Capital and the Perfect Society

[benjamindees]

A thought experiment:

(And, by "capital" I mean actual physical capital, not artificial "capital" ie. money.)

In a perfect society, capital is both abundant and highly-valued.  This contradicts the law of supply and demand.  In the free market, a thing can either be abundant or highly-valued, but not both.  Thus, a free-market is incompatible with a perfect society.

Gold is, in a sense, a near perfect form of capital, in that it can be used to create many other things, and is very difficult to destroy.  In the past, societies have subsidized the production and accumulation of gold, to the detriment of other forms of capital.  This was beneficial, yet non-optimal.

Therefore, in a perfect society, there must be a mechanism in place to artificially bolster both the abundance and value of all forms of capital, but especially the best forms, according to their rank.

Discuss...

[FirstAscent]

How many times have I said here that free markets destroy natural capital which undergoes a non-reversible process for consumption? Answer: I have said it many times.

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

[dree12]

How many times have I said here that free markets destroy natural capital which undergoes a non-reversible process for consumption? Answer: I have said it many times.

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You're forgetting the fact that in free markets, the people who are destroying the natural capital in our current society wouldn't be allowed to destroy it, because it isn't their land and there's no government to let them do it.

[myrkul]

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is more efficient use of resources a problem?

[asdf]

In a perfect society, capital is both abundant and highly-valued.  This contradicts the law of supply and demand.  In the free market, a thing can either be abundant or highly-valued, but not both.  Thus, a free-market is incompatible with a perfect society.

I think you are conflating value with price. People still value the utility of their mobile phones as they did 20 years ago, but the price has come down dramatically.

I disagree with the premise. In a free market capital is abundant and cheap, due to the innovations that result from voluntary trade.

[myrkul]

In a perfect society, capital is both abundant and highly-valued.  This contradicts the law of supply and demand.  In the free market, a thing can either be abundant or highly-valued, but not both.  Thus, a free-market is incompatible with a perfect society.

I think you are conflating value with price. People still value the utility of their mobile phones as they did 20 years ago, but the price has come down dramatically.

I disagree with the premise. In a free market capital is abundant and cheap, due to the innovations that result from voluntary trade.

+1

[FirstAscent]

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is more efficient use of resources a problem?

Your question is meaningless without clarifying what the efficient use of resources are. You have two choices:

1. Efficient use of resources for enabling the harvesting of another resource.
2. Efficient use of the harvested resource.

[FirstAscent]

How many times have I said here that free markets destroy natural capital which undergoes a non-reversible process for consumption? Answer: I have said it many times.

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You're forgetting the fact that in free markets, the people who are destroying the natural capital in our current society wouldn't be allowed to destroy it, because it isn't their land and there's no government to let them do it.

You're ignoring the following facts:

1. Resource harvesting often ignores property boundaries regardless of property ownership.
2. Most of the biosphere's structure lacks a static position in space and time, including atmosphere, water, fauna, and even minerals.
3. Different people and organizations have different agendas with regard to the final vision of what they own.

[myrkul]

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is more efficient use of resources a problem?

Your question is meaningless without clarifying what the efficient use of resources are. You have two choices:

1. Efficient use of resources for enabling the harvesting of another resource.
2. Efficient use of the harvested resource.

I see no problem with either one, and achieving both would be optimal.

[FirstAscent]

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is more efficient use of resources a problem?

Your question is meaningless without clarifying what the efficient use of resources are. You have two choices:

1. Efficient use of resources for enabling the harvesting of another resource.
2. Efficient use of the harvested resource.

I see no problem with either one, and achieving both would be optimal.

Except that's not the case in real life. Case #1 usually doesn't occur. Instead, it's almost the opposite. As for case #2, it sometimes does happen, but it lags.

[myrkul]

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is more efficient use of resources a problem?

Your question is meaningless without clarifying what the efficient use of resources are. You have two choices:

1. Efficient use of resources for enabling the harvesting of another resource.
2. Efficient use of the harvested resource.

I see no problem with either one, and achieving both would be optimal.

Except that's not the case in real life. Case #1 usually doesn't occur. Instead, it's almost the opposite. As for case #2, it sometimes does happen, but it lags.

Except case 1 is exactly what you're complaining about. Increased technology means more efficient harvesting. Case 2 does lag, that's true, but again, the price going up is exactly what drives that increased efficiency in use.

[FirstAscent]

A diminishing resource results in higher prices. This draws ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why is more efficient use of resources a problem?

Your question is meaningless without clarifying what the efficient use of resources are. You have two choices:

1. Efficient use of resources for enabling the harvesting of another resource.
2. Efficient use of the harvested resource.

I see no problem with either one, and achieving both would be optimal.

Except that's not the case in real life. Case #1 usually doesn't occur. Instead, it's almost the opposite. As for case #2, it sometimes does happen, but it lags.

Except case 1 is exactly what you're complaining about. Increased technology means more efficient harvesting. Case 2 does lag, that's true, but again, the price going up is exactly what drives that increased efficiency in use.

It means more efficient harvesting of a resource increasingly more difficult to harvest. But if the more efficient harvesting does occur, that is actually unfortunate, as it exacerbates the depletion of the resource, something which is not desirable, especially since we are discussing a diminishing resource which once harvested, is transformed into something else.

[myrkul]

It means more efficient harvesting of a resource increasingly more difficult to harvest. But if the more efficient harvesting does occur, that is actually unfortunate, as it exacerbates the depletion of the resource, something which is not desirable, especially since we are discussing a diminishing resource which once harvested, is transformed into something else.

Now, I just have one question: What good is the resource doing anyone or anything, still sitting in the dirt?

[FirstAscent]

It means more efficient harvesting of a resource increasingly more difficult to harvest. But if the more efficient harvesting does occur, that is actually unfortunate, as it exacerbates the depletion of the resource, something which is not desirable, especially since we are discussing a diminishing resource which once harvested, is transformed into something else.

Now, I just have one question: What good is the resource doing anyone or anything, still sitting in the dirt?

Providing ecosystem services. Do we need a refresher course on what those are?

[FirstAscent]

Actually, the resource is doing three things sitting in the dirt:

1. Providing ecosystem resources.
2. Not producing toxins, pollution or waste through the transformation it undergoes upon harvesting and consumption.
3. Remaining available for the future in the event it can be utilized more efficiently.

[myrkul]

Actually, the resource is doing three things sitting in the dirt:

1. Providing ecosystem resources.
2. Not producing toxins, pollution or waste through the transformation it undergoes upon harvesting and consumption.
3. Remaining available for the future in the event it can be utilized more efficiently.

OK, let's take this from a generality to a specific example.

Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.

[FirstAscent]

Actually, the resource is doing three things sitting in the dirt:

1. Providing ecosystem resources.
2. Not producing toxins, pollution or waste through the transformation it undergoes upon harvesting and consumption.
3. Remaining available for the future in the event it can be utilized more efficiently.

OK, let's take this from a generality to a specific example.

Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.

That's an excellent example. I'm not aware of what the science says on the matter. It might be something, but let's assume it provides no ecosystem services. However, the extraction of oil requires the destruction of the environment to some degree, and those ecosystem services are lost. Examples range from infrastructure development to oil spills.

We can adjust the list accordingly:

1. Providing ecosystem resources.
2. Not producing toxins, pollution or waste through the transformation it undergoes upon harvesting and consumption.
3. Avoiding environmental destruction (and thus loss of ecosystem services) during the harvesting stage.
4. Remaining available for the future in the event it can be utilized more efficiently.

[myrkul]

OK, let's try that again:

Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.

[FirstAscent]

OK, let's try that again:

Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.

Why are you asking me a question I just answered in the second and third sentences of my last post? I have given you the benefit of the doubt here, yet that still leaves the following:

1. Providing ecosystem resources.
2. Not producing toxins, pollution or waste through the transformation it undergoes upon harvesting and consumption.
3. Avoiding environmental destruction (and thus loss of ecosystem services) during the harvesting stage.
4. Remaining available for the future in the event it can be utilized more efficiently.

[myrkul]

The other three can be met by efficiently and cleanly harvesting it and retaining it in tankers.
So, I ask again:
Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.
What is lost to the environment when there is no more oil left in the ground?