Yes, because it all about defeating me personally. Who cares if any ideas get challenged or examined. It's all about me knowing that I've been vanquished and that you get the last word. That's so important.
You're half correct. It is about defeating you, because of how you believe your ideas can be applied to the real world. But you're incorrect if you don't think it's about ideas. Because it is about ideas - very important ideas, and their need to be addressed and understood, in all their complexities and subtleties. |
|
|
|
BLAH BLAH BLAH INSULT INSULT BLAH BLAH
That's all I read. Get back to me when you can control your temper.
That's your typical exit from a topic. |
|
|
|
How did a thread about socialism become a thread about the environment!?
I am very confused.
Because one day you'll realize that politics in the absence of the real physical world is like debating philosophy. |
|
|
|
Do the math. If a million people want to buy something at ten dollars profit per unit but only one person wants to buy the same thing at one million dollars profit per unit, you make more profit but setting your price at ten dollars.
You're just unbelievable. What part of scarce leads you to believe that the supplier has one million units? He doesn't. You have the nerve to suggest that I have yet to make a point because what I'm saying does not fit with how you want economics to apply to scarce natural resources. I don't even think you know what a scarce natural resource is. Nor do you understand the dynamics of culture and varying wealth. Look at what you've just stated above. Read the wikipedia article that you so smugly cited. First sentence, in the Supply Schedule section: The supply schedule, depicted graphically as the supply curve, represents the amount of some good that producers are willing and able to sell at various prices, assuming ceteris paribus, that is, assuming all determinants of supply other than the price of the good in question, such as technology and the prices of factors of production, remain the same.
You're obviously woefully ignorant of real world dynamics, and unable to distinguish between a theory meant to apply to goods available in a market, and finite resources yet to be harvested. |
|
|
|
It is not able to be this high naturally? Did it get here unnaturally? It's the old myth that nature is whatever man doesn't do. It's as old as Aristotle. Spiders weave webs. Terminates build mounds. Humans use tools. It's all natural. You are so right! And by that logic, governments and regulation are natural too. Man is another animal who reacts to his environment, engages in debate, and makes decisions to affect the world, either positively, or negatively. Your methods are negative. Other methods can be more positive. But positive or negative, it's all natural. |
|
|
|
No. You have it backwards. I've already explained it to you. Recall that I said you're applying the supply/demand curve inappropriately? Try reading what I've written. Need a hint? Read the article you've posted. It's all in there. Here's your hint: Ceteris paribus. |
|
|
|
What makes you think you can just say "wrong" without any kind of argument to back it up?
Because I want to give you the chance to exercise your mind. I want to see if you can figure out why. Your prediction of consumer behavior does not have an effect on demand, despite the fact that you think it does. Recall that we are discussing scarce natural resources, the operative term being scarce. Scarcity implies that only a very small subset of the population can afford the resource, and that subset is the very wealthy. Although the price of the natural resource is astronomical to the average person, it is affordable to the wealthy. As scarcity increases, it's demand relative to supply does not necessarily decrease proportionally. It would if all consumers had the same wealth, but that is not the case. Regarding harvesters, let's not call them suppliers, as it hinders one's thinking. By using the term harvester, I gave you a big hint as how to rethink the problem, but you opted to insist on the term supply, in hopes that your supply/demand theory would then still be relevant. Harvesting determines supply. A significant increase in the scarcity of a natural resource drives the price higher. This makes harvesting more appealing. Any and all of the following will typically manifest themselves as the price increases significantly: increased efficiency, increased application of sophisticated technology, criminal activity, unethical activity, immoral activity, and collateral damage. Competition increases. The race to harvest the last remaining quantities of the scarce resource ramps up. This happens every time in an unregulated market. |
|
|
|
Also, the answer you gave only addresses price dynamics. It does not explore how human behavior changes as a result. Yes it does. Notice where I said "demand drops". Here's a good example. It used to be the case that teenagers would spend their weekends driving around aimlessly. When gas prices rose, many of those teenagers stopped doing it. If that doesn't address human behavior, I don't know what does. That's half of it. Except your observation and prediction are in fact wrong for the half you've chosen to discuss. So what are the two halves? - The consumers: you've given an answer regarding consumers, although it's wrong.
- The harvesters: you've failed to address the behavior of the harvesters, completely.
Note that the term suppliers isn't even mentioned. They're not really relevant here if they aren't also the harvesters. If the harvesters are also the suppliers, then we'll just call them harvesters, because it's their harvesting behavior we're interested in. So, why, in the presence of scarcity, is your explanation of consumer behavior irrelevant? And how is the harvesters' behavior altered as well? |
|
|
|
Going even further, is your garden planted? A well planted acre can damn near feed a family.
Perhaps, depending on how you look at it. Current data shows that due to consumption in the U.S., the ecological footprint of each person is approximately 24 acres, on average. This of course includes other things in addition to food. The earth's carrying capacity is currently calculated to be 4.5 acres per person. Unfortunately, China's one billion plus upwardly mobile citizens are all moving in the direction of the U.S. in terms of consumption. And then there's India, not far behind. |
|
|
|
Furthermore, as I pointed out in another thread, what happens when a natural resource becomes extremely scarce in unregulated free markets? Do you know? Try to answer that. When supply drops but demand doesn't, price goes up and then demand drops. I had to rewrite my post, as I mistakenly deleted the original. The following is not the exact reply I originally wrote, but it's similar. Your statement is correct, as an economic theory taken verbatim from a text on economics. There is nothing wrong with it, and it makes fine predictions. It's not incorrect when applied correctly. The problem is, it should only be applied where it is applicable. Unfortunately, it's trotted out too often without understanding clearly the terminology it's using. The error you're committing is in the application of the term 'supply'. Supply, as it is used in economic theory, is defined thus: the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase or that is available for purchase at a particular price. If we examine your statement about supply and demand, we can now see that supply refers to goods on the shelf, or what's already in the tank, so to speak. It refers to what's available for purchase right now. Take a closer look at the question I asked of you. I did not use the term 'supply'. I specifically used the term 'natural resources' and the term 'scarce'. Unfortunately, you and others are mistakenly applying a certain economic theory to the world in an inappropriate manner. By doing so, horrific results are being realized. Now, if you want, you're certainly welcome to answer my original question again. But that doesn't change the fact that we'll have to factor in all your prior statements going back the past few months within the context of how you've indicated the supply/demand curve makes predictions about economics and natural resources under the influence of mankind. Also, the answer you gave only addresses price dynamics. It does not explore how human behavior changes as a result. Care to take another crack at it? |
|
|
|
We were arguing the same point a couple posts ago...I am not sure what happened. I was just saying that food is not going to be the breaking factor, at least not in the near future.
All my posts have been consistently in favor of reducing mankind's footprint on undisturbed land. Ever been to the midwest? There is no shortage of water and there is plenty of access to transcontinental train shipping.
Again, land which has not yet been converted to agricultural use, or any other use, will ultimately prove to be the most valuable if left undisturbed. This goes for all over the world. Granted, the midwest doesn't have the charisma of the Rockies or the Sierra Nevada, but don't forget it was where the buffalo roamed. 'Tis a shame that is now lost. |
|
|
|
Also, side note, there is a SHITLOAD of arable land that is not being actively farmed. We aren't anywhere near a global food shortage, there are merely logistical and bureaucratic hindrances.
There is not a shitload of arable land out there. The logistics are real (transportation, irrigation, soil sustainability, ecosystem damage, etc.). The bureaucratic hindrances are not enough. More effort should be put forth in further hindering any development or change to existing wild lands. On the other hand, if you're talking about conversion of parking lots to agricultural use, by all means... |
|
|
|
Define "too far". Is it just your personal opinion or what?
Oh, and I haven't neglected answering this. I've got to pull together some data first. Remind me again if I forget. EDIT: I made the error of erasing what I just wrote. If someone has quoted it before I erased it, then I should be able to resurrect it. |
|
|
|
id like to see you say 1 thing where there is not an alternative to.
Ecosystems. Air. Water. |
|
|
|
lol I don't use standard shampoo for a reason. Why the hell would I want to clean my skin and hair with petroleum-based product?
I responded to a post of yours, and it wasn't about shampoo. Just giving you a heads up... |
|
|
|
So we love edge cases do we? Let's try this one on for size:
Let's suppose that you walk up to a bus stop. There is another man standing there. He's holding a rope. The rope is attached to something, but you don't know what it is. He asks you if you'd assist him in holding the rope while he ties his shoe laces. You oblige.
He hands you the rope and tells you that he'll get back to you in a sec. Unbeknownst to you, it's a ruse. However, before he leaves, he reveals to you that the rope you're holding is attaced to a guillotine, there's a man locked in, and the blade is very heavy. Don't let go, he says. He then departs leaving you by yourself. There is no one and nothing else around for miles. The bus stop is not a bus stop, but a mirage. It's just you, the rope, and the man headlocked in the guillotine.
You only have so much strength and stamina. Your only option is to hold the rope or let go. Do you let go of the rope, or hold on as long as you can? If you aren't under any obligation to hold the rope (you've been deceived) can you let go? If you let go, are you legally responsible for the man's death?
That is a really easy question to answer. You hold the rope as long as you can if it's heavy. If it's light, you follow the rope to its end to see if you can address the situation or determine the truth of it. Very simple. |
|
|
|
In other words, you're belittling real issues. No, just your simplistic formulation of it. On the one hand, you stated that you'd be perfectly willing to drain the lake, or do whatever you please on your land. If it was the last lake on Earth would I drain it? At some point, the environment has value and people won't destroy that because it can make them wealthy. Will we have every last lake on Earth saved? No. The difference between you and me is I realize that mankind has already gone too far because I actually take the time to look at how much has been devastated and what the consequences of that are, and you believe (as do too many others) that we can just keep picking fruit. Furthermore, as I pointed out in another thread, what happens when a natural resource becomes extremely scarce in unregulated free markets? Do you know? Try to answer that. |
|
|
|
He probably cannot effectively address these issues. Or he'll come back and say they aren't worth addressing. I'm being ironic. You should take my comments as meaning the exact opposite of what I say. For example, when I joked that "none of us are interested in our own survival" and therefore "at no point would most of us voluntarily decide that we should be careful how much we change things", it should be taken to mean the opposite. We are interested in our own survival and therefore we will voluntarily regulate our behavior. I'm sure you knew that though. I know you're being sarcastic. In other words, you're belittling real issues. But why the hypocrisy? On the one hand, you stated that you'd be perfectly willing to drain the lake, or do whatever you please on your land. I quote you here: The same analysis applies. What I do with my land indirectly affects your land. Too bad. So sad.
More to the point, I'm failing to see voluntary regulation on the part of big business and individuals on a consistent basis now or in the past. Sure, some do, but some don't, plain and simple. Your argument that voluntary regulation works has been proven to not work. Furthermore, if you don't know what you should regulate, then you can't regulate yourself. |
|
|
|
Since none of us are interested in our own personal survival, at no point would most of us voluntarily decide that we should be careful how much we change things. We are all suicidal idiots so we'll just tear it all up, trade it to each other and then die of starvation because that's how we roll.
I'm not sure you know how far we've tipped the bowl of fruit and plundered it. No, I do. We'll be dead within weeks. You should give me all your stuff since you won't be needing it. What happened to honest and clean debate? He probably cannot effectively address these issues. Or he'll come back and say they aren't worth addressing. |
|
|
|
The same analysis applies. What I do with my land indirectly affects your land. Too bad. So sad.
Wait until I create the post in which you become a part owner of the ACME Manufacturing Plant. You'll get your own little section of the factory floor, along with a hundred other libertarians. The owner, who sold all the factory sections to all of you made the grave error of not creating regulations which regulate what you can do to your own sections of the factory floor. Oh, and he also failed to educate you on how all the machinery works, because it all runs automatically by itself. But he did tell you there's a lot of redundancy built in. What the factory produces is used to pay your salaries and buy your food, which all of you consume when you meet in the mess hall. In your section, there's lots of really mundane looking stuff, like tanks of water, pipes, and stuff like that. Everyone else's section looks a lot like yours, but there are differences here and there. You guys often get bored, and decide to engage in trade. Of course, all you've got is what is on the factory floor... What you don't know can't hurt you, right? Since none of us are interested in our own personal survival, at no point would most of us voluntarily decide that we should be careful how much we change things. We are all suicidal idiots so we'll just tear it all up, trade it to each other and then die of starvation because that's how we roll. I'm not sure you know how far we've tipped the bowl of fruit and plundered it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
