Politics does not matter. Only power.

[DumbFruit]

So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?

You're begging the question, "How is your system any better?" It's fine to look at a scarce resource and say, "This resource is scarce.", but you a haven't made the case that;

1.) It should be used less.
2.) Reducing its use by coercion is actually possible.
3.) It can be used in a better way.
4.) You're qualified to make such a judgement.
edit:
5.) That you can't do it in a Capitalist society.

[FirstAscent]

So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?

You're begging the question, "How is your system any better?" It's fine to look at a scarce resource and say, "This resource is scarce.", but you a haven't made the case that;

1.) It should be used less.
2.) Reducing its use by coercion is actually possible.
3.) It can be used in a better way.
4.) You're qualified to make such a judgement.
edit:
5.) That you can't do it in a Capitalist society.

We can't move forward until we establish the limits of your knowledge. Please answer the question: So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?

[DumbFruit]

We can't move forward until we establish the limits of your knowledge. Please answer the question: So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?

Limits of my knowledge, that's a laugher.

The supply and demand curve does not "break down". You haven't explained or demonstrated that assertion.

The price of the resource goes up as it is used. As the price goes up, it incentivizes entrepreneurs to find alternatives, recover said resource, or find new supplies of said resource.

Nothing "breaks".

[FirstAscent]

We can't move forward until we establish the limits of your knowledge. Please answer the question: So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?

Limits of my knowledge, that's a laugher.

The supply and demand curve does not "break down". You haven't explained or demonstrated that assertion.

The price of the resource goes up as it is used. As the price goes up, it incentivizes entrepreneurs to find alternatives, recover said resource, or find new supplies of said resource.

When the price goes up, guess what the harvesters do? They are incentivized to up the energy, effort, and technology to continue harvesting. And it's funny that you mention that "As the price goes up" as a reason for entrepreneurs to find alternatives. Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.

So what happens? The resource is harvested until it's gone! All gone! And remember that it undergoes an irreversible transformation upon consumption. So it's really gone from the world forever. Furthermore, guess what? That resource might have been attached to something else that takes collateral damage upon harvesting. So that something else is gone too. Forever.

Nothing "breaks".

Uhh, no. Something does indeed break.

[DumbFruit]

When the price goes up, guess what the harvesters do? They are incentivized to up the energy, effort, and technology to continue harvesting. And it's funny that you mention that "As the price goes up" as a reason for entrepreneurs to find alternatives. Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.

What the f.. I don't even... Where do I begin?

The price isn't "in the resource". People didn't wake up one day and say, "Shit, I'm missing $5.00! Oh, the price of fishnets in Kenya went up. That's where that money went."

No. Prices don't pull demand with them, in fact that's exactly the opposite of what the supply and demand curve shows.

If the price of gasoline goes to $100.00/gal people don't say, "Look how valuable that is! I better buy more!" They reduce their consumption, and entrepreneurs look for alternatives that cost $99.99/gal or less, or they drill for oil in places that is profitable at those high rates.

So what happens? The resource is harvested until it's gone! All gone!

No dude, that's not how the real world works. Name one single privately owned resource that was harvested to complete annihilation by a private business.

[FirstAscent]

When the price goes up, guess what the harvesters do? They are incentivized to up the energy, effort, and technology to continue harvesting. And it's funny that you mention that "As the price goes up" as a reason for entrepreneurs to find alternatives. Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.

What the f.. I don't even... Where do I begin?

The price isn't "in the resource". People didn't wake up one day and say, "Shit, I'm missing $5.00! Oh, the price of fishnets in Kenya went up. That's where that money went."

No. Prices don't pull demand with them, in fact that's exactly the opposite of what the supply and demand curve shows.

If the price of gasoline goes to $100.00/gal people don't say, "Look how valuable that is! I better buy more!" They reduce their consumption, and entrepreneurs look for alternatives that cost $99.99/gal or less, or they drill for oil in places that is profitable at those high rates.

So what happens? The resource is harvested until it's gone! All gone!

No dude, that's not how the real world works. Name one single privately owned resource that was harvested to complete annihilation by a private business.

Maybe you failed reading comprehension 101? Wow.

Read the post again.

[DumbFruit]

Maybe you failed reading comprehension 101? Wow.

Read the post again.

I could say the same...

You're saying that the demand will go up as the price goes up, and production will ramp up until the resource is exhausted.

Again. That's not how the real world works.

Prices go up because it's difficult to expand production. The higher prices are, this indicates that expanding supply is difficult.

As the resource dwindles away, there are by definition less suppliers. (Because there is less of the resource to get.)
You can't just keep expanding production because the price is high. Since they can't expand production, they look for alternatives, or find ways to recover the resource.

There is also less demand.

Suppliers don't increase (directly from nature), demand doesn't stay the same, and the resource isn't used to exhaustion. It hasn't happened, isn't happening, and wont ever happen in a free market.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe you failed reading comprehension 101? Wow.

Read the post again.

I could say the same...

You're saying that the demand will go up as the price goes up, and production will ramp up until the resource is exhausted.

Ridiculous. Learn to read. Point out where I said that.

Again. That's not how the real world works.

Your conclusion is based on a false premise.

Prices go up because it's difficult to expand production. The higher prices are, this indicates that expanding supply is difficult.

How does that counter anything I said?

As the resource dwindles away, there are by definition less suppliers. (Because there is less of the resource to get.)
You can't just keep expanding production because the price is high. Since they can't expand production, they look for alternatives, or find ways to recover the resource.

Again, you don't really get it. 'Tis sad. When the price goes through the roof, new suppliers are willing to enter into the business of harvesting.

There is also less demand.

Why is there less demand? We're working on the premise that the price is going up. Hellloooo? Anyone home? The price is going up due to demand. If the price wasn't going up, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Suppliers don't increase (directly from nature), demand doesn't stay the same, and the resource isn't used to exhaustion. It hasn't happened, isn't happening, and wont ever happen in a free market.

It's happening every damn day.

[optimator]

When it comes down to it, we live in an anarchist, survival of the fittest world.

We always have and we always will. When I am getting ready for work, I sometimes think about our ancestors on the plains of Africa guarding a kill. Keeping the kill from the lionesses, rival clans, and whatnot.

Have we really changed? Isn't it that our tools today are court orders, threats of punitive monetary action, and blatant contract violations?

For evidence I offer up the political affiliation of supreme court nominees and the gyrations of SCOTUS from liberal to conservative. Consider how narrowly each case is decided and how easily the case might have gone to the minority - but for one justice.

Is that lady justice, blind, weighing the facts before her? Or is it the underlying power structure asserting their influence to keep their fresh kill for themselves?

[crumbs]

Oh Christ on a stick, it looks like I've riled up the local Marxism apologist.

Please Crumbs, tell me again how Capitalism is the root of all evil, and how everyone just needs to give up money and stop being so greedy all the time.

http://mises.org/media/6225/Socialism-Utopia-and-Reality

Tell me how Capitalism wastes resources, and how they're always in it for sure term gains at the expense of future generations.

http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/25/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/04/ralph-r-reiland/shoot-shovel-shut-up/

Oh I know! Tell me how USSR and Nazi Germany weren't really Communists, they were totalitarian dictatorships totally misrepresenting what Lenin and Marx stood for.

http://mises.org/daily/6066/

Please, oh wise one, tell us how if we just tried your Socialism the right way, how everything would be great this time.

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Share some more of your thoroughly debunked bullshit, I just can't wait to read it!

"Village idiot"?  
Marx: Born to a wealthy family, studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin.
Lenin:  Born to a wealthy family, law degree.

Oh wow, how impressive. Why don't you look up the history of Ludwig von Mises, or Murray Rothbard?

Marx and Lenin were comparatively village idiots.

Education, culture and technology can tip the scale back in favor of putting the power back into the hands of the people. But they have to organize, and to organize that tends to mean concentrating their power.

I don't think there's anything wrong with concentration of power persay. It can simply be the rational way to operate. Imagine if the governments in the world tried to break up Intel and AMD. The lengthy development time, and incredibly capital requirements means these businesses just happen to get huge.

Why do you think that power gets in the wrong hands, and what would you suggest could defeat it?

Also, I think that touches on a major issue in the Bitcoin community. They tend to be way too focused on "decentralization", but the key phrase should be "freedom of entry", but I guess that's off topic..

I've asked you two questions -- One rhetorical, and one regarding the identity of the "moron on a typewriter [who] can instigate the deaths of tens of millions of people."
I'll ask it again:  Who's the moron at a typewriter?  Surely not Ayn Rand?  "Bored to death"" is just a figure of speech, most of her fans go on to live perfectly productive lives.

[Elwar]

Why do you think that power gets in the wrong hands, and what would you suggest could defeat it?

I would say that the power gets into the wrong hands with complacency and the fact that for it to get into the right hands in the first place takes a lot of effort. Effort that cannot be continued forever.

My suggestion on how to defeat it? I have no idea, I am still mulling things over from an eyes wide open point of view trying to figure it out. But for sure, if the US government fell and it was replaced with some "libertarian Constitution", it would only last for a while as is. The new system needs to be so sound in its structure that it can compete against the current power of our government or a coalition of governments. And with the structure to continue.

We need a system that is to democracy what democracy was to kingdoms and dictatorships. Just as Bitcoin is to gold as gold is to fiat. I believe we are at a point in time where we are ready for it.

[DumbFruit]

Point out where I said that.

Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.

When the price goes through the roof, new suppliers are willing to enter into the business of harvesting.

It doesn't matter that people are willing to enter into the business of harvesting if there aren't resources to be harvested. As the amount of the resource approaches zero, the price goes up, and the demand approaches zero. The resource is in this way never used to exaustion.

Since the price is high, it indicates to entrepreneurs that finding an alternative, or finding new sources, or recovery of old sources, is profitable. So more money is likely to go into research and development of recycling techniques, exploration, artificial synthesizing, and research into alternatives. It's not "[tied up in the higher price of the resource]".

Who's the moron at a typewriter?

That is an apt description of both Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.

[crumbs]

Who's the moron at a typewriter?

That is an apt description of both Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.

It took two morons at two typewriters to to kill of tens of millions of people?  Well, that sure lets some air out of your balloon.
Or did each one of them slaughter tens of millions with a typewriter, doubling the casualties?
Of course, i'm allowing for the possibility that they shared a single typewriter, taking turns using it on their murdering sprees.  Was that the case?
Why were they not stopped by smarter & better armed people?  A fountain pen in the right hands...

[DumbFruit]

Who's the moron at a typewriter?

That is an apt description of both Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.

It took two morons at two typewriters to to kill of tens of millions of people?  Well, that sure lets some air out of your balloon.
Or did each one of them slaughter tens of millions with a typewriter, doubling the casualties?
Of course, i'm allowing for the possibility that they shared a single typewriter, taking turns using it on their murdering sprees.  Was that the case?
Why were they not stopped by smarter & better armed people?  A fountain pen in the right hands...

You really went out of your way to make that joke. Could you please come back with the definition of "instigate"?

But for sure, if the US government fell and it was replaced with some "libertarian Constitution", it would only last for a while as is. The new system needs to be so sound in its structure that it can compete against the current power of our government or a coalition of governments. And with the structure to continue.

My feeling is that technology is going to make the governmental hierarchy obsolete.

It's getting harder and harder for the government to justify it's intrusion into education, mail, personal defense, money production, and anything else they want to put their grubby fingers into.

I hope that there will be a peaceful revolution as government withers away, but we all know how jealously governments guard their power.

[crumbs]

Who's the moron at a typewriter?

That is an apt description of both Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.

It took two morons at two typewriters to to kill of tens of millions of people?  Well, that sure lets some air out of your balloon.
Or did each one of them slaughter tens of millions with a typewriter, doubling the casualties?
Of course, i'm allowing for the possibility that they shared a single typewriter, taking turns using it on their murdering sprees.  Was that the case?
Why were they not stopped by smarter & better armed people?  A fountain pen in the right hands...

You really went out of your way to make that joke. Could you please come back with the definition of "instigate"?

No trouble at all & no.

[Anon136]

I have often pondered the notion that we are living in the natural conclusion an anarchist state

government didnt use to exist, now it does exist. we used to have anarchy, now we do not. government necessarily evolved out of anarchy. the only problem is your use of the word the. we are living in a natural conclusion of an anarchist state, not the natural conclusion.

[FirstAscent]

Point out where I said that.

Why would they look for alternatives when the money is in the resource that is going up in price? And why is that price going up? Because there is demand out there.

When the price goes through the roof, new suppliers are willing to enter into the business of harvesting.

It doesn't matter that people are willing to enter into the business of harvesting if there aren't resources to be harvested.

Ergo, the resource has been harvested to exhaustion. You just admitted it right there. The reason the resource gets harvested to exhaustion is precisely because of the high price. When a lot of money can be made from the sale of just a couple units, a great deal of effort, energy and technology is applied to harvesting the last remnants of the resource.

As the amount of the resource approaches zero, the price goes up, and the demand approaches zero. The resource is in this way never used to exaustion.

Notice your usage of the word 'approaches' twice. In the first case, the resource is getting to zero. In the second case, any demand above zero is enough demand to purchase the last quantity of the resource.

Ultimately, your ultimate failure in understanding the dynamics here is your desire to apply the classic supply and demand curve to two entirely different scenarios. In the case we have been discussing, the free market is a destructive force.

[Elwar]

This thread is a good example of why just education cannot overcome the centralization of power. Some people vehemently support such power structures.

Like those who support fiat and Keynsian economics, they will fight Bitcoin. Bitcoin just has to be a better alternative and prove itself as such.

[DumbFruit]

Notice your usage of the word 'approaches' twice. In the first case, the resource is getting to zero. In the second case, any demand above zero is enough demand to purchase the last quantity of the resource.

*groan*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote


The demand on the resource reduces long before you're looking at the very last ounce of the resource in question.

Some people vehemently support such power structures.

It is pretty wild...

[FirstAscent]

Notice your usage of the word 'approaches' twice. In the first case, the resource is getting to zero. In the second case, any demand above zero is enough demand to purchase the last quantity of the resource.

*groan*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote


The demand on the resource reduces long before you're looking at the very last ounce of the resource in question.

Wouldn't it be nice if it worked like that in the real world? It doesn't. Do you understand that? Please, you have to look at real world examples, not textbook theories.