Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

asserting that some finite value can be added to actual wealth to make it more valuable, does not imply that when there is limited resource availability, that the situation does NOT describe zero sum.

[Reelya]

Well then your whole point is irrelevant then, is that what you're saying?

If "real GDP growth" is a thing then that's basically all the proof you need that we don't actually live in a zero-sum world.

You basically seem to be citing "conservation of mass" as a reason that welfare doesn't help the economy, which is very out-there in terms of economic thought.

[wierd]

I am saying it is neither zero sum, nor endlessly extensible.  It is somewhere in the middle, where value can (as demonstrated) be shifted based on a number of critera, but it cannot be shifted infinitely.

Due to this, there exists the possibility where all wealth can be concentrated. That is exactly what is happening. Perversely, the MORE it is concentrated, the more valuable it becomes. See DeBeer's Diamonds.

[Reelya]

How is that relevant to the discussion then? Which is the point I'm making. You're derailing with an abstract argument, but you haven't shown how it logically connects to the point you were refuting.

[wierd]

A "lunch" is a material item.  Its "value" is defined by human demand, or , what people can do with that lunch.

Some people can extract value from that lunch in ways not intended. For example, the frugal parent that is wealthy, but refuses to expend currency when they feel they don't need to-- They get the benefit of that material wealth without paying what other humans in the society consider its fair value.

There is no way to make the system you suggest behave in a manner that is 'fair.'  That was my original statement. You just needed to throw out a bunch of red herrings that I needed to point out as such before you could understand the intent in that statement.

When you couple this with actual scarcity involved (Only so much rain falls in the US each year, only so much of the available land can be used for agriculture, and only so much food can be produced per square kilometer of that land-- meaning only so much "lunch" can be produced in a year's time, meaning "Lunch" has actual scarcity, which would be distorted when subsidized, which will invariably disadvantage, or advantage, somebody-- unfairly.), trying to pretend that there is infinite elasticity is not sane.

[smjjames]

Nano-replicators for everybody!

That is all.

In all seriousness though, the issue isn't the availability of food (at least in affluent countries) it's  being able to get it or buy it. I've read somewhere that we can actually produce enough food to feed the world, it's access that's an issue.

[Reelya]

Well the scarcity factor is in fact beaten by the fact that well-fed people are more productive.

The point about prison is not a red herring. less-well fed people have a higher drop-out rate, and drop-outs have more chance of ending up in prison. That costs quite a lot of money and resources right there. And you are in fact paying for breakfast, lunch and dinner for those people 365 days a year. If a lunch and breakfast half a year reduces even 1/1000 kids from ending up in prison, it's already paid for itself.

More well fed people who get a better education do in fact add more to the economy. The zero-sum game for lunch is particularly silly as an argument. Wealthier nations like America can import stuff like food if needed, and you do so.

And there's also marginal extraction. If the cost of lunch rises because of inflation caused by more people eating lunch, then more marginal sources of lunch become economically viable (similar to low-economic shale oil becoming viable when the price of oil rises). So more lunch gets made when demand rises, even if the costs don't decline due to the economy of scale.

Also rain is finite, but water can be desalinated. More demand for lunch means it's more viable to use desalinated water for farming, and thus more ocean water gets desalinated. This will drive up capacity, and lower prices, since "the ocean" is effectively more water than humans can actually use, so scarcity pricing for desal water doesn't work as a point.

[smjjames]

That only works if you have access to the ocean though, and aren't very far inland.

Water availability however, is a very real problem as we drain aquifers faster than natural processes can replenish them. Among other sources.

[Reelya]

http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/wind-turbine-makes-clean-water-desert.html

A windmill that can make up to 1000 litres of water per day in the desert just from the air, as long as you have 15mph winds. Basically there's a huge untapped reservoir in the atmosphere all around us. (Edit Note: this is a french one, but there's also an Australian project which is separate, does the same thing, but doesn't need power).

[wierd]

SMJJames:

"scarcity" is a property of a good. Even something as ubiquitous as air, or dirt, has a scarcity associated with it.  There is only so much dirt. Most people dont consider dirt to be especially valuable, excepting as a place to put a house on, grow crops on, or transform into some product-- due to there being such abundance.

However, simply because something is in abundance now, does not mean it will be later.  Take for instance, the passenger pigeons. Extinct now. Used to be so plentiful that they would black out the sky for hours when they migrated.  Treating something with actual scarcity like it is endlessly elastic is exactly how and why they went extinct.

The only way to infinitely increase value, is to increase demand. The only sure-fire way to assure increases in demand, is to increase the human population. When you increase the human population sufficiently, it will cross the point where there really isnt enough food for the planet's population, even with a perfect distribution system.

Treating scarcity like it does not exist is not sane.


Reelya:

That really *IS* a zero-sum solution! That water is removed from the atmosphere, and having been removed, will not fall as rain elsewhere.

[PTTG??]

State welfare and social welfare *ARE* inextricably tied.

China wants to increase its influence, to become a wealthier and more prosperous nation, at the expense of other nations.
It is doing so by trying to manufacture a 'justifiable' reason for exerting more control over international waters, for the purposes of military enforcement of what is sure to be future unfair trade practices, designed to enrich china, and by extension, its citizens.

Would you deny that increase to the poor chinese citizens?

It applies very well to the domestic social welfare dispute as well. Again, because the two are joined at the hip.

If you're looking at it from an economic perspective, then consider that the war would destroy, at a conservative ballpark figure, trillions of dollars. Let's pretend that it would only be twice as expensive as the wars we've fought with in the middle east since 2001 (which collectively has a tiny fraction of the military strength of China). It would, therefore, cost upwards of ~$3 Trillion dollars (trillions of dollars).

About $500 Billion dollars worth of trade flows between the USA and China each year.

If control of the SCSI allows China to somehow add a 1% tariff or something (which would demolish it's economy but let's assume you're right and they could get away with it. Oh, and also trade continues unaffected through the war), the war would pay for it self in a mere... 3000/5 = 600 years.

After that it's pure profit!

[Reelya]

That really *IS* a zero-sum solution! That water is removed from the atmosphere, and having been removed, will not fall as rain elsewhere.

Nope, because low moisture in the air means more water enters the air from bodies of water. The oceans and air are constantly interacting. Dry air therefore gains more moisture than it loses over the oceans.

[smjjames]

I was just commenting on the desalination bit. Also, there are some arguments that we are getting close to the planets carrying capacity as far as population goes since we have used up pretty much all of the sustainable arable land and the population is still growing. Though it has leveled out somewhat, there is still huge momentum behind it.

[wierd]

PTTG:
Not seeing the value in revocation of opportunity of rival nations.

There is a reason why the RIAA insists that artists sign exclusivity agreements. It isn't for shits and giggles.

Reelya:
Takes energy to evaporate water. That is finite. Changes in temperature associated with increased evaporation elsewhere to replace the water will alter local climates.

[Reelya]

Energy from the sun is effectively untappable, Wierd.

Also, if you're worried about running out of energy, we should in fact massively boost everyone right now so that we get the Dyson sphere built sooner and stop all that waste energy leaving the solar system.

The fact is, there's a point there. Boosting the economy now is served by boosting inputs that help everyone to become more productive, because we are in fact not even tapping  the tiniest percentage of the energy that's all around us. We should get onto that.

Saying we should save money right now on feeding school kids because e.g. it might slightly delay the heat death of the universe or some such, which is what you seem to be saying, seems silly as a policy discussion.l