We’ve just come to equate “capitalism” with “limited or no regulation” as if that’s an inherent and required part of the system. This is how conservatives have argued Warren-style market solutions are socialism even though it’s plainly heavily regulated capitalism with continued private ownership of capital.
Going back to a previous post of yoursOriginally Posted by JuiceCrewAllStar
You implied (i think) that because there are finite resources that eventually it's a matter of who has what and what one has the other does not. In your 3rd point you made a statement that seemed to me to mix micro and macro principles (market pricing and inflation) which was a bit clunky, but I think the gist of what you said was that eventually, with finite resources, things are zero sum or somewhat zero sum
Firstly I'd say, all resources are scarce. Scarcity is a relative term. Diamonds are more scarce than copper and both are more scarce than water, but water is scarce, just not relative to those other things.
I'm kind of talking off the cuff here, so forgive me if i'm missing something obvious, but with the exception of extinct animals or something like that, there are no resources where we've even approached what I believe is technically coined, Peak Production (due to scarcity), which means we produced the most we're ever going to because there is no more. People talk about peak oil all the time, but we've never been and aren't close to peak oil, at least due to the fact that we aren't going to/can't find any more. So with regards to that pretty much any resource, as it has gotten scarce, there has always been another way to get more or find alternatives, it's just that other way might be very expensive and not something people would tolerate until they had to.
So while scarce resources are pretty much the cornerstone of economic theory, in modern times we've never demanded a resource that we truly couldn't get more of or an alternative to (and you can thank capitalism for that). I know that doesn't exactly answer you question, but in short, because of innovation, we've never dealt with truly finite resources so it's hard to say exactly what would happen.
I suppose if we truly did find ourselves at the limits of a resource that we couldn't get more of and couldn't find an alternative to, then it would stifle economic growth and not be great for the world as a whole, but even then at some price the market will clear, meaning the person who most values the resource will pay the most for it and that, in of itself, is not a zero sum game as the seller values the money more and the buyer values the resource more so they are both better off. (otherwise the buyer wouldn't buy and seller wouldn't sell). The market price for that resource would encourage it's exchange and trading by two rational actors that have the same info should, by definition create wealth
As something becomes more scarce, it's pure supply and demand. In the real world, due to imperfect actors and information, it might not be a smooth curve, but over time it plays our very reliably. It's kind of like thermodynamics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If something becomes more dear, that puts upward pressure on price, but also as soon as that happens, there is also downward pressure in the form of people looking for cheaper substitutes (decreases demand) or more of the something (increases supply).
Also, with regards to running out, or finding the true limit of resources, there is pretty sound economic theory that suggest it's impossible to run out of resources (presuming there are efficient markets in place)
In any econ 101 class there is always some question like this
If there are 1 trillion barrels of oil in the world and we use 10 billion a year, when will we run out of oil
The sucker answer is 100 years, but the real answer is never.
Last edited by Baconwfu; 07-29-2020 at 01:07 PM.
Hah! Don’t forget Scenti(?) or whoever sells those candles.
Edit: Autocorrect on my phone is killing me lately. Good grief. Gotta slow down.
Last edited by DG3; 07-29-2020 at 01:54 PM.
appreciate the thought-out reply
a few responses:
1) capitalism is only a few hundred years old, a small part of human history and a blip of biological history -- an argument that it hasn't yet reached its limitations is not an argument that it cannot and will not; I personally don't find it hard to imagine, say, a crisis of access to fresh water (greater than, of course, what currently exists; though that speaks more to capitalism's flaws of resource distribution than scarcity at the present)
2) you have a much stronger faith in human innovation than I do
3) (this is not a point about negative externalities, which is a separate problem from the scarcity discussion) I think carbon emissions is an example where we've reached the "peak" -- yes, we can technically emit more and more carbon, but not in a sustainable way for the survival of the planet; the negative effects of climate change have already occurred, so even if we innovate our way out of the worst case scenario, damage has already been done. Let's even assume that the Paris Accords, or a like program, are adopted globally. That puts a specified cap or limit on the resource: ability to perform actions which emit carbon. In that case, an increase in my capacity to emit carbon reduces on a one-to-one basis everyone else's capacity to do so. So in both the regulated and unregulated scenario, there is a limit to what we can emit and either 1) continue to exist or 2) stay within agreed-upon regulations and we have certainly reached that limit.
the thing is, I'd prefer bacon's view to be correct
I can promise you that starting a business isn’t as hard as you think. Now we may disagree on what constitutes “business” (actually we probably don’t. You can make sustainable income from insta/YouTube/etc. but I don’t count that as “business” per se. Semantics.) But what I’m saying is that the barrier to entry to controlling your life has NEVER been lower. It’s literally almost nothing today. I’d tend to agree with you in some cases if I hadn’t seen dozens and dozens of cases of a person of color/woman/person of a historically marginalized group succeed well beyond me. I’ve learned the most from some of those folks, to be honest.
The opportunities are nearly infinite. We live in the greatest time in human history to branch out and make it on your own. You don’t need corporate overlords and formal education anymore.
An example. Over quarantine, I learned basic software engineering. It may not be a skill I’ll monetize as I’m not good enough to do so, but I watched YouTube videos and read manuals, and, boom, I don’t have to pay anyone to build and maintain basic applications or websites for me. I keep a pretty full schedule, so this required me to burn the midnight oil a bit, but if I can do it, anyone can.
I see so much self limiting shit on here. I know it sounds like a stupid motivational speaker, but you guys (and anyone for that matter) are capable of so much more than you think. 6 weeks of true, 100% commitment and dedication to a new skill or job can change your life. There needs to be more easily accessible education on what 100% looks like. Working 60-80 hours a week and being tired doesn’t mean 100%, unfortunately.
I can’t remember who took issue with it, but someone above was offended by my use of “replaceable” labor. That’s a purposeful conflation of someone’s skill and the person. The person isn’t replaceable, the skill (of which they surely have many) that they are monetizing is replaceable. My contention, which is true, is that anyone can learn or sharpen a new skill that isn’t as replaceable.
Sounds pretty motivational speaker for someone that has no money, no education, and no time to do anything else but try to survive. In theory it may be correct but that's not how it actually works unless there is significant change in the way we invest in people.
I was bored and high and watched most of Days of Thunder last night. There was a scene where Cole Trickle was explaining that in open-wheel racing, it was all about the car. The teams with the most money and therefore best cars won regardless of the skill of the drivers. And that in Nascar, the rules are engineered to make the cars pretty much equal, so the best drivers win the races.
just a thought
Last edited by WakeandBake; 07-29-2020 at 03:46 PM.
Did you learn any anything about "rubbing", and whether or not "rubbing is racing"? I hear that it is.
Draxx them sklounst
I did. But as long as the cars are kept equal and the track is the same for everyone, isn't rubbing just good clean racing?
hey that quote is in the movie !
Coming in way late here, but pretty interesting economic discussion for sure. Takes me back to the McDonald and Whaples days at Wake. Also, cool that they're both still at Wake, per the Econ staff directory. Also, I can't believe John Wood is still alive - dude just always reeked of cigs and whiskey. Made a pretty compelling case for the gold standard though. Also, F you Fred Chen. That guy sucked.
Anyways, @Juice, you seem pretty caught up on inflation, but our inflation has been extremely low for quite a while now, despite the massive influx of wealth to the top 1% and increasing wage gap. Inflation adjusted median incomes keep rising. It will be interesting (and likely concerning) to see how this may change in the next 1-2 years though with the Fed dumping more and more into the money supply and primarily lower-middle class workers being the ones to suffer from the COVID economic impact.
We've seen several examples lately of how technology has massively outpaced inflation and has resulted in stagnant price levels and even deflation. See cars and TVs, for example. Hopefully that will continue for many other goods/services (without any massive unemployment resulting from said technology).
I'm not caught up on inflation
I only used really nodded toward inflation in the one throwaway comment about millionaires and trillionaires, which I did not need to do as it was separate from my discussion on scarcity
Just got off the AT. Heard someone here has the rohypnol hookup. What’s up?
Sorry. Used it all on myself.
Loose is fast.
And my favorite quote of the movie that certainly describes this place.
"Ya'll look like a bunch of monkeys fucking a football"
I went to the Worrell House with Wood in 1988. My Halloween costume was dressing up like him nin a stained red sweatshirt, walking around with a cigar and a whiskey talking endlessly about the gold standard and Friedman. He laughed a lot. Man, he must be in his 90s now.
Draxx them sklounst
Not going to dig into that last post of DG3s - but I do have just a general confusion with that mindset. Is there room.in your economic worldview for people who like their job, and are good at their job to be paid fairly for it? My understanding of your mindset is that the economy.is just this huge game of musical chairs, where the only point of professionalism is to make the most money possible. Honestly that just seems fucking stupid. In your worldview, who do you want to be your nurse in the hospital? To take care of your children in daycare? So far, you've described that level of professions as undeserving of respect - such that the people who do those jobs are lazy or not driven enough to deserve material comfort. If a childcare provider needs more money, they should just start a business - no matter that they might be a great childcare provider.
That's what I absolutely don't understand about that mindset. People who are good at their jobs and like their jobs should be valued because they make our society better. I dont want everybody to start a fucking business, no matter how easy you might say it is to do.
Draxx them sklounst
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote