Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[NghtRppr]

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.

[AyeYo]

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?

[FirstAscent]

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.

[NghtRppr]

He probably cannot effectively address these issues. Or he'll come back and say they aren't worth addressing.

I'm being ironic. I don't see what's wrong with that. 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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[NghtRppr]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[NghtRppr]

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.

Define "too far". Is it just your personal opinion or what?

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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?

[NghtRppr]

It refers to what's available for purchase right now.

As natural resources become more scarce, what's available for purchase right now will decrease.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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?

[NghtRppr]

you've given an answer regarding consumers, although it's wrong

What makes you think you can just say "wrong" without any kind of argument to back it up?

If the harvesters are also the suppliers, then we'll just call them harvesters, because it's their harvesting behavior we're interested in.

Let's just call them suppliers instead of reinventing the wheel. The short answer is, marginal revenue approaches marginal cost and the demand at that price point drives the supply. I think it would be easier if you would just make your point instead of playing Socrates.

So, why, in the presence of scarcity, is your explanation of consumer behavior irrelevant?

That's your job. Please explain why it's irrelevant since you claim it's so.

You've got it backwards actually (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand).

At least two assumptions are necessary for the validity of the standard model: first, that supply and demand are independent; and second, that supply is "constrained by a fixed resource"; If these conditions do not hold, then the Marshallian model cannot be sustained.

Without scarcity, this model of supply and demand is irrelevant. Like I said, you have it exactly backwards. What was your point again?

[FirstAscent]

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.

[FirstAscent]

You've got it backwards actually (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand).

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.

[NghtRppr]

Because I want to give you the chance to exercise your mind.

How about you exercise your manners?

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.

That's not how most economists use the term "scarce".

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.

Who said anything about proportionally? That's your straw man, not mine. It depends on how elastic the demand is. However, it's very much the case that as price increases even the most inelastic demands will find substitutes.

Harvesting determines supply. A significant increase in the scarcity of a natural resource drives the price higher. This makes harvesting more appealing.

Only if demand is fixed, which it never is. As the price goes up, the demand goes down. Focusing solely on the fact that the price is higher neglects the fact that there is a lower demand. 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. Price is not the only variable. It's also quantity demanded at that price. This is basic economics.

You've got it backwards actually (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand).

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.

Let me know when you have a point to make.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[NghtRppr]

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.

BLAH BLAH BLAH INSULT INSULT BLAH BLAH

That's all I read. Get back to me when you can control your temper.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[NghtRppr]

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.

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.

*face palm*

Please stop obsessing over me. I really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.