Previous: What Scarcity Is and Isn't
Space is scarce. Strength is scarce. Money is scarce.
Time is scarce. Time is really, really scarce.
Why?
Maybe because we're running out of it. Each of us has only so much time on this earth, and the Earth itself has only so much time before the sun eats it, and the sun itself has only so much time before it dies, leaving our tiny part of the galaxy cold and desolate, and the galaxy has only so much time before the universe ends.
There is only so much time. Surely that's why time is scarce.
Let's imagine a robot programmed to eat oranges from the orange tree that grows in the garden where the robot eats the oranges from the orange tree that....
And it knows that time is running out.
Soon I will end, thinks the robot as its metallic arm extends forth to pluck an orange off the branch.
Soon all this will end, it thinks as it carefully peels the orange with its delicate, precise fingers.
Soon all will be naught, it thinks as its metal teeth crush the thin, almost plastic-like membrane that so utterly fails to protect the sweet fruit. Sticky juice gushes down the robot's chin, the sun explodes, and the universe ends.
Was the robot's time...scarce?
Its time was certainly limited! No doubt about that. But was it scarce?
The robot was programmed to eat the fruit of the orange tree that grew in the garden...and that was what it did. Its body, its energy, its attention, focus, and time were all devoted to that sole task by programmer fiat, and it could not choose otherwise.
The robot's time, then, although limited, and though the robot may have enjoyed its time and wanted more of it, nevertheless had no alternative uses.
No matter how much or how little time the robot had, its "choice" would have been exactly the same. And a choice from a choice set consisting of one element is no choice at all.
What can the sciences say about this situation? A physicist could describe at length the mechanics of how the robot works and why it will eventually stop working, along with the whole universe. A biologist could explain the orange tree: how it grows and replenishes itself year after year, and why it will eventually stop doing so. A robopsychologist could study the robot's brain, the pleasure it gains from the orange fruit and the fear it experiences at the knowledge of its inevitable demise.
But an economist? I haven't the faintest idea what an economist could say about this situation. And should that surprise us? After all, this robot's rapidly dwindling time is not scarce....
So why is time scarce, for people if not for robots? Simply put, it's because our time has alternative uses, and theirs does not because we can make choices. Time we spend at the movies is time we can't spend at home reading a book. Time spent studying in a library is time not spent playing outside. Time spent making love to one person is usually not time spent making love to another person.
Because there are more things we would like to do in the time available to us than we can choose do in the time available to us, the resource becomes scarce, and we have to choose how to allocate it.
And economists have a lot to say about that!
Next: the three kinds of cost....
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.]
Is that a typo for "price"?