Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 102. (Read 105875 times)

What makes you think you can just say "wrong" without any kind of argument to back it up?


Let's just call them suppliers instead of reinventing the wheel. The short answer is, marginal revenue approaches marginal cost and the demand at that price point drives the supply. I think it would be easier if you would just make your point instead of playing Socrates.


That's your job. Please explain why it's irrelevant since you claim it's so.

You've got it backwards actually (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand).


Without scarcity, this model of supply and demand is irrelevant. Like I said, you have it exactly backwards. What was your point again?

That's half of it. Except your observation and prediction are in fact wrong for the half you've chosen to discuss. So what are the two halves?

• The consumers: you've given an answer regarding consumers, although it's wrong.
• The harvesters: you've failed to address the behavior of the harvesters, completely.

Note that the term suppliers isn't even mentioned. They're not really relevant here if they aren't also the harvesters. If the harvesters are also the suppliers, then we'll just call them harvesters, because it's their harvesting behavior we're interested in.

So, why, in the presence of scarcity, is your explanation of consumer behavior irrelevant? And how is the harvesters' behavior altered as well?

As natural resources become more scarce, what's available for purchase right now will decrease.


Yes it does. Notice where I said "demand drops". Here's a good example. It used to be the case that teenagers would spend their weekends driving around aimlessly. When gas prices rose, many of those teenagers stopped doing it. If that doesn't address human behavior, I don't know what does.

I had to rewrite my post, as I mistakenly deleted the original. The following is not the exact reply I originally wrote, but it's similar.

Your statement is correct, as an economic theory taken verbatim from a text on economics. There is nothing wrong with it, and it makes fine predictions. It's not incorrect when applied correctly. The problem is, it should only be applied where it is applicable. Unfortunately, it's trotted out too often without understanding clearly the terminology it's using.

The error you're committing is in the application of the term 'supply'. Supply, as it is used in economic theory, is defined thus: the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase or that is available for purchase at a particular price. If we examine your statement about supply and demand, we can now see that supply refers to goods on the shelf, or what's already in the tank, so to speak. It refers to what's available for purchase right now.

Take a closer look at the question I asked of you. I did not use the term 'supply'. I specifically used the term 'natural resources' and the term 'scarce'. Unfortunately, you and others are mistakenly applying a certain economic theory to the world in an inappropriate manner. By doing so, horrific results are being realized. Now, if you want, you're certainly welcome to answer my original question again. But that doesn't change the fact that we'll have to factor in all your prior statements going back the past few months within the context of how you've indicated the supply/demand curve makes predictions about economics and natural resources under the influence of mankind.

Also, the answer you gave only addresses price dynamics. It does not explore how human behavior changes as a result. Care to take another crack at it?

Oh, and I haven't neglected answering this. I've got to pull together some data first. Remind me again if I forget.

EDIT: I made the error of erasing what I just wrote. If someone has quoted it before I erased it, then I should be able to resurrect it.

Define "too far". Is it just your personal opinion or what?


When supply drops but demand doesn't, price goes up and then demand drops.

The difference between you and me is I realize that mankind has already gone too far because I actually take the time to look at how much has been devastated and what the consequences of that are, and you believe (as do too many others) that we can just keep picking fruit.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in another thread, what happens when a natural resource becomes extremely scarce in unregulated free markets? Do you know? Try to answer that.

No, just your simplistic formulation of it.


If it was the last lake on Earth would I drain it? At some point, the environment has value and people won't destroy that because it can make them wealthy. Will we have every last lake on Earth saved? No.

I know you're being sarcastic. In other words, you're belittling real issues. But why the hypocrisy? On the one hand, you stated that you'd be perfectly willing to drain the lake, or do whatever you please on your land. I quote you here:


More to the point, I'm failing to see voluntary regulation on the part of big business and individuals on a consistent basis now or in the past. Sure, some do, but some don't, plain and simple. Your argument that voluntary regulation works has been proven to not work. Furthermore, if you don't know what you should regulate, then you can't regulate yourself.

I'm being ironic. I don't see what's wrong with that. You should take my comments as meaning the exact opposite of what I say. For example, when I joked that "none of us are interested in our own survival" and therefore "at no point would most of us voluntarily decide that we should be careful how much we change things", it should be taken to mean the opposite. We are interested in our own survival and therefore we will voluntarily regulate our behavior. I'm sure you knew that though.

He probably cannot effectively address these issues. Or he'll come back and say they aren't worth addressing.

What happened to honest and clean debate?

No, I do. We'll be dead within weeks. You should give me all your stuff since you won't be needing it.

I'm not sure you know how far we've tipped the bowl of fruit and plundered it.

Since none of us are interested in our own personal survival, at no point would most of us voluntarily decide that we should be careful how much we change things. We are all suicidal idiots so we'll just tear it all up, trade it to each other and then die of starvation because that's how we roll.

Wait until I create the post in which you become a part owner of the ACME Manufacturing Plant. You'll get your own little section of the factory floor, along with a hundred other libertarians. The owner, who sold all the factory sections to all of you made the grave error of not creating regulations which regulate what you can do to your own sections of the factory floor.

Oh, and he also failed to educate you on how all the machinery works, because it all runs automatically by itself. But he did tell you there's a lot of redundancy built in.

What the factory produces is used to pay your salaries and buy your food, which all of you consume when you meet in the mess hall.

In your section, there's lots of really mundane looking stuff, like tanks of water, pipes, and stuff like that. Everyone else's section looks a lot like yours, but there are differences here and there. You guys often get bored, and decide to engage in trade. Of course, all you've got is what is on the factory floor...

What you don't know can't hurt you, right?

The same analysis applies. What I do with my land indirectly affects your land. Too bad. So sad.

Well, how about addressing edge effects?

Actually in liber topia people will need to know far, far more than they do now. This has been evidenced in every thread in this section every time you've retorted with "well they should have known better" or "they should have been more informed."

I wasn't trying to. Let's review.


That's what I'm responding to. I'm explaining why it doesn't matter with this example which is what you asked about.