketchup wouldn't be considered scarce) but the existence of one shows that the scarcity exists. Also, even if it did show what you claim it wouldn't prove that scarcity could be abolished in every market, ecspecially markets where demand for resources is infinite (healthcare for instance =-) ).

And, according to the document World Hunter Facts 2006, published by World Hunger Notes (with relevent citations provided), "World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day."

Hell, production increases yearly as new technologies are developed that are more effecient at using resources, include technologies that result in machines that can reproduce themselves, as seen here: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/background.html

But now I suspect you're going to assert some other meaning of scarcity, that raw materials themselves are scarce. But, this is faulty. Scientists are discovering ways of dealig with this all the time such as "getting close" to the development of synthetic spider webbing, which is stronger than steel: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97539&page=1

Also, artificial diamonds: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-artificial-diamonds.htm

Perhaps there are other synthetics, but I'll have to ask scientists on this as they are beyond the scope of my research.

How do you intend to deal with scarcity of energy to power all of these things?

But now perhaps you are going to tell me that by scarcity yuo mean that there is a short supply of labor? We have machines that are capable of doing a lot of what humans do, such as checking out groceries, maintaining inventory, and even production. See above about machines that reproduce.

The machines themselves are scarce as is the energy used to power them, the fact that they can reproduce has nothing to do with this. Human labor is currently scarce and human beings can reproduce.

--Higgs

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 06:27

Would you like me to provide an exhaustive list of theories whose sole basis is not to measure something, but rather to prove its existence or would you prefer to retract the argument? I ask only because you later mention that you do research, so you should have a somewhat working knowledge of theories which do this.

This is besides the point. My arguement is that a theory that measures something that doesn't actually exist or doesn't happen is worthless.

If you are using my logic then this whole debate is irrelevant because I am right in the first place. If we allow wants to stand in for needs then scarcity is insurmountable. The point of my post was to show that even if we do things based only upon needs scarcity is still insurmountable.

You've clearly missed the research I've posted. Scarcity is BEING surmounted. It's a fact of technological progress.

So you had best pick, whose logic shall we be using, that which uses need or want to determine the existence of scarcity. Pick because I'm not going to debate you in circles forever.

Debating is the use of facts what implies research to back them up, which you are not using. You're just asserting some textbook nonsense without researching whether it's true. Scarcity is about meeting NEEDS. Wants are learned and are thus irrelevent as they change constantly to the point where it's hard to pinpoint them exactly.

You are claiming that you are uncertain as to whether or not economic scarcity can be abolished because, you don't know whether or not the vast majority of the population will choose to prolong their life even a small amount!?

No, I'm asserting you're using the word scarcity ambiguously in regards to NOW or LATER.

My premise is that an individual will generally seek to prolong their life without limit. My argument is that people want to live as long as possible, therefore I do not need to know the exact benefit of an additional unit of resource. I simply need to know that the additional unit of resource has a positive impact.

Your premise is faulty becuase it lacks emperical evidence. You're dealing with wants, which are learned and can change constantly. Unless you can provide evidence to support that a sizeable portion of the population wants to live longer then your assertion is faulty and isn't worth the time to debunk. But as for NEEDING to live longer, unless we want to get into some natural selection frame of mind, it depends on the individual.

You on the other hand are claiming that at a certain point an individual no longer wishes to use resources to prolong his life and therefore will not use an arbitrarily large amount of resources to do so.

I'm not claiming anything. It's the logical extension of your assertion of diminishing returns!

Go back and read (and quote) the passage where I supposedly claimed that healthcare resources are infinite, reread quote [1], reread passage. Repeat until you get it.

I've read it constantly. It's a STRAWMAN. You are setting up something only to knock it down.

You maintain that there is benefit to additional healthcare resources, which I'm not arguing against, and that healthcare itself has diminishing returns, which means that in its self one will eventually receive NO benefits from using healthcare. You assert that there is no zero benefits to increasing resources used in healthcare, not tot he individual using the healthcare. So if there is a zero benefit possible for individuals, then there's a point where they will be satisfied and not want any more healthcare.

And repeat this: without emperical evidence, any assertion about human behavior or motivation is worthless.

If food wasn't scarce it would have a price of $0. This is not evidence of lack of scarcity in the food market. The free market does not force a price to exist (If McDonald's was the global market, little packets of ketchup wouldn't be considered scarce) but the existence of one shows that the scarcity exists. Also, even if it did show what you claim it wouldn't prove that scarcity could be abolished in every market, ecspecially markets where demand for resources is infinite (healthcare for instance =-) ).

Which is evidence that you're abusing the term scarcity. Statically speaking, there is scarcity because production methods isn't utilized to produce food enough for everyone. The production processes have this capacity, and is realized only when dynamically examined, which you fail to do.

But if there is scarcity, then why is it that it farmers actually suffer for over producing for a market by having low prices? Doesn't the law of supply and demand state that if there's a surplus, prices are lowered? If the farmer faces low prices from an overly large product he brings to the market, then how is there scarcity?

Markets ENCOURAGE production of non-surplus because of wasted products and low prices, which happen ebcause of the theory that a surplus means one must lower prices in order to sell off excess goods. Yuo can't tell me this doesn't happen because it says so in every economic textbook that describes supply and demand. Hell, my textbook even made a special note about how farmers could actually do bad in a good year!

How do you intend to deal with scarcity of energy to power all of these things?

I'm not too knowledgeable about energy generation methods. But I do know that energy generation is getting more effecient and there are numerous methods of generating energy. You're better off asking ComradeRed or something with a deeper knowledge of this.

The machines themselves are scarce as is the energy used to power them, the fact that they can reproduce has nothing to do with this. Human labor is currently scarce and human beings can reproduce.

Why can't you look beyond static analysis?

higgs629

18th April 2007, 06:40

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 17, 2007 06:48 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 17, 2007 06:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:21 pm
Alright I mispoke, services may or may not be cheaper, and assuming that nanotechnology does increase the supply of goods I conclude that they will be cheaper.

Do you care to argue that increasing the supply of goods increases the price of goods?Well, I'm glad that mathematical proofs don't phase you, nor does logic apparently.

And that is a proof, unless you'd care to exercise your sophistry to redefine "proof" here.

By magical I meant nano-technology which would allow for the breaking of the conservation of mass-energy.
I am not suggesting that nano-technology itself is magical. What I am saying is that the argument that you make, which claims that nano-technology would totally eliminate scarcity would require a different type of nano-technology than any that does exist or can exist. There is no violation of the conservation of energy here, only a transformation of energy.

That's first year physics here mate.

But that's "not enough" to "eliminate scarcity" as only an infinite amount of matter would do so, for some reason.

This presupposes that the "demand" for any good is infinite which is a patently absurd assumption.

The purpose of my post was to establish that it would be a terrible, terrible idea to use nanotechnology in that fashion due to the large energy requirements to create even the smallest goods, and that this would certainly not eliminate scarcity, because it would take a year's worth of all the sun's energy which falls on this planet to create enough food, using your nano-method, to last 5% of the worlds population one day! You, however, chose to use personal attacks, and logical fallacies (shifting the burden of proof), rather than responding to evidence against your original statement. And yet you failed to prove your thesis.

Instead, you asserted it.

Perhaps using given matter, e.g. dirt, and using the subatomic particles given from that would work; that is probably the road they're taking now.

But frankly, your "proof" fails to debunk this elementary technical paper (http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm).

I'm unimpressed with your "proof" being generalized to the extent that all nanotechnological efforts are apparently doomed.

Why are you wasting your time here if your proof were true? Go out and tell the scientists and engineers working on it for their own good![/b]
Allow me to boil this down for you, apparently you have wildly missed the point:

Your assertion is:

ComradeRed

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.

My thesis is:
It would be stupid to use nanotechnology to create common goods and services from energy alone.

If you agree with the thesis simply post so at this point and we can save a lot of headache.

If you have any doubts at all about the below feel free to ask questions. I seem to remember hearing that you had some sort of work in physics so this should be straight up your alley.

Here is my evidence:

E = m * c ^ 2. [1]

Do you accept this statement?

1 McDonald's quarter pounder (just the patty) has a mass equal to 0.25 pounds. [2]

Do you accept this statement?

0.25 pounds * 2.2 kg/pound = 0.55 kg. [3]

Do you accept this statement?

c = the speed of light = 3 * 10^8 m/s (a good enough approximation?) [4]

Do you accept this statement?

c ^ 2 = 9 * 10 ^ 16 (m/s)^2 [5]

Do you accept this statement?

E (to create one patty) is at least = 0.55 * 9 * 10 ^ 16 Joules = 4.95 * 10 ^ 16 roughly 5 * 10^16. [6]

Do you accept this statement?

Amount of solar energy which falls upon the Earth in a year = 5.5 * 10 ^ 24 Joules. [7]

Do you accept this statement?

Define the amount of patties that can be created using all the solar energy falling on the earth during the course of a year to be P.

Define the amount of solar energy which falls upon the Earth in a year to be C.

Define the amount of energy required to make one patty to be E.

P = C / E = 1.1 * 10 ^ 8 patties, or 111 million patties. [8]

(Turns out I made an error in the original post, where I concluded you could actually make 3 times more patties. So in fact I was far too generous in my original post)

Do you accept this statement?

There are about 6.45 billion people on the planet. [9]

Do you accept this statement?

P / Pop = percentage of earths population that would recieve a patty and thus eat for a day = 1.72% . [10]

Do you accept this statement?

It would be really, really stupid to convert energy directly into consumer goods such as quarter pounders. [11]

Do you accept this statement?

Doing so would not eliminate scarcity [12]

Do you accept this statement?

This is my point. If you disagree explain, and cite the particular points that you disagree about [1 - 12] or [Thesis does not follow from set of 12 points]. If you agree, say so and we will move on.

--Higgs

ComradeRed

18th April 2007, 06:48

Originally posted by higgs629+April 17, 2007 09:40 pm--> (higgs629 @ April 17, 2007 09:40 pm)Allow me to boil this down for you, apparently you have wildly missed the point:[/b]
I'm glad you can't read, because that saves us both a great deal of time :rolleyes:

Your assertion is:

ComradeRed

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.

My thesis is:
It would be stupid to use nanotechnology to create common goods and services from energy alone.

If you agree with the thesis simply post so at this point and we can save a lot of headache. After pulling up an elementary technical paper (http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm) on the subject (which you so gleefully ignore), you continue to debunk something that I admitted to as inaccurate.

Go ahead, please by all means debunk this technical paper. Or are you going to continue to ignore it and pretend that my idea is the only one out there on nanotechnology?

I'm not working on the subject, but I've spoken to a few blokes that are. It seems very promising from their presentation of the material, which is more than I can say about your "criticism" of it.

Perhaps you could, you know, actually read this before you get back to me? Then perhaps you could come up with a valid criticism of this stuff.

Kwisatz Haderach

18th April 2007, 07:35

I do not believe that a post-scarcity society would be possible today, but I do believe it is very possible in the not-so-distant future.

Originally posted by pusher robot
I do agree that in a true post-scarcity society, capitalism would become utterly irrelevant. However, I do not actually believe any such society will ever exist, because scarcity is a property of the physical universe.
But as you mentioned earlier, a scarce good is one which is available in a finite quantity and for which there is a non-negligible demand. Now, I will grant you that everything within the universe is finite, but, compared to the amount of both matter and energy present in the universe, humanity's demands are utterly negligible and are likely to remain so for the forseeable and unforseeable future.

In other words, the resources necessary to build a post-scarcity society are out there; the problem is how to harvest them. If we had access to even 1% of the energy output of the Sun, and if we had technology capable of converting that energy into most kinds of material objects that we use, we would be living in a post-scarcity society.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 07:40

Would you like me to provide an exhaustive list of theories whose sole basis is not to measure something, but rather to prove its existence or would you prefer to retract the argument? I ask only because you later mention that you do research, so you should have a somewhat working knowledge of theories which do this.

This is besides the point. My arguement is that a theory that measures something that doesn't actually exist or doesn't happen is worthless.
Well then you have shown that a theory which is not mine is worthless. Because the idea which I outlined shows that something exists and that it is positive. It is unnecessary for my purposes to know exactly how positive. That is the point of what I was saying. In the future, when you think you have uncovered some fatal flaw in my ideas, please reread, we would save ourselves a lot of explaining on my part and embarrasment on yours.

If you are using my logic then this whole debate is irrelevant because I am right in the first place. If we allow wants to stand in for needs then scarcity is insurmountable. The point of my post was to show that even if we do things based only upon needs scarcity is still insurmountable.

You've clearly missed the research I've posted. Scarcity is BEING surmounted. It's a fact of technological progress.

Read the entire post before you begin to reply, I haven't missed your research. I respond to your research below.

So you had best pick, whose logic shall we be using, that which uses need or want to determine the existence of scarcity. Pick because I'm not going to debate you in circles forever.

Debating is the use of facts what implies research to back them up, which you are not using. You're just asserting some textbook nonsense without researching whether it's true. Scarcity is about meeting NEEDS. Wants are learned and are thus irrelevent as they change constantly to the point where it's hard to pinpoint them exactly.

BY GOD! ITS HAPPENED! He has made a descision, we can finally move on to the rest of my argument!

You are claiming that you are uncertain as to whether or not economic scarcity can be abolished because, you don't know whether or not the vast majority of the population will choose to prolong their life even a small amount!?

No, I'm asserting you're using the word scarcity ambiguously in regards to NOW or LATER

This again is irrelevant because it is fundamentally impossible to have an infinite amount of resources now or later.

My premise is that an individual will generally seek to prolong their life without limit. My argument is that people want to live as long as possible, therefore I do not need to know the exact benefit of an additional unit of resource. I simply need to know that the additional unit of resource has a positive impact.

Your premise is faulty becuase it lacks emperical evidence. You're dealing with wants, which are learned and can change constantly. Unless you can provide evidence to support that a sizeable portion of the population wants to live longer then your assertion is faulty and isn't worth the time to debunk. But as for NEEDING to live longer, unless we want to get into some natural selection frame of mind, it depends on the individual
[/QUOTE]

If need is not determined by issues of life or death what do you propose it is determined by, committee?

This should be obvious one NEEDS to live longer in order to survive, because one NEEDS to live. Otherwise all so called needs do not exist. All "needs" depend on the idea that one "Needs" that which will allow ones continued survival.

Go back and read (and quote) the passage where I supposedly claimed that healthcare resources are infinite, reread quote [1], reread passage. Repeat until you get it.

I've read it constantly. It's a STRAWMAN. You are setting up something only to knock it down.

You don't even remember what this part of our discussion was about do you? You misinterpreted me as saying that resources that can be used for healthcare are infinite, when in fact I meant that the resources that would be needed are infinite. Whether you agree with my argument had nothing to do with what we were discussing in this string. In other words you didn't go back and read it did you? Because otherwise you would know that you aren't even making the point you were trying to make in this part of our discussion here no less than an hour ago.

It bothers me that you would lie about something like that. What is the point of our discussion if you aren't even listening anyway?

You then go on to argue against my original point, which I suppose is fine but still isn't what we were talking about right here:

You maintain that there is benefit to additional healthcare resources [1], which I'm not arguing against, and that healthcare itself has diminishing returns, which means that in its self one will eventually receive NO benefits from using healthcare. You assert that there is no zero benefits to increasing resources used in healthcare, not tot he individual using the healthcare. So if there is a zero benefit possible for individuals, then there's a point where they will be satisfied and not want any more healthcare.

It follows from [1] that an individual will benefit from additional resources used in his healthcare. For instance, if Bob has cancer, one additional researcher studying a cure for his type of cancer will increase his chance of getting cured and therefore his expected life-span. Because the additional researcher will always benefit Bob Bob's maximum expected life-span is when there are an infinite number of researchers studying his disease. Because of the definition of need, he therefore needs an infinite number of researchers, his want of more healthcare or lack thereof is irrelevant.

(The fact that one might need an infinite number of things to survive may seem an abuse of "need", who really "needs" to survive that long anyway? The only other option of course is to set a cutoff age, no one "needs to live beyond this many years", when terminal disease with an unknown cure threatens there is no distinguishable difference between a cure and a breath of air, the individual will die without either. Therefore, we must accept both as being needs or neither.)

I do however acknoledge that I said "want" here:

Furthermore can you show that this limit at which the individual does not want to use resources to prolong his life is small enough that scarcity can still be abolished?

This was of course before you acknowledged that we'd be using need rather than wants above. But, I feel it necessary to correct myself for clarity. The individual needs to use resources to prolong his life, because that is the definition of need, "things you require in order to survive".

The rest is more of the same, the bulk of which my conclusion should respond to adequately.

The machines themselves are scarce as is the energy used to power them, the fact that they can reproduce has nothing to do with this. Human labor is currently scarce and human beings can reproduce.

Why can't you look beyond static analysis?

When you fellows finally revolt, and the world falls under Communism, it won't matter to anyone who dies for want of resources, that one day you may be able to have reproducing robots solve the worlds labor, energy, and food issues.
It won't matter to the man who dies of hunger.
It won't matter to the woman who dies of thirst.
It won't matter to the children who die of inadequet healthcare.
It won't matter to me either, your dreams of reproducing robots, because I will be dead already, killed for defending the free-market and [B]individual[B] rights.

--Higgs

higgs629

18th April 2007, 07:49

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 17, 2007 10:48 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 17, 2007 10:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:40 pm
Allow me to boil this down for you, apparently you have wildly missed the point:
I'm glad you can't read, because that saves us both a great deal of time :rolleyes:

Your assertion is:

ComradeRed

There is work being done at the moment on nanotechnology, which would be able to produce superior quality goods and (in theory) do it from energy alone.

My thesis is:
It would be stupid to use nanotechnology to create common goods and services from energy alone.

If you agree with the thesis simply post so at this point and we can save a lot of headache. After pulling up an elementary technical paper (http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm) on the subject (which you so gleefully ignore), you continue to debunk something that I admitted to as inaccurate.
[/b]
Alright so you were inaccurate, and that was my point. Why you continue to bemoan the fact is beyond me.

--Higgs

(PS) I ignore the paper because it has nothing to do with my thesis. You just admitted that you were inaccurate which was my thesis. I can understand why you wouldn't want to parade the fact, but why you need to pretend like my thesis has anything to do with the accuracy of this article (http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm) is beyond me.
Now that we've come to the conclusion that it in fact is a very bad idea to create consumer goods using only energy, feel free to respond to the other posters, I have no doubt that they have missed your particular brand of logic, and at least one person I was speaking to has asked after you.

ZX3

18th April 2007, 13:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:37 pm

Even still, they are still scarce simply because there is a finite quantity, and the cost of each additional good is nonzero.

But production occures constantly, not just a few hours a day. There is always going to be good available, period. Regardless of how much there are NOW, there is goign to be more COMING soon enough.

We MUST use proper terminology here to have a sensible discussion.

Yes, we must. Hense, having a non-ambiguous definition and use of "scarcity."

A post-scarcity society is NOT one in which everybody's needs are met. It is one in which everybody's wants are met as well, or at least a reasonable substitute.

Needs are inherent in one's biology. You NEED food, you NEED shelter. Wants are learned and NOT inherent in one's biology. But even if a post-scarcity society operates by satisfying wants, doesn't your theory of utility say that at a certain point, one would theoretically not want something anymore?

And, I don't watch Star Trek. But the idea that because one person can't do two things at once does NOT support any assertion that scarcity should remain or cannot be overcome.
But this is so because capitalism is a system which manages scarcity. Its not an automatic that goods just keep coming.

It is indeed true that no system can provide everything a person wants at that moment. But as OIers have been saying for quite some time, socialists don't even bother explaining how socialism will provide for goods and servicesd, how it will allocate its resources, in a far more efficient and rational manner than capitalism.

Instead we are left to treats that nanotechnology will someday solve the problem. My guess is that a century or so ago socialists were arguing that new and improved factories would solve the problems. Well, the factories of 2007 are superior to those of 1907, and the problem remains unsolved.

ZX3

18th April 2007, 13:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:37 pm

And, I don't watch Star Trek. But the idea that because one person can't do two things at once does NOT support any assertion that scarcity should remain or cannot be overcome.
Of course i supports such an assertion. If you are building ne needed item, you can't at the same time be building a second needed item.

The idea though is that by allocating resources effectively, and efficiently, one can reduce the resourcesd needed for producing needed and wanted items, thus increasing its amount and availability. However, the sketchy ideas proposed by the socialists tend to leave one with the impression that socialism will not lead to a more effective and efficient allocation of resources, thus doubtful that socialism owns the keys to overcoming scarcity.

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 13:49

Well then you have shown that a theory which is not mine is worthless. Because the idea which I outlined shows that something exists and that it is positive. It is unnecessary for my purposes to know exactly how positive. That is the point of what I was saying. In the future, when you think you have uncovered some fatal flaw in my ideas, please reread, we would save ourselves a lot of explaining on my part and embarrasment on yours.

All you said was that putting more resources into healthcare, at least in teh form of research, would never have zero benefit and that receiving healthcare has diminishing returns; hwoever, this is NOT a measurement. All you are saying is A has B. If you were providing a measurement, you would've have said something along the lines of "for each unit of healthcare the benefit experienced is equal to 5 utils until a certain point when each unit provides -4 utils until reaching 0 and going into the negatives." You didn't do this and you can't do this.

Read the entire post before you begin to reply, I haven't missed your research. I respond to your research below.

Yah, the food production with a crappy argument that even mainstream economic textbooks debunk.

BY GOD! ITS HAPPENED! He has made a descision, we can finally move on to the rest of my argument!

Decision what? This is a re-statement of what I've been saying all along! The only reason I brought up scarcity with respect to wants and needs is because I was using YOUR and OTHER PEOPLES' definition for the purposes of my argument. It's called a technique of argument. You know, a series of logical statements designed to support a conclusion that is in theory supposed to flow from the statements?

This again is irrelevant because it is fundamentally impossible to have an infinite amount of resources now or later.

No, it is relevent, for reasons I've stated in my research, which you HAVE apparently missed.

If need is not determined by issues of life or death what do you propose it is determined by, committee?

You didn't say "they need to live longer." You said "they want to live longer." Wants are learned and change constantly, remember?

You don't even remember what this part of our discussion was about do you?

A strawman argument is a series of arguments one sets up that are easily knocked down, which you did.

It follows from [1] that an individual will benefit from additional resources used in his healthcare.

I'm not arguing that aditional resources used in healthcare isn't useful. But you keep saying that people need an infinite number, which you cannot back up with emperical evidence. There is no alternative, such as setting a "cut off date." It's a fact that making such gross statements about something requires emperical evidence. If you made such a statement in a research paper, without qualifying it, you'd get slammed for not backing it up. But I would like to note that your assertion that additional resources used in healthcare research will always yield a no-zero benefit is radically different from the standard mainstream view that all research has diminishing returns eventually, at least for a time.

It won't matter to the man who dies of hunger.
It won't matter to the woman who dies of thirst.
It won't matter to the children who die of inadequet healthcare.
It won't matter to me either, your dreams of reproducing robots, because I will be dead already, killed for defending the free-market and [B]individual[B] rights.

You've just acknowledged what I stated as true. Why do you think there IS starvation in the world when there's enough food to feed everyone? It's been acknowledged by the majority of sociological research that the reason people starve in, say, third-world countries is because they don't haev a way to obtain the food they need, i.e. buy them OF THE MARKET. The market will only facilitate buyers and sellers, not people in need. Saying otherwise to any of these statements contradicts 100 years of economic and sociological research.

But I liked how I showed you were wrong and you jumped into a whole bit about defending free-markts and individual rights. I bet you're one of those people who think that people have the right to pursue happiness and the right to be able to secure what they need. And you claim I don't care about individual rights!

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 13:53

Originally posted by ZX3
It is indeed true that no system can provide everything a person wants at that moment. But as OIers have been saying for quite some time, socialists don't even bother explaining how socialism will provide for goods and servicesd, how it will allocate its resources, in a far more efficient and rational manner than capitalism.

Because, as we've admited, we don't know exactly how any post-capitalist society will look like or function (it's even doubtful whether we need a transition period at all, actually). What we do know is that the mainstream economic theories on how people function and behave either lack any emperical evidence or are just outright wrong. We don't know because we're not the ones setting it up and we can't predict what exactly the future will look like.

But remember: before Capitalism markets began to develop because of trade. So even before Capitalism, there was a pretty good idea how such a system was to be organized.

Tungsten

18th April 2007, 14:48

ComradeRed

Well, considering that nanotechnology is not only an artificial white blood cell and an extraordinarily small factory but also a sort of "supplement" to solar cells that (according to the math) makes solar power closer to 90 to 99.9...% efficient, there is no problem!
Considering that the science hasn't been perfected yet, there's a very big problem.

ZX3

18th April 2007, 16:12

Originally posted by JazzRemington+April 18, 2007 07:53 am--> (JazzRemington @ April 18, 2007 07:53 am)
ZX3
It is indeed true that no system can provide everything a person wants at that moment. But as OIers have been saying for quite some time, socialists don't even bother explaining how socialism will provide for goods and servicesd, how it will allocate its resources, in a far more efficient and rational manner than capitalism.

Because, as we've admited, we don't know exactly how any post-capitalist society will look like or function (it's even doubtful whether we need a transition period at all, actually). What we do know is that the mainstream economic theories on how people function and behave either lack any emperical evidence or are just outright wrong. We don't know because we're not the ones setting it up and we can't predict what exactly the future will look like.

But remember: before Capitalism markets began to develop because of trade. So even before Capitalism, there was a pretty good idea how such a system was to be organized. [/b]
No. Its not good enough to say "Capitalism is bad." You have to be able to show that socialism will result in the type of community you claim it will.

The same type of issues which capitalism resolves (or attempts to resolve) will be faced in the socialist community. So socialism will need to resolve (or to attempt to reolve) those issues. Saying "we don't know" is not a very convincing rebuttal.

So for example, if you believe that scarcity will not be an issue in a socialist community, you have to show why this is so. If it does not matter in economic calculations that a person cannot be working two different tasks at the same time, or that the same acre of land cannot grow wheat and corn at the same time, or that an acre of corn cannot be devoted for food humans and cows at the same time, then show why it doesn't matter.

If the socialist is unable to do things like this, to prove their assertions are correct, it sort of blows a hole in the claim that a post-capitalist community will be a more just, fair, equitable, prosperous, decent ect society.

Or the socialist can just appeal to "faith," which is fine, but also destroys the entire rationale for the existence of this website, as well as the claims of the scientific nature of socialism.

t_wolves_fan

18th April 2007, 16:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:30 am
We have to remember that wants are learned, in one way or another.

But in a system with individual liberty, how will you regulate which wants are learned and which are not?

It's my opinion as a social science major that the West has high levels of consumption and waste,

I'll be sure to ask your opinion when you're a burnt-out social science practioner. ;)

I agree we have high levels of consumption and waste...but what policies, if any, can or should be implemented to reduce those levels in your opinion?

I for one prefer pigouvian taxes.

as well as obescity(sp), because of consumerism and a sort-of constant encouragement to consume well above what is actually needed in media and what not.

How will media be limited to that which is "needed" and that which is "not", specifically?

Perhaps in a communist society children will be raised to not be wasteful of what they consume and perhaps it will be actively discouraged to do so. This may sound like a weak limit, but remember: humans are social, and they respond to social pressures.

Will "social pressure" cross the line into official policy?

18th April 2007, 17:21

But in a system with individual liberty, how will you regulate which wants are learned and which are not?

Nobody regulates which wants are learned and which ones aren't; the creation of want is created by the society in which one lives.

Will "social pressure" cross the line into official policy?

There is no such thing as "official policy" in a communist society because in order for that to happen you would need:

1. A government.
2. A means of enforcing that policy.

higgs629

18th April 2007, 18:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:49 am

If need is not determined by issues of life or death what do you propose it is determined by, committee?

You didn't say "they need to live longer." You said "they want to live longer." Wants are learned and change constantly, remember?
You conviently omitted the portion of the post where I correct that statement. I don't know whether you didn't read it, or you purposely omitted it in order for your argument to appear more convincing. While I am not reposting the entireity of your post I am certainly not leaving out portions of your post to misrepresent your intentions.

It follows from [1] that an individual will benefit from additional resources used in his healthcare.

I'm not arguing that aditional resources used in healthcare isn't useful.

Alright then we agree that additional resources ad infinitum will additionally benefit the individual.

But you keep saying that people need an infinite number, which you cannot back up with emperical evidence. There is no alternative, such as setting a "cut off date." It's a fact that making such gross statements about something requires emperical evidence. If you made such a statement in a research paper, without qualifying it, you'd get slammed for not backing it up. But I would like to note that your assertion that additional resources used in healthcare research will always yield a no-zero benefit is radically different from the standard mainstream view that all research has diminishing returns eventually, at least for a time.

This contradicts what you just said. You can't say they will be useful, then they won't. I consider it to be absolutely true an additional researcher will provide a positive benefit. Even if returns do diminish, it does not mean they reach zero. Do you disagree that an additional researcher will always benefit or not?
Pick because your contradictions are wasting my time.

But I liked how I showed you were wrong and you jumped into a whole bit about defending free-markts and individual rights. I bet you're one of those people who think that people have the right to pursue happiness and the right to be able to secure what they need. And you claim I don't care about individual rights!

There are only negative rights, and you do not care about negative rights, only about hypothetical positive ones. (ie you support the right to live over the right to life. The right to be provided with goods in place of the right to property.)

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 19:14

This contradicts what you just said. You can't say they will be useful, then they won't. I consider it to be absolutely true an additional researcher will provide a positive benefit. Even if returns do diminish, it does not mean they reach zero. Do you disagree that an additional researcher will always benefit or not?
Pick because your contradictions are wasting my time.

So, I can't read but yet you can? THis shows you can't either, if I can't. I said additional resources used for healthcare will be useful, I never said it wouldn't be useful, unless I was confused or mistaken by a proposition. What I was referring to in the portion your response is to is that the claim that there is infinite need for healthcare itself, i.e. Bob has an an infinite need for healthcare. Unless you are saying that something like Bob's infinite need for healthcare requires an infinite number of resources to be contributed to healthcare research, which relies on inductive reasoning because it may not be true that Bob's infinite need for healthcare requires infinite resources for research. For example, suppose Bob requires a cure that is already well developed and researched?

But in response to the idea that diminishing returns sometimes produce zero-benefit, if this is true then at some point they wouldn't be diminishing, which contradicts the idea of diminishing returns.

There are only negative rights, and you do not care about negative rights, only about hypothetical positive ones. (ie you support the right to live over the right to life. The right to be provided with goods in place of the right to property.)

The fact is that when I proved you wrong your knee jerk reaction was that it's violating rights. But by the examples you've shown it's clear you don't understand the concept of negative and positive rights. But it should be pretty obvious why someone, anyone really, would be against negative rights: they violate people's positive rights!

Besides, your examples are semantics. I support the right to live, or remain alive, as opposed to supporting the right to life, or BE alive. How is it possible to support REMAINING alive but not BEING alive? It's essentially the same concept! The right to be provided with goods as opposed to the right to property is meaningless because property is considered a good in mainstream economics and this ignores inheritance where a good, e.g. property, IS provided to someone.

Like I said: semantics. I probably shouldn't have gone into your nonsense, but I have anyway.

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 19:30

But in a system with individual liberty, how will you regulate which wants are learned and which are not?

It happens through society. Wants can be internalizations, I suppose. I know we can't measure internal processes but I doubt something that's enforced could be considered a want. Various social forces are at work, which affect people's wants and desires. For example, if someone grows up in a home and is bombarded with stimulus that enforces, say, that a certain good is desireable because it will provide a sense of pleasure or that one will be popular, he will certainly want this good, especially if such an object is presented at a young age and/or in a convincing manner. But, it such stimulus doesn't exist, then it is doubtful that the person would want said good.

A good example of this is alcohol and other drugs. Ignoring medicines, you don't need alcohol or drugs par say. Such things don't require a natural, biological necessity your body requires to operate (certainly a minor amount of said drug or some types of wine can help the body, but they aren't required strictly speaking), but yet we had advertisements enforcing the idea that alcohol can be fun in social gatherings, amongst other things. For the time that alcohol was illegal, it didn't mean that people wanted it LESS, becuase people seemed to want it MORE.

I agree we have high levels of consumption and waste...but what policies, if any, can or should be implemented to reduce those levels in your opinion?

Well, there's not much we can do currently. The image of over-consumption is too power, if you will, to be counteracted by anything else. But it wouldn't do good to simply impose a restriction or whatnot, but rather promote a rationale of not wasting and frugality, but certainly not to the point of unhealthiness.

How will media be limited to that which is "needed" and that which is "not", specifically?

Like, I said, there's no tmuch we can currently do. We can impose restrictions on TV stations so as to show less commercials or air more educational programming, but this has been fought hard and vicious by companies.

Will "social pressure" cross the line into official policy?

There wouldn't an "official policy," so-to-speak. I guess you can consider a dominant belief centered around not wasting things to be official policy, but it's not in the sense of a government apparatus.

ComradeRed

18th April 2007, 19:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:48 am
ComradeRed

Well, considering that nanotechnology is not only an artificial white blood cell and an extraordinarily small factory but also a sort of "supplement" to solar cells that (according to the math) makes solar power closer to 90 to 99.9...% efficient, there is no problem!
Considering that the science hasn't been perfected yet, there's a very big problem.
Thus it will never be perfected :rolleyes:

No one, I think, is questioning that it is not presently a final product. Based on what it can do presently as an artificial white blood cell, and from the work being done on making solar cells more efficient and on "nanofactories", it is reasonable to conclude that there really isn't much of a problem with nanotechnology "ending scarcity".

Unless you are going to turn around and pull something out of your ass like "But demand for anything is infinite" :lol:

With such reasoning, since the chap who proposed it (Higgs) accepts "supply and demand" economics, price is thus infinite for any good. That is empirically incorrect (supposing that "supply and demand" did indeed determine price, which is mathematically inconsistent), so reject the proposition that "demand is infinite".

higgs629

18th April 2007, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:14 am

This contradicts what you just said. You can't say they will be useful, then they won't. I consider it to be absolutely true an additional researcher will provide a positive benefit. Even if returns do diminish, it does not mean they reach zero. Do you disagree that an additional researcher will always benefit or not?
Pick because your contradictions are wasting my time.

So, I can't read but yet you can? THis shows you can't either, if I can't. I said additional resources used for healthcare will be useful, I never said it wouldn't be useful, unless I was confused or mistaken by a proposition. What I was referring to in the portion your response is to is that the claim that there is infinite need for healthcare itself, i.e. Bob has an an infinite need for healthcare. Unless you are saying that something like Bob's infinite need for healthcare requires an infinite number of resources to be contributed to healthcare research, which relies on inductive reasoning because it may not be true that Bob's infinite need for healthcare requires infinite resources for research. For example, suppose Bob requires a cure that is already well developed and researched?

But in response to the idea that diminishing returns sometimes produce zero-benefit, if this is true then at some point they wouldn't be diminishing, which contradicts the idea of diminishing returns.

There are only negative rights, and you do not care about negative rights, only about hypothetical positive ones. (ie you support the right to live over the right to life. The right to be provided with goods in place of the right to property.)

The fact is that when I proved you wrong your knee jerk reaction was that it's violating rights. But by the examples you've shown it's clear you don't understand the concept of negative and positive rights. But it should be pretty obvious why someone, anyone really, would be against negative rights: they violate people's positive rights!

Besides, your examples are semantics. I support the right to live, or remain alive, as opposed to supporting the right to life, or BE alive. How is it possible to support REMAINING alive but not BEING alive? It's essentially the same concept! The right to be provided with goods as opposed to the right to property is meaningless because property is considered a good in mainstream economics and this ignores inheritance where a good, e.g. property, IS provided to someone.

Like I said: semantics. I probably shouldn't have gone into your nonsense, but I have anyway.
I can't respond to your argument in full right now because I have a test today to study for however there is one point that is so blatantly false I can't help but disagree.

But in response to the idea that diminishing returns sometimes produce zero-benefit, if this is true then at some point they wouldn't be diminishing, which contradicts the idea of diminishing returns.

I think you mis-spoke, what I think you intended to say was that:

"In response to the idea that diminishing returns can produce a non-zero benifit forever, if this were true then at some point they wouldn't be diminishing, which contradicts the idea of diminishing returns. "

If that is what you mean, it is patently false.

Let us say that the marginal benefit (not the total benefit) is can be described by a function f(x), where x is the quantity of resources used.

Let us say that the f(x) = e^(-k * x)

(where k is a positive non-zero number)

This function always has diminishing returns.

That is df/dx = f ' (x) = -k * e ^ (-k*x)

But is never zero:

f(x) = e^(-k*x) =/= to zero, even though the limit as x approaches infinity is zero.

Would you prefer to ignore this, reword your claim to be true, or retract the statement entirely?

higgs629

18th April 2007, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:14 am
But it should be pretty obvious why someone, anyone really, would be against negative rights: they violate people's positive rights!

One problem, there are no such things as positive rights...but then again this really belongs in a new thread anyway.

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 20:22

Would you prefer to ignore this, reword your claim to be true, or retract the statement entirely?

Meh, I'm still not impressed. You keep failing to understand that you cannot measure people's marginal benefits, period. The problem is, aside from imposing your theory on to people's behaviors and thought patterns, you cannot define a definite, objective, and empirically measurable quantity to stand for the benefit (i.e. something not abstract or vague). So it doesn't matter if diminishing returns produce zero or non-zero results because you can't measure the benefit. Thus, the entire concept is faulty.

And I'd like to point out that you are doing the same thing you're accusing me of. I prove you wrong on production and technological innovation and you jump into accusing me of violating rights.

One problem, there are no such things as positive rights...but then again this really belongs in a new thread anyway.

Neither are there "negative rights," because these would be violations OF rights, and it can't be a right to violate rights; however, we are to understand "rights" to be certain powers legalized by the State.

t_wolves_fan

18th April 2007, 20:22

Thank you for the answers, Jazz.

Is it fair to say you believe a movement towards socialism or communism will be organic and led by societal changes, and not by a revolution that imposes frugality on people?

Also, if this societal attitude change towards frugality does not happen, can scarcity really be eliminated?

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 20:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:22 pm
Thank you for the answers, Jazz.

Is it fair to say you believe a movement towards socialism or communism will be organic and led by societal changes, and not by a revolution that imposes frugality on people?

Also, if this societal attitude change towards frugality does not happen, can scarcity really be eliminated?
I don't think evolution will happen. You can't evolve from individual ownership of the means of production to social ownership, if you will. A revolution is likely to occur, but this doesn't necessitate any imposing on anyone. But than again, we can't predict the future to an exact specification, only can we have broad predictions.

Frugality is not a necessity to eliminate scarcity, I'm not sure if I implied that. But I'm not sure what exactly peoples' wants would be in a society without consumerism. Certainly, people need to be frugal in the sense of taking and using what they need, but we don't know what the nature of their wants would be.

t_wolves_fan

18th April 2007, 20:32

Originally posted by JazzRemington+April 18, 2007 07:28 pm--> (JazzRemington @ April 18, 2007 07:28 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 02:22 pm
Thank you for the answers, Jazz.

Is it fair to say you believe a movement towards socialism or communism will be organic and led by societal changes, and not by a revolution that imposes frugality on people?

Also, if this societal attitude change towards frugality does not happen, can scarcity really be eliminated?
I don't think evolution will happen. You can't evolve from individual ownership of the means of production to social ownership, if you will. A revolution is likely to occur, but this doesn't necessitate any imposing on anyone. But than again, we can't predict the future to an exact specification, only can we have broad predictions.

Frugality is not a necessity to eliminate scarcity, I'm not sure if I implied that. But I'm not sure what exactly peoples' wants would be in a society without consumerism. Certainly, people need to be frugal in the sense of taking and using what they need, but we don't know what the nature of their wants would be. [/b]
OK, but it's still safe to say that communist or socialist systems require...how to put it...tempering material desires in order to truly work effectively, and this change in attitude will have to be brought about somehow, right?

JazzRemington

18th April 2007, 20:38

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+April 18, 2007 02:32 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ April 18, 2007 02:32 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:28 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 02:22 pm
Thank you for the answers, Jazz.

Is it fair to say you believe a movement towards socialism or communism will be organic and led by societal changes, and not by a revolution that imposes frugality on people?

Also, if this societal attitude change towards frugality does not happen, can scarcity really be eliminated?
I don't think evolution will happen. You can't evolve from individual ownership of the means of production to social ownership, if you will. A revolution is likely to occur, but this doesn't necessitate any imposing on anyone. But than again, we can't predict the future to an exact specification, only can we have broad predictions.

Frugality is not a necessity to eliminate scarcity, I'm not sure if I implied that. But I'm not sure what exactly peoples' wants would be in a society without consumerism. Certainly, people need to be frugal in the sense of taking and using what they need, but we don't know what the nature of their wants would be.
OK, but it's still safe to say that communist or socialist systems require...how to put it...tempering material desires in order to truly work effectively, and this change in attitude will have to be brought about somehow, right? [/b]
I'd believe you are correct, unless someone can explain this better than I can. But it's important to note that it's not some State imposing laws on people to "temper" them, but rather social forces. The social forces that influence behavior in some way are often very subtle and hard to notice, but they do exist.

pusher robot

18th April 2007, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:31 pm
Based on what it can do presently as an artificial white blood cell, and from the work being done on making solar cells more efficient and on "nanofactories", it is reasonable to conclude that there really isn't much of a problem with nanotechnology "ending scarcity".

No, it is not reasonable to so conclude. Energy will still remain scarce. Ingenuity will still remain scarce. Life will still remain scarce.

"Scarcity" has nothing to do with "rarity" - I think that's where we are running into trouble. Something can be quite common yet still be scarce.

Lynx

19th April 2007, 00:55

Originally posted by "Wikipedia"

There is no shortage of solar-derived energy on Earth. Indeed the storages and flows of energy on the planet are very large relative to human needs.

* The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.
* Tropical oceans absorb 560 trillion gigajoules (GJ) of solar energy each year, equivalent to 1,600 times the world’s annual energy use.
* The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000.
* Annual photosynthesis by the vegetation in the United States is 50 billion GJ, equivalent to nearly 60% of the nation’s annual fossil fuel use.

Plants, on average, capture 0.1% of the solar energy reaching the Earth. The land area of the lower 48 United States intercepts 50 trillion GJ per year, equivalent to 500 times of the nation’s annual energy use. This energy is spread over 8 million square kilometers of land area, so that each square meter is exposed to 6.1 GJ per year. This results in potential biomass production of 6,100 GJ per square kilometer per year. Compared to the 0.1% efficiency of vegetation, roof installable amorphous silicon solar panels capture 8%-14% of the solar energy, while more expensive crystalline panels capture 14%-20%, and large scale desert mirror-concentrator heat engine based setups may capture up to 30-50%.
I don't understand what you guys are arguing about!!
Technology will eventually bring us advances in efficiency and durability thereby leading us closer to the goal of energy self-sufficiency. The question is not if, but when.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 01:38

Originally posted by Lynx+April 18, 2007 11:55 pm--> (Lynx @ April 18, 2007 11:55 pm)I don't understand what you guys are arguing about!![/b]
That is correct. We are not arguing about sustainability, or self-sufficiency, or meeting human needs. I repeat yet again: post-scarcity does not simply mean "lack of shortages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity#Definition_of_post-scarcity
Even without postulating new technologies, it might be true that today there is already enough energy, raw material and biological resources on Earth to provide a comfortable lifestyle for every person on earth, but even a hypothetical political or economic system that was able to achieve an egalitarian distribution of goods would generally not be termed a "post-scarcity society" unless the production of goods was sufficiently automated that virtually no labor was required by anyone (although it is usually assumed there would still be plenty of voluntary creative labor, like a writer creating a novel or a software engineer working on open-source software). This is a key difference between the most common post-scarcity vision and other utopian visions such as communism.

In this discussion, "post-scarcity" means that everybody can have as much of anything as they want, for free - and whether this is possible (it might be) today (it isn't).

ComradeRed

19th April 2007, 02:03

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 18, 2007 12:11 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 18, 2007 12:11 pm)
Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 18, 2007 06:31 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 18, 2007 06:31 pm) Based on what it can do presently as an artificial white blood cell, and from the work being done on making solar cells more efficient and on "nanofactories", it is reasonable to conclude that there really isn't much of a problem with nanotechnology "ending scarcity".
[/b]
No, it is not reasonable to so conclude. Energy will still remain scarce. Ingenuity will still remain scarce. Life will still remain scarce.

"Scarcity" has nothing to do with "rarity" - I think that's where we are running into trouble. Something can be quite common yet still be scarce.[/b]
You miss the point entirely by using sophistry to redefine the term "scarcity" mate.

Sorry, but I have no choice to pull out real analysis here. It's not your fault, blame the economists for trying to hide their mistakes in math.

Within vulgar economics it's the condition that there are limited resources cannot fulfill people's subjective whims.

But according to vulgar economics, people always want an infinite quantity of every commodity; that is where the diminishing marginal utility curve is nonzero and positive.

For example, from a standard text on microeconomics (mine is Microeconomic Theory by Adreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green) there is a definition of the utility function as something like:
Definition 1.B.2: A function u:X -> R is a utility function representing preference relation >= if. for all x,y in X, x>=y <=> u(x) >= u(y). --emphasis is theirs

This is more or less a measurement. If you really wanted to, you could abuse measure theory here if you were bored enough to figure out the sigma algebra over the given set of commodities.

This begs the question though: since u(x) is a measurement of the utility of x goods, what units does it return? Or more simply what are the units of utility?

And you could say "But ComradeRed, that doesn't explicitly state a measurement!" Sure, but if you really want a source that states it as such, then look no further than Hal R. Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics:
Originally posted by [email protected]
A utility function is a way of assigning a number to every possible consumption bundle such that more-preferred bundles get assigned larger numbers than less-preferred bundles. That is, a bundle (a,b) is preferred to a bundle (x,y) if and only if the utility of (a,b) is larger than the utility of (x,y): in symbols (a,b)>>(x,y) if and only if u(a,b) > u(x,y). --emphasis his, but due to technical difficulties, >> is actually the "preference operator".

The utility function is returning the utility of a bundle. That is not what I am trying to prove though, what I am trying to prove is: d u(x) / dx = MU(x), lim_{x-> infinity} MU(x) = 0.

Economists always present the utility function as differentiable, so it must be continuous (this is a property of functions from elementary differential calculus).

From my preferred economic textbook:
Collel Whinston and [email protected] pg 50
Proposition 3.D.1: If p>>0 and u(·) is continuous, then the utility maximization problem has a solution. This is contrasted to having many solutions or no solutions at all.

(By the by, for those ignorant of economics notation, p here refers to prices)

However, u(x) has a negative slope, and is a concave function, by the consequence of the Walrasian demand correspondence. (See Collel, Whinston, and Green pg. 51).

By virtue of having the preference relation have the property of monotonicity, the function u(x) is monotonically increasing (that is to say, since a<=b, then u(a)<=u(b)).

From this, it mathematically follows that marginal utility is a monotone decreasing function on the interval where u(x) is concave (which is all positive real numbers). This tells us that marginal utility is "diminishing" naturally.

This tells us that the first derivative of u(x) changes sign, i.e. u(x)>0 for x>0 and du(x)/dx<0 for x>0. This also tells us that lim_{x->infinity} u(x) exists. This means that the only two permissible values for u(x) that can be easily seen is u(x)=x^{-k}+C for some positive nonzero constant k, and constant of integration C, or else u(x)=e^{-kx}+C.

For all practical purposes, economists set C=0 (and they set differentials to 0 too for some strange reason).

This means that lim_{x->infinity} u(x) = 0.

Such a supposition is patently absurd when you compare it to reality.

Short Version: economists assume that there is demand for the infinitieth good produced, as it has utility. That is why there "will always be scarcity" according to the economists.

Here's an elementary Counter Example:

Ever eaten so much that you got sick? Did you still want to eat?

No. Thus there was negative utility from the next piece. QED.

Or equivalently: too much of anything will have disutility for the consumer. Thus "demand" cannot be infinite from everyday experience (if you don't believe me, try eating an infinite number of slices of pizza).

Higgs
For analytical purposes, it is also convenient if u(·) can be assumed to be differentiable. It is possible, however, for continuous preferences not to be representable by a differentiable utility function. [...] The nondifferentiability arises because of the kink in indifference curves when x_{1} = x_{2}. --emphasis is theirs

The only reason they assume that the utility function is differentiable is because it's nice. There is, mind you, no way of measuring it...and consequently no way of measuring preferences.

That is a major blow to a theory when it can't be tested; if economics were a science, we'd stop here and say "Well, this is wrong. Lets try something else."

But alas, Neoclassical economics is no more a science than alchemy, so we must continue.

Using the individual preference curves to be Engels curves, the social preference curve is not continuous i.e. not differentiable.

The reason this is so is because, as illustrated by Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics on page 99, the slope for the Engel's curve is constant. A further restriction put on is that all Engel's curves have the same slope.

What this means is that suppose we looked at Bill Gates. As a teenager he spent say 75% of his budget on pizza, 20% on rent, and 5% on computers. Now that his income has increased by a factor of over a million, he spends the same proportions on the same goods! That would be an unimaginable quantity of pizzas!

No wonder you people think demand is infinite! But this is empirically wrong.

Hell even the saint of marginalism Gorman admitted that:

Community indifference and utility possibility loci are among the most useful concepts of welfare economics. Their great disadvantage is that they may intersect....Thus the analysis...frequently becomes inconclusive. (Gorman, W.M. (1953). 'Community preference fields', Econometrica, 21: 63-80)

So where does the marginalist theory of consumer behavior work?

The economic theory of consumer behavior "works" if and only if there is a market economy that has only one consumer, and that consumer only ever consumes the one commodity. Then and only then can individual utility be summed to yield social utility.

Otherwise, i.e. in reality, the analysis breaks down completely.

higgs629

19th April 2007, 06:46

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 18, 2007 06:03 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 18, 2007 06:03 pm)
Originally posted by pusher robot+April 18, 2007 12:11 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 18, 2007 12:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:31 pm
Based on what it can do presently as an artificial white blood cell, and from the work being done on making solar cells more efficient and on "nanofactories", it is reasonable to conclude that there really isn't much of a problem with nanotechnology "ending scarcity".

No, it is not reasonable to so conclude. Energy will still remain scarce. Ingenuity will still remain scarce. Life will still remain scarce.

"Scarcity" has nothing to do with "rarity" - I think that's where we are running into trouble. Something can be quite common yet still be scarce.[/b]
You miss the point entirely by using sophistry to redefine the term "scarcity" mate.

Sorry, but I have no choice to pull out real analysis here. It's not your fault, blame the economists for trying to hide their mistakes in math.

Within vulgar economics it's the condition that there are limited resources cannot fulfill people's subjective whims.

But according to vulgar economics, people always want an infinite quantity of every commodity; that is where the diminishing marginal utility curve is nonzero and positive.

For example, from a standard text on microeconomics (mine is Microeconomic Theory by Adreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green) there is a definition of the utility function as something like:
Definition 1.B.2: A function u:X -> R is a utility function representing preference relation >= if. for all x,y in X, x>=y <=> u(x) >= u(y). --emphasis is theirs

This is more or less a measurement. If you really wanted to, you could abuse measure theory here if you were bored enough to figure out the sigma algebra over the given set of commodities.

This begs the question though: since u(x) is a measurement of the utility of x goods, what units does it return? Or more simply what are the units of utility?

And you could say "But ComradeRed, that doesn't explicitly state a measurement!" Sure, but if you really want a source that states it as such, then look no further than Hal R. Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics:
Originally posted by [email protected]
A utility function is a way of assigning a number to every possible consumption bundle such that more-preferred bundles get assigned larger numbers than less-preferred bundles. That is, a bundle (a,b) is preferred to a bundle (x,y) if and only if the utility of (a,b) is larger than the utility of (x,y): in symbols (a,b)>>(x,y) if and only if u(a,b) > u(x,y). --emphasis his, but due to technical difficulties, >> is actually the "preference operator".

The utility function is returning the utility of a bundle. That is not what I am trying to prove though, what I am trying to prove is: d u(x) / dx = MU(x), lim_{x-> infinity} MU(x) = 0.

Economists always present the utility function as differentiable, so it must be continuous (this is a property of functions from elementary differential calculus).

From my preferred economic textbook:
Collel Whinston and [email protected] pg 50
Proposition 3.D.1: If p>>0 and u(·) is continuous, then the utility maximization problem has a solution. This is contrasted to having many solutions or no solutions at all.

(By the by, for those ignorant of economics notation, p here refers to prices)

However, u(x) has a negative slope, and is a concave function, by the consequence of the Walrasian demand correspondence. (See Collel, Whinston, and Green pg. 51).

By virtue of having the preference relation have the property of monotonicity, the function u(x) is monotonically increasing (that is to say, since a<=b, then u(a)<=u(b)).

From this, it mathematically follows that marginal utility is a monotone decreasing function on the interval where u(x) is concave (which is all positive real numbers). This tells us that marginal utility is "diminishing" naturally.

This tells us that the first derivative of u(x) changes sign, i.e. u(x)>0 for x>0 and du(x)/dx<0 for x>0. This also tells us that lim_{x->infinity} u(x) exists. This means that the only two permissible values for u(x) that can be easily seen is u(x)=x^{-k}+C for some positive nonzero constant k, and constant of integration C, or else u(x)=e^{-kx}+C.

For all practical purposes, economists set C=0 (and they set differentials to 0 too for some strange reason).

This means that lim_{x->infinity} u(x) = 0.

Such a supposition is patently absurd when you compare it to reality.

Short Version: economists assume that there is demand for the infinitieth good produced, as it has utility. That is why there "will always be scarcity" according to the economists.

Here's an elementary Counter Example:

Ever eaten so much that you got sick? Did you still want to eat?

No. Thus there was negative utility from the next piece. QED.

Or equivalently: too much of anything will have disutility for the consumer. Thus "demand" cannot be infinite from everyday experience (if you don't believe me, try eating an infinite number of slices of pizza).

Higgs
For analytical purposes, it is also convenient if u(·) can be assumed to be differentiable. It is possible, however, for continuous preferences not to be representable by a differentiable utility function. [...] The nondifferentiability arises because of the kink in indifference curves when x_{1} = x_{2}. --emphasis is theirs

The only reason they assume that the utility function is differentiable is because it's nice. There is, mind you, no way of measuring it...and consequently no way of measuring preferences.

That is a major blow to a theory when it can't be tested; if economics were a science, we'd stop here and say "Well, this is wrong. Lets try something else."

But alas, Neoclassical economics is no more a science than alchemy, so we must continue.

Using the individual preference curves to be Engels curves, the social preference curve is not continuous i.e. not differentiable.

The reason this is so is because, as illustrated by Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics on page 99, the slope for the Engel's curve is constant. A further restriction put on is that all Engel's curves have the same slope.

What this means is that suppose we looked at Bill Gates. As a teenager he spent say 75% of his budget on pizza, 20% on rent, and 5% on computers. Now that his income has increased by a factor of over a million, he spends the same proportions on the same goods! That would be an unimaginable quantity of pizzas!

No wonder you people think demand is infinite! But this is empirically wrong.

Hell even the saint of marginalism Gorman admitted that:

Community indifference and utility possibility loci are among the most useful concepts of welfare economics. Their great disadvantage is that they may intersect....Thus the analysis...frequently becomes inconclusive. (Gorman, W.M. (1953). 'Community preference fields', Econometrica, 21: 63-80)

So where does the marginalist theory of consumer behavior work?

The economic theory of consumer behavior "works" if and only if there is a market economy that has only one consumer, and that consumer only ever consumes the one commodity. Then and only then can individual utility be summed to yield social utility.

Otherwise, i.e. in reality, the analysis breaks down completely. [/b]
This post, while interesting does nothing to prove that scarcity will cease to exist. Even with non-infinite demand scarcity exists, because it is also true that even though demand for food may not be infinite, the existing food does not totally fulfill everyone's wants and therefore it is scarce. Don't bother saying that it could, because I will *personally* change my want of food to prove you wrong, because as long as at least 1 person does want infinite food, it remaind scarce.

ComradeRed

19th April 2007, 07:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:46 pm
This post, while interesting does nothing to prove that scarcity will cease to exist.
Well, first off thanks for completely ignoring my points.

Even with non-infinite demand scarcity exists, because it is also true that even though demand for food may not be infinite, the existing food does not totally fulfill everyone's wants and therefore it is scarce. This makes no logical sense and has no bearing on the points that I have made.

"Wants" apparently is synonymous with "limitless desire for"; this "point" is internally inconsistent.

Given a demand curve that is zero at some number x where x is in the set of positive real integers, there will never be x units of this given good...because you say so.

Even if it were possible to produce x units of this given good, people will shift their demand curve.

This totally ignores my Bill Gates point I made with the Engel's curve <_<

Don't bother saying that it could, because I will *personally* change my want of food to prove you wrong, because as long as at least 1 person does want infinite food, it remaind scarce. OK, tell me how do you measure your want of food? How "badly" do you want the Xth unit of food?

What units do you use?

What's the standard for these units?

Again, thanks for ignoring my points.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 16:00

Ever eaten so much that you got sick? Did you still want to eat?

No. Thus there was negative utility from the next piece. QED.

By your example, then, farmers must be terribly miserable people with all their surplus food. But no, you're wrong, because food has value to others if you don't eat it. Thus, if you have surplus food (that is, food that has a higher utility to someone else than to yourself), you can trade it for something that you do want. This only ceases to be true if food is so abundant that it has a market value of zero - in which case, we are living in a post-scarcity society.

ComradeRed

19th April 2007, 17:13

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 07:00 am

Ever eaten so much that you got sick? Did you still want to eat?

No. Thus there was negative utility from the next piece. QED.

By your example, then, farmers must be terribly miserable people with all their surplus food. But no, you're wrong, because food has value to others if you don't eat it. Thus, if you have surplus food (that is, food that has a higher utility to someone else than to yourself), you can trade it for something that you do want. This only ceases to be true if food is so abundant that it has a market value of zero - in which case, we are living in a post-scarcity society.
Oh really? Farmers consume all the food they grow? :lol:

Mate, you need to slowly reread what I wrote.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 17:22

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 19, 2007 04:13 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 19, 2007 04:13 pm)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 07:00 am

Ever eaten so much that you got sick? Did you still want to eat?

No. Thus there was negative utility from the next piece. QED.

By your example, then, farmers must be terribly miserable people with all their surplus food. But no, you're wrong, because food has value to others if you don't eat it. Thus, if you have surplus food (that is, food that has a higher utility to someone else than to yourself), you can trade it for something that you do want. This only ceases to be true if food is so abundant that it has a market value of zero - in which case, we are living in a post-scarcity society.
Oh really? Farmers consume all the food they grow? :lol:

Mate, you need to slowly reread what I wrote. [/b]
You are the one who started with the premise that the only utility value of food is the utility gained by EATING it, and that once you were full, food would cease to have utility. I am simply pointing out that there is other utility to be gained from food OTHER than eating it. The fact that the farmer is well fed yet continues to amass food disproves your argument that the utility of food becomes negative once you are full.

Tungsten

19th April 2007, 17:45

But it should be pretty obvious why someone, anyone really, would be against negative rights: they violate people's positive rights!
The right to enslave is a positive right.

ComradeRed

19th April 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 08:22 am
You are the one who started with the premise that the only utility value of food is the utility gained by EATING it, and that once you were full, food would cease to have utility. I am simply pointing out that there is other utility to be gained from food OTHER than eating it. The fact that the farmer is well fed yet continues to amass food disproves your argument that the utility of food becomes negative once you are full.
Mate, you need to know the economist's definition of utility (they redefine all these simple terms for their advantage):

Utility 1. An economic term referring to the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service. From investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utility.asp)

The usual definition from introductory textbooks goes like this:

In economics, utility is a measure of the relative happiness or satisfaction (gratification) gained by consuming different bundles of goods and services.

JazzRemington

19th April 2007, 18:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:45 am

But it should be pretty obvious why someone, anyone really, would be against negative rights: they violate people's positive rights!
The right to enslave is a positive right.
Well, talking about rights is complicated. It is true that a right to do something is a positive right, thus a right to enslavement is a positive right. But, could we also say that someone mustn't interfere with his ability to enslave, thus making it a negative right? Because if he has a right to enslave, there must be somehow to prevent others from preventing him to enslave others.

In other words, A has a positive right to enslave B but A must also have a negative right against C so that C won't stop A from enslaving or owning B.

Like I said, it's kinda complicated and useless to differentiate between positive and negative rights because certain rights can be both. As per teh example above, slavery can be a positive right because it can be guaranteed by the State and a negative right because there's something to say that some people can't be slaves.

Perhaps negative rights don't violate positive rights, but in any case the distinction is needlessly complicated and not, in practical terms, always clear.

pusher robot

19th April 2007, 18:31

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 19, 2007 04:59 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 19, 2007 04:59 pm)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 08:22 am
You are the one who started with the premise that the only utility value of food is the utility gained by EATING it, and that once you were full, food would cease to have utility. I am simply pointing out that there is other utility to be gained from food OTHER than eating it. The fact that the farmer is well fed yet continues to amass food disproves your argument that the utility of food becomes negative once you are full.
Mate, you need to know the economist's definition of utility (they redefine all these simple terms for their advantage):

Utility 1. An economic term referring to the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service. From investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utility.asp)

The usual definition from introductory textbooks goes like this:

In economics, utility is a measure of the relative happiness or satisfaction (gratification) gained by consuming different bundles of goods and services. [/b]
Right, well my point was that even if you have no direct utility from eating a quantity of food, that does not mean that the quantity of food is incapable of gaining you further utility, because you can exchange it for goods and services that WILL bring you further utility. Since utility is fungible by definition, it has utility to you, albeit indirectly. Your surplus food is "consumed" by trading it for something that will bring you more utility.

You might as well argue that paper currency has no utility, since it is only as useful for direct consumption as any other scrap of paper, in which case, I encourage you send it all to me.

Do you dispute this?

higgs629

19th April 2007, 20:20

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 18, 2007 11:21 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 18, 2007 11:21 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:46 pm
This post, while interesting does nothing to prove that scarcity will cease to exist.
Well, first off thanks for completely ignoring my points.

[/b]
They we're ignored simply because they had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not scarcity existed or didn't exist. You simply attacked utility and the idea that demand is infinite, neither of which is a prerequisite for the existence of scarcity.

Even with non-infinite demand scarcity exists, because it is also true that even though demand for food may not be infinite, the existing food does not totally fulfill everyone's wants and therefore it is scarce.
This makes no logical sense and has no bearing on the points that I have made.

"Wants" apparently is synonymous with "limitless desire for"; this "point" is internally inconsistent.

I didn't say nor mean limitless desire for. The simple fact is that the amount of the food currently in the world is NOT satisfying everyones wants.

Given a demand curve that is zero at some number x where x is in the set of positive real integers, there will never be x units of this given good...because you say so.

I was speaking of here and now. It is an empirical fact that even if demand is not infinite, everyones want of food is not being totally fulfilled.

Don't bother saying that it could, because I will *personally* change my want of food to prove you wrong, because as long as at least 1 person does want infinite food, it remaind scarce. OK, tell me how do you measure your want of food? How "badly" do you want the Xth unit of food?

How badly I want it is of no consequence. The important thing is that I want it, and there isn't enough in the world to totally fulfill my want of it. I, personally, make a promise to you that no matter how much food there is in the world I will want twice that amount thereby rendering it scarce according to the generally accepted definition of scarcity. Frankly because now I don't want it just to eat it, I want it to prove you wrong, and short of killing me there is now no way to end scarcity.

What units do you use?

It is of no consequence, all that is important is that it is non-zero.

What's the standard for these units?

Again, thanks for ignoring my points.

Make some.

higgs629

19th April 2007, 20:22

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 19, 2007 09:13 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 19, 2007 09:13 am)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 07:00 am

Ever eaten so much that you got sick? Did you still want to eat?

No. Thus there was negative utility from the next piece. QED.

By your example, then, farmers must be terribly miserable people with all their surplus food. But no, you're wrong, because food has value to others if you don't eat it. Thus, if you have surplus food (that is, food that has a higher utility to someone else than to yourself), you can trade it for something that you do want. This only ceases to be true if food is so abundant that it has a market value of zero - in which case, we are living in a post-scarcity society.
Oh really? Farmers consume all the food they grow? :lol:

Mate, you need to slowly reread what I wrote. [/b]
You are assuming that the only utility food has is in its consumption.

Farmers have lots of food. They would prefer having more food. Turns out your full of shit. QED.

ComradeRed

20th April 2007, 01:17

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 19, 2007 09:31 am--> (pusher robot @ April 19, 2007 09:31 am)Right, well my point was that even if you have no direct utility from eating a quantity of food, that does not mean that the quantity of food is incapable of gaining you further utility, because you can exchange it for goods and services that WILL bring you further utility. [/b]
Perhaps this may be true in a barter economy, but I demand to see empirical measurements of this.

Since utility is fungible by definition, it has utility to you, albeit indirectly. Your surplus food is "consumed" by trading it for something that will bring you more utility.

You might as well argue that paper currency has no utility, since it is only as useful for direct consumption as any other scrap of paper, in which case, I encourage you send it all to me.

Do you dispute this? How much marginal utility do you get from money?

Because according to your reasoning, the marginal utility curve should be increasing as Q (the quantity of goods consumed) is increasing.

But this means the utility function is not monotonous and you have a problem with your preference operator.

So either you're right and the entire marginalist paradigm is wrong, or you're wrong along with the entire marginalist paradigm.

Originally posted by [email protected]

They we're ignored simply because they had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not scarcity existed or didn't exist. You simply attacked utility and the idea that demand is infinite, neither of which is a prerequisite for the existence of scarcity.
:rolleyes: Yes, scarcity isn't when the demand for a good exceeds the supply, because that's not when the production facilities cannot satisfy the subective whims of the market :lol:

The logical consequence of demand not being infinite is that it must be finite.

Given the outlook of nanotechnology, it can transform at the molecular level some given quantity of given atoms to a certain quantity of different atoms. In other words, it can turn things like dirt into things like say food.

This would effectively make supply meet demand where-ever demand may be.

I was speaking of here and now. It is an empirical fact that even if demand is not infinite, everyones want of food is not being totally fulfilled. Well let's see, according to the Greenspan speech (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardDocs/speeches/2004/20040325/default.htm) a few years ago:

Greenspan
The average yield per acre of corn, for example, which was about twenty-five bushels in 1940, increased to more than 100 bushels per acre by the latter 1970s, and this past year, to more than 140 bushels per acre. Yields on wheat, soy beans, cotton, and even hay show similar but somewhat lesser gains. So the output of corn is 140 bushels per acre,

There were, in America in 2002, 938.28 million acres of farmland (source (http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm)).

Now this is the tricky part, pay attention now:

(938280000 acres of farmland)*(140 bushels per acre) = 131,359,200,000 bushels of corn per year.

There are roughly 6 billion people in the world today. America alone can feed one person 21.89 bushels of corn per year.

In other words 1226.0192 pounds of corn per year, a little over half a ton. That is 3.358956712 pounds per day.

This is all from statistics a few years ago mind you, and from one country alone.

How badly I want it is of no consequence. The important thing is that I want it, and there isn't enough in the world to totally fulfill my want of it. I, personally, make a promise to you that no matter how much food there is in the world I will want twice that amount thereby rendering it scarce according to the generally accepted definition of scarcity. Frankly because now I don't want it just to eat it, I want it to prove you wrong, and short of killing me there is now no way to end scarcity. So you're effectively exercising sophistry to say "Yeah yeah, shut up old man!" :lol:

What a brilliant tactic!

But an anecdote is not a proof Higgs.

It [units of utility] is of no consequence, all that is important is that it is non-zero. No, it kind of is a huge consequence: there are no units of utility, then the demand curve cannot be measured!

From there, it's impossible to use supply and demand. Your entire analysis goes out the window.

Make some [units of utility]. OK, go ahead and do that. Since it's apparently so obvious to you, show us how it can be done for the world to see.

Or are you "full of shit"? :lol:

higgs629

20th April 2007, 06:40

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 19, 2007 05:17 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 19, 2007 05:17 pm)
Higgs

They we're ignored simply because they had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not scarcity existed or didn't exist. You simply attacked utility and the idea that demand is infinite, neither of which is a prerequisite for the existence of scarcity.
:rolleyes: Yes, scarcity isn't when the demand for a good exceeds the supply, because that's not when the production facilities cannot satisfy the subective whims of the market :lol:
[/b]
You have no idea what the principles of supply and demand economics are at all, do you?

Price is the result of supply meeting demand. When we talk about scarcity we talk about wants not demand. Want =/= demand. No wonder you think you've disproven supply-and-demand economics, you don't even know its premises in the first place.

ComradeRed

20th April 2007, 07:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:40 pm
You have no idea what the principles of supply and demand economics are at all, do you?
You mean to tell me that these text books are wrong and you're right simply by virtue of your asserting it to be so?! :lol:

Yes, Samuelson, Varian, et al. clearly are wrong.

Price is the result of supply meeting demand. Debatable, as it's empirically incorrect and mathematically inconsistent.

When we talk about scarcity we talk about wants not demand. Want =/= demand. Well, according to Microeconomic Theory by Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, your wrong.

Here's why: the demand curve is a function that takes in two arguments by definition: price and the utility function for the good.

The utility function mind you plots Q against the "units of utility" (that thing you keep ignoring). One problem that we have is how do you measure this empirically? The short answer is that you can't and we can reject it here as falsified.

But you're no scientist, so falsification isn't good enough for you.

The utility curve tells us the desirability of the Nth good consumed (this is the explanation from a standard microeconomics textbook, e.g. Hal R. Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics page 55 explains that it is merely a function to represent the preference operator, the preference operator by definition gives us the relative desirability of a given quantity of a given good or did you forget that from your elementary microeconomics?).

The utility curve assigns a weight, that is the units of utility gained from the Nth commodity, for each quantity of the good. This is the desirability, or the "want" of the good.

You construct the demand curve from the demand function. The demand function has two parameters: the utility function and price. This is the technical, uber mathematical analysis definition, which - given your ignorance of economics so far - you know nothing about (see the first microeconomics textbook cited for its definition).

Since that's way beyond you, here's the short version: from the utility curve you get the indifference curve, from the indifference curve you get the demand curve. The indifference curve is little more than finding the maximum point on a constrained 1-manifold. The line of all these points is the demand curve, it literally tells us how much someone wants something, according to the mathematics of the scheme.

If you dislike the math, by all means go off an invent something better.

No wonder you think you've disproven supply-and-demand economics, you don't even know its premises in the first place. An ad hominem is not a counter example.