shirgall Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 Something I dont understand is why this movement thinks resources aren't limited by the market. I mean support and demand work for shoes so why would this not work for natural resources? Is there no belief in the incentive to find alternatives once a natural resource begins to dwindle? Maybe im wrong but I thought that was pretty foundational to all economic schools of thought. It *is* how it works. But somehow natural scarcity is not inherently unfair, but artificial scarcity leading to higher prices because someone didn't predict demand for more widgets is "the [structural] violence inherent in the system." Shortages always happen, no matter what the system, because of our friend Murphy. I think voluntary systems respond to such situations more quickly, based on what I've seen, but I am neither a historian nor an economist.
yagami Posted November 26, 2014 Posted November 26, 2014 When you start getting into fairness you are not longer talking about economic in my opinion. If they want to make an argument about that says the market will drain us from all our resources then they need to prove why supply and demand is invalid. If they say it's valid but not fair then he needs to make sure he lets his audience know he is talking about ethics and not economics. 1
Recommended Posts