= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
You have now spent three whole posts trying to establish a particular meaning for the word "scarcity", without either giving a really clear definition or (apparently) persuading your audience to go along with your definition.
If you are contemplating doing likewise for other terms, may I suggest a structure more along the following lines?
"In later posts I'm going to be talking about X. Unfortunately, X has a different meaning in economics from elsewhere. What it means in economics is [PRECISE TECHNICAL DEFINITION] or, in plainer English, [INFORMAL BUT EXPLICIT PARAPHRASE OF DEFINITION]. This is a more useful notion in economics than the usual meaning of X because [REASONS], and it's reasonable to use X for it rather than making up a completely new term because [EXPLANATION OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NORMAL AND TECHNICAL SENSES]."
After that, if you think it's still needed, would be the place for metaphorical illustrations of the economists' use of X.
So, e.g.,
"Economics is all about the allocation of scarce resources. But that word scarce, here and in my later articles about economics, doesn't mean quite what you probably think it does. A resource is scarce, in the economists' sense, when it's demand at zero cost would exceed its supply at infinite price; that is, when there is use for more of it than can ever be had. This can be true even if we generally consider that there's plenty of it, and it can be false even in situations where it seems like there's very little. What actually makes the allocation of a resource an economic problem is simply the fact that we (as individual agents, or considered collectively) have to choose what we do with it. Consider, for instance, gold. Gold is rare and scarce, but in a slightly different world it could be just as rare but not scarce. If no one had any use for gold, no one found it nice to look at, and it didn't happen to be used as a conventional medium of exchange, it would not be scarce; and no one would care about it and there would be no need to think about how it should be distributed, so economics would take no interest in it. Then if, one day, it occurred to someone that because of its rarity good would be a good substance to make money out of -- why, then it would become scarce, without any changes in its rarity, and suddenly economics would apply to it.
"Although rarity and scarcity are not the same, they are clearly related. Things that are rare tend also to be scarce, because most things have uses and because (as with gold in the hypothetical example above) a thing can become useful precisely because of its rarity, at which point it becomes scarce too. But what matters for economics is scarcity rather than rarity, because it is only when there are choices to be made that there is any point discussing how we should or do make them."
(I an not sure whether the above captures exactly your usage of the term. But then, that's part of the problem.)
Note that the above takes less space than any one of the three posts so far dedicated to the notion of scarcity in economics.
[Edited for clarity. And to fix a mobile-device text recognition error; thanks to Good_Burning_Plastic for pointing it out.]
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Fanfiction Thread
Every rational!Naruto fic I encounter keeps topping the preceding ones - I suspect my head will implode if I ever attempt to read the canon story at this point.
The best one yet is The Waves Arisen. Everyone is very sensible, shadow cloning is more broken than ever, and patiently listening to giant slugs pays off in the end.