A Resource Based Economy

[caveden]

Is see water scarce, according to you?

Economically speaking it is scarce. If I want sea water right now, I won't have it. Some work will have to be done so it can be brought to me.

Breathable air is normally referred as an economically abundant good (the sole example I know of) since we normally have it in the amount we need to satisfy our demand, anytime we want it. We just consume it by filling our lungs. But even breathable air may become scarce in some particular contexts, say, in a submarine for example.

Scarcity, Economic. In economic terminology, "scarcity" refers to the fact that the same resource - regardless of its quantity - cannot be put to more than a single use at a time. Scarcity in an economic sense refers simply to the choice as to what use to put a specific resource, not to the quantity available.

I thought this was the definition or rival

But ok, let's say "scarce" means "rival".

That definition can't be correct. Roads are definitely scarce, but are not "rival", many people can use it at once.

Perhaps if you replace "single use at a time" by "single sovereign control over it at a time" then you start getting a better definition. Given a particular scarce resource in a particular moment in time, only one entity can be in "sovereign control" over it, meaning that only one entity can be the ultimate decision maker on what concerns such resource. Maybe that's what the text you quoted means by "single use".

[1713882238]

1713882238

[1713882238]

1713882238

[1713882238]

1713882238

[grondilu]

That definition can't be correct. Roads are definitely scarce, but are not "rival", many people can use it at once.

The definition of rival fits into a road, as long as you consider a single use not being for the whole road, but for the actual surface on the road where your car is.   You can't stack cars one on top of an other, that's why the surface of the road is a scarce/rival ressource.

[caveden]

That definition can't be correct. Roads are definitely scarce, but are not "rival", many people can use it at once.

The definition of rival fits into a road, as long as you consider a single use not being for the whole road, but for the actual surface on the road where your car is.   You can't stack cars one on top of an other, that's why the surface of the road is a scarce/rival ressource.

What about a movie theater screen? Watching it == using it, and multiple people can do it at once.

[grondilu]

What about a movie theater screen? Watching it == using it, and multiple people can do it at once.

Well, there is a limited number of seats in the theatre, isn't there?  And only one person at a time can seat on a seat.  So it's not the movie that is rival (that's why there is such mess about copyrights anyway), it's the seats.  What's your point exactly?

[grondilu]

Here's a funny remark.   Let's say "scarce" really means finite (or that whatever is finite is also scarce).

Something that is abundant can very well be nethertheless finite.  After all, as mirkhul pointed it out (and even underlined it):  infinitiy does not exist (I don't think that's true but let's imagine it is).

So something can be abundant and yet finit.  But if it's finite it is also scarce.

Conclusion:  something can be both abundant and scarce.

I'm sorry but to me, there is something wrong here.

[caveden]

What about a movie theater screen? Watching it == using it, and multiple people can do it at once.

Well, there is a limited number of seats in the theatre, isn't there?  And only one person at a time can seat on a seat.  So it's not the movie that is rival (that's why there is such mess about copyrights anyway), it's the seats.  What's your point exactly?

My point was that the screen is clearly scarce, while it can be used by multiple people. I know space and seats are also scarce, but I was talking about the screen.
I don't think "impossible multiple usage" defines scarcity. "Impossible multiple control" perhaps.

[Crypt_Current]

Many people like to pigeon-hole the Zeitgeisters as communists... I think that might be adding a political meaning to the movement that really probably was not originally intended.  I thought the ZG and the Venus Project were supposedly apolitical; perhaps I've been mis- or under- informed.
But, from what I gather about these people:  They are anti-CONSUMERISM.  So, what's the opposite of consuming?  Producing.  So, are they producers?  Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming.  Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification.  Just my 0.02 BTC.

[ElectricMucus]

This whole thread is incredible - Libertarians vs. Transhumanists, it's the ultimate Internet war.
Like cyborgs vs pirates, just with logical fallacies instead of bullets.

[grondilu]

My point was that the screen is clearly scarce, while it can be used by multiple people. I know space and seats are also scarce, but I was talking about the screen.
I don't think "impossible multiple usage" defines scarcity. "Impossible multiple control" perhaps.

Indeed.  I see what you mean now.   You're probably right.  Reminds me of the typical examples we give to define non-rival goods:  sreet lights and bridges.

I definitely prefer the "non-economical" definition of scarce:  «uncommon, rare; difficult to find; insufficient to meet a demand.»  It seems more consistant.

[caveden]

Here's a funny remark.   Let's say "scarce" really means finite (or that whatever is finite is also scarce).

Something that is abundant can very well be nethertheless finite.  After all, as mirkhul pointed it out (and even underlined it):  infinitiy does not exist (I don't think that's true but let's imagine it is).

So something can be abundant and yet finit.  But if it's finite it is also scarce.

Conclusion:  something can be both abundant and scarce.

I'm sorry but to me, there is something wrong here.

Grondilu, the economical meaning of "abundant" is not the same meaning of the colloquial use of the word. A resource is economically abundant when every demand for it can be instantly satisfied - no matter how much demand that is. Everything else is scarce.

The sole example of something for which every demand can be fully and instantly satisfied that I know of is breathable air. And as I said above, even that could become scarce is some very specific contexts.

[grondilu]

Grondilu, the economical meaning of "abundant" is not the same meaning of the colloquial use of the word. A resource is economically abundant when every demand for it can be instantly satisfied - no matter how much demand that is. Everything else is scarce.

What do you mean exactly by "no matter how much demand there is"?.

Let's go back to solar energy.  I said that to me it is abundant.  Or at least we can imagine a civilization in which it is.  Because there would be enough devices to convert it into electricity or other more practical form of energy and that would make a tremendous amount of power for ten billion humans.

Now, you could say, "yes but if there are on thousand billion humans, the sun power might not be enough".  When you say "no matter how much demand is", do you include the body count of population?   If so, then to me nothing that is material can be abundant.  You can always imagine a number of people big enough so that the quantity of the material per human becomes very small.  In which case, the very notion of abundance looses much of its meaning.


«
- Look, there is plenty of cake for my birthday party!!
- How many people are coming?
- Ten. Why?
- So there is not enough cake at all.  Because one hundred people might be coming.
»

(kind of look like a Lewis Carrol dialog, but it's what inspires to me the idea that Sun's energy is not abundant)

The very notion of abundance has to depend on demand.  To me it means:  "when offer far exceeds demand".  Otherwise it does not make much sense.

[mobodick]

Many people like to pigeon-hole the Zeitgeisters as communists... I think that might be adding a political meaning to the movement that really probably was not originally intended.  I thought the ZG and the Venus Project were supposedly apolitical; perhaps I've been mis- or under- informed.
But, from what I gather about these people:  They are anti-CONSUMERISM.  So, what's the opposite of consuming?  Producing.  So, are they producers?  Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming.  Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification.  Just my 0.02 BTC.

By a-political they just mean they are the other side of the coin.
They would have to excert extreme political power to make their ideas reality.

[Crypt_Current]

Many people like to pigeon-hole the Zeitgeisters as communists... I think that might be adding a political meaning to the movement that really probably was not originally intended.  I thought the ZG and the Venus Project were supposedly apolitical; perhaps I've been mis- or under- informed.
But, from what I gather about these people:  They are anti-CONSUMERISM.  So, what's the opposite of consuming?  Producing.  So, are they producers?  Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming.  Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification.  Just my 0.02 BTC.

By a-political they just mean they are the other side of the coin.
They would have to excert extreme political power to make their ideas reality.

If their ideas boil down to producerism (as opposed to consumerism), I can see that manifesting worldwide without any political influence at all... Aside from possibly comic relief
Hoo boy, that election happened, and people sure were acting more foolish than usual that day.

[mobodick]

Many people like to pigeon-hole the Zeitgeisters as communists... I think that might be adding a political meaning to the movement that really probably was not originally intended.  I thought the ZG and the Venus Project were supposedly apolitical; perhaps I've been mis- or under- informed.
But, from what I gather about these people:  They are anti-CONSUMERISM.  So, what's the opposite of consuming?  Producing.  So, are they producers?  Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming.  Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification.  Just my 0.02 BTC.

By a-political they just mean they are the other side of the coin.
They would have to excert extreme political power to make their ideas reality.

If their ideas boil down to producerism (as opposed to consumerism), I can see that manifesting worldwide without any political influence at all... Aside from possibly comic relief
Hoo boy, that election happened, and people sure were acting more foolish than usual that day.

They cannot manifest without profoundly affecting current politics.
Therefore their ideas are very political in nature whether they realise it or not.

[Crypt_Current]

Many people like to pigeon-hole the Zeitgeisters as communists... I think that might be adding a political meaning to the movement that really probably was not originally intended.  I thought the ZG and the Venus Project were supposedly apolitical; perhaps I've been mis- or under- informed.
But, from what I gather about these people:  They are anti-CONSUMERISM.  So, what's the opposite of consuming?  Producing.  So, are they producers?  Maybe wanna-be producers?
I've read elsewhere on this forum (and other places) that our current economic situation has something to do with the balance between consuming and producing tipping too heavily toward consuming.  Anyway, I don't think the issue needs any extra politification.  Just my 0.02 BTC.

By a-political they just mean they are the other side of the coin.
They would have to excert extreme political power to make their ideas reality.

If their ideas boil down to producerism (as opposed to consumerism), I can see that manifesting worldwide without any political influence at all... Aside from possibly comic relief
Hoo boy, that election happened, and people sure were acting more foolish than usual that day.

They cannot manifest without profoundly affecting current politics.
Therefore their ideas are very political in nature whether they realise it or not.

Nahhh... That's all backwards gobbledy-gook.  Just because something affects something else, does not mean it is or becomes or has anything to do with the nature of the something else.  Yeah, politricks will be affected -- by being more exposed than ever as the impotent (mostly with regard to effective policy-making:  the thing it's supposed to be for) dress-up extravaganza that it is -- And then it might actually become (or be replaced [likely with "AI"] with) a system of distributing resources that is hopefully more efficient than the current abysmal policy-making system we have now.  Politics is supposed to be about making policies that best distribute resources among entities, but the "politics" we all are used to is nothing more than a homecoming queen crowning.
Politics being affected or changed or exposed or eliminated... affected in any way, by any thing, does not mean that that thing that affected it is political.  I guess I'm repeating myself here but it really looks like some backwards logic you are using, based on some sort of mindset that politics will always have to exist in its current form?
I mean, I pee in a fresh porcelain bowl of water.  The water is then affected by my pee.  Does that fact alone make my pee of the nature of water?  What if I peed on the bowl instead of in it?

[grondilu]

the thing it's supposed to be for) dress-up extravaganza that it is -- And then it might actually become (or be replaced [likely with "AI"] with) a system of distributing resources that is hopefully more efficient than the current abysmal policy-making system we have now.

BTW there is something I don't get in this whole RBE/Zeitgeist/Venus thing.  In a post-scarcity economy, why would you need a political system to distribute resources??  Isn't that contradictory?  People (sometimes) need to ration things precisely when they are scarce.  If there is no scarcity, why don't you just let people build whatever they need when they need it?

[myrkul]

Is it finite? Yes? Then it is scarce.

Is sea water scarce, according to you?

Oh, for the love of Mike...

Scarcity, Economic. In economic terminology, "scarcity" refers to the fact that the same resource - regardless of its quantity - cannot be put to more than a single use at a time. Scarcity in an economic sense refers simply to the choice as to what use to put a specific resource, not to the quantity available.

Yes, sea water is economically scarce. I've been trying to tell you, everything is. Let us take a specific volume of sea water, say, a cubic meter. Can I desalinate that cubic meter while you are swimming in it? No. Either I can desalinate the water, or you can swim in it. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other cubic meters of sea water in the world's oceans. If we can't use the same sea water at the same time, it is scarce in the economic sense.

I thought this was the definition or rival

There's nothing on that page which matches the definition I gave above. Even the French term just refers to the English one.

But ok, let's say "scarce" means "rival".  I'm not sure this world is used in the economic sense in english but it really is in my language, so that may be a source of our disagreement.  Also, in my language, "post-scarcity economy" is translated into "économie de l'abondance", so to me it was natural to think that scarcity is the opposite of abundance.

Indeed it is. and since scarcity (in the economic sense, not the colloquial sense) is a fundamental tenet of nature, true abundance is impossible. We can, with advanced technology, come pretty close, but we keep running up against the fact that matter, and to a lesser extent, energy, is scarce, regardless of it's relative abundance. The best way to make sure that the best use of these scarce resources is made is to use a price system, and to recognize the costs in using those resources. If everything is "free," some jackass might come along and use all the iron in the asteroid belt to build his robot army when it would have been more profitable for him - and the market - to have built houses.

There is a problem with this definition, imho.   Scarcity *does* depend of quantity.  You just can't say  "regardless of its quantity".  If a resource is abundant enough, then it can be used by several people at the same time.  Not the same actual atoms or molecules, sure, but still the same resource.

That's the thing. Economic scarcity is talking about the same atoms or molecules.

If I can dig into a stock without significantly consuming the stock, then this stock is still available for other uses.  So it is not scarce, by your definition.   Don't you agree that your definition can be understood this way?

No.

As I said above, just because there are millions of other cubic meters of seawater available for use does not mean we can both use the same seawater at the same time. We'd have to use different seawater - even if it is from the same source - and that makes it scarce.

[memvola]

BTW there is something I don't get in this whole RBE/Zeitgeist/Venus thing.  In a post-scarcity economy, why would you need a political system to distribute resources??  Isn't that contradictory?  People (sometimes) need to ration things precisely when they are scarce.  If there is no scarcity, why don't you just let people build whatever they need when they need it?

The post-scarcity label comes from the labor theories of value. The story is, when you don't need labor to produce stuff, value goes to zero. It makes a lot of sense from the perspective of LTV, but I think it ironically proves that LTV itself doesn't make sense. So, yes, you will still have to distribute resources because they are scarce from an objective economical standpoint.

I have discussed this with hard-core Marxists a couple of times. In my opinion the problem arises because labor is ill-defined. I'm not saying it can be done better by the way, that's why I've scrapped LTV from my mind a long time ago.

[Rassah]

Geez you guys have been busy. Yes, when I mentioned sand and air as things we pay for, I wasn't just talking about transportation. Good quality sand that can be used as a source of silica for CPU dies is not widely available, and good quality air is rare when there is pollution. Glad someone pointed that out.
And actually, the air pollution issue brings up the other problem with he concept of "lack of scarcity," that being that even if you have an almost unlimited abundance of things, for example air, solar energy, and raw materials, using them for production may mean having to exchange one supposedly abundant resource for another. For example, if you but those 100BTC worth of replicating robots and let them replicate, in the process they will create dust and polluting byproducts, which may both reduce the amount of clean air, and thanks o smog reduce the amount of sunlight shining through to provide the energy. Now those supposedly abundant things are really scarce. And if you claim, "but this will only be localized to areas with pollution, where these robots were used," you are either ignoring that everyone will want the luxury of such robots, and thus all areas will get polluted, or are saying that replicating robots will have to be heavily regulated so that only certain people can use them, and thus will have to force the cheap 100BTC replicating robots to be scarce.

[grondilu]

Let us take a specific volume of sea water, say, a cubic meter. Can I desalinate that cubic meter while you are swimming in it? No. Either I can desalinate the water, or you can swim in it. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other cubic meters of sea water in the world's oceans. If we can't use the same sea water at the same time, it is scarce in the economic sense.

Why on earth would you be willing to take the actual very same cubic meter that I just took when there is a whole sea available??  You won't some sea water, right?  It does not have to be the actual water that I just took, does it?

If you isolate the cubic meter as you do, then we are not talking about a sea of water anymore.  We are talking about a cubic meter of water.  You act as if the sea has just vanished away.  No wonder you conclude that this water is scarce.  You make it sound as if there was only one cubic meter for you and me.

I don't understand your logic way of thinking.  It does not matter if you can't use the part of the water I took.  What matters is that there is still some water left for you to take.  There is much more than enough water for you and me, because the amount I took is very much negligible compared to the size of the sea.

The sea is a water resource.  Using it consists in taking a small amount (necessary small compared to the size of a sea) of water from it.  We can both do it in the same time.  So it is not even scarce by your definition.

It's as absurd as saying that any vehicle, no matter how big it is and how many seats it has, can not transport more than one person.  You'd say that on a plane for instance, if someone is using the seat number 42, you can't use this seat anymore.  So a boing 747 can only fly one person at a time.

As I said above, just because there are millions of other cubic meters of seawater available for use does not mean we can both use the same seawater at the same time.  We'd have to use different seawater - even if it is from the same source - and that makes it scarce.

Haven't you noticed that in the word "resource", there is "source"?  We don't have to use the same water, but we use the same source of water.  So this source of water is not scarce.  So sea water is not scarce.  But maybe a more accurate to say it would be that the sea is not a scarce source of water.