The Glade 4.0

Demonstrate that resources are not infinite.

Is a cut tree more, less, or equally productive as a cut tree 100 years ago? 200?

Limitations on the supply of resources may indeed exist, provided that our ability to access them remains static; but that relies on the assumption that our ability to access them remains static, which historically is untrue, and doesn't deal at all with our ability to utilize supplied resources.

Stating anything else is bold-faced ignorance of core theories of economics and a basic understanding of human history.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

DFK - is there a finite or infinite amount of oil on the earth?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

None of this matters.

Demonstrate that we have reached the limit or are in immediate danger of reaching the limit of resources, or else it's not zero-sum.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Irrelevant.

The relevant question(s) is/are: is our ability to access oil fixed? Is our ability to produce things from that oil fixed?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It doesn't matter if we are takling about quantities that we are hypothesizing or real quantities, the math still applies. Something can grow without an upper bound (infinite) but not an infinite value. Logarithimic functions have are asymptotic but exhibit infinite growth in one direction.

As to your question about the limit of natural resources, the answer is no. We receive electromagnetic radiation in the form of sunlight from many millions of different sources, the primary one being our Sun. It is arguably the most important resource on Earth, and no, it's not limited.

The fact that you think my argument has to do with "vague numbers" and answers to yes or no questions that aren't directly germane to the subject (and don't answer in the way you want them to anyway) shows your ignorance on the subject.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It's not irrelevant at all.

Our ability to access oil or produce things from oil is what's irrelevant when we are discussing if wealth is *infinite*.

The supply of oil is finite. We can and will run out of oil. It is a non-renewable resource. The existence of just one resource that has a limit gives the lie to the idea that generation of Wealth is *infinite*. You cannot generate wealth without natural resources. It cannot be done. If one of those resources in finite, then you cannot actually generate *infinite* wealth.

I am not arguing that you cannot innovate to produce more from a given resource. Nor am I arguing that you cannot grow an economy. I am arguing that the term *infinite* is simply not true. Just because we haven't found the outside edge of out maximum does not mean a maximum does not exist.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Wealth is not just resources, nor is it limited by resources.

Morever, we've already established resources aren't finite, except in the sense of the Second Law.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

As I have said before, that is a contradiction. Wealth is generated by the the use and allocation of resources. If the basic components of wealth generation are limited, so too is wealth generation. You cannot squeeze infinity from a finite rock.



No we haven't. We are talking about resources in terms of the economy. That is to say, Labor, Land, Entrepreneurship, and Capital. The factors of production. This is basic economics, folks. Only one of those things can be reasonably said to have a vast amount of potential increase (entrepreneurship). The others are all severely limited in comparison. However, even Entrepreneurship is limited by human potential and our current state of evolution. We are not eternal, and yet you would argue that wealth generation *is*.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I'm done.


Not only are you ignoring the question, you're engaging in (still) argumentum ad nauseum and the bare assertion fallacy.

You're ignoring or ignorant of history, fail to understand the definitions of "infinite," and unable or unwilling to reconcile mutually exclusive concepts.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You don't have to - you can obtain ever more wealth producing uses from a given set of resources. This is the sense that wealth is infinite. The entire discussion was based on the idea that wealth is limited. But that's untrue - if Bill Gates becomes richer, that doesn't preclude me from being able to invent something (mind you, it could be an object, process etc.) that increases the quality of life for humanity.

Would you argue otherwise?



No we haven't. We are talking about resources in terms of the economy. That is to say, Labor, Land, Entrepreneurship, and Capital. The factors of production. This is basic economics, folks. Only one of those things can be reasonably said to have a vast amount of potential increase (entrepreneurship). The others are all severely limited in comparison. However, even Entrepreneurship is limited by human potential and our current state of evolution. We are not eternal, and yet you would argue that wealth generation *is*.[/quote]

Sunlight is one of the most important resource, and if you are right about pushing green energy forward, it is about to become critically important. It falls under the category of Land. It is unlimited.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I don't think you can. Eventually you run out of resources. Resources are not permanent. They get consumed. Without infinite resources, you can't truly have infinite wealth.

Now, I agree that you can do a whole hell of a lot with the resources at hand, and that you can grow an economy via innovation. But that does not mean that wealth is infinite. That's the core logical disconnect.



That's true. However, that's not really what I am saying. If Bill Gates becomes richer, however, he has a larger share of the overall Wealth in the country. For example, 10% of the people in this country control something like 50% of the wealth (please don't harp on the details there, you know what I mean). 90% of the people basically have no access to that wealth, nor can they expect to be able to generate it. Over the last several decades that wealth distribution has continued to trend further along the road of disparity. What that tells me is that no matter how much we produce or innovate, the wealth generated by economic growth continues to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands.

Just because you invent something doesn't mean it will actually make you wealthy. You could be shut out of the process. You could be swallowed up by Microsoft. You could be consumed by Google. Someone in the Oil industry could see you as a threat and simply destroy you.





Sunlight is not, in fact, an infinite or unlimited resource.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

That's what wealth is infinite means in the context of the original discussion - someone being poor isn't precluded from bettering himself because others are wealthy. That lots of people get taken advantage of isn't some sort of systemic, draconian problem. The guy who invented the George Foreman grill makes a fraction of what George Foreman does endorsing it. That doesn't mean **** - means the guy should have endorsed better contract terms. Or maybe that he did pretty well commensurate with the value of his idea.


Sunlight is basically unlimited - by the time solar output decreases by a non-neglible amount, humans will likely be dead or not here.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Yeah, stop trying to read anything into beyond what it states. Labor is money. Labor is the de facto commodity money of the current economic environment. Fiat currency is simply a marker for human labor; this is why dollar bills and actual economic force are so disproportionate in our country. There is no fixed value for our currency. Prices are so relative at the point of individual, it's horrendous.

_________________

No, they are not necessarily precluded from bettering themselves because others are wealthy. However, part of the possibile pie, a huge part, is already taken. They can't get at it. Resources are scarce, and so is wealth. For every one story of poverty made-good, there are a million of poverty-made-more-poverty. Income disparity and unequitable distribution leads to a poverty cycle that is incredibly difficult to break free from.



I find that to be a common problem - blaming a victim after the fact. See that homeless guy over there? He should have looked left again before he crossed the street and got hit by the car that sped around the corner. His fault his brain injury makes it so he can't work. See that single mom over there? Clearly picked the wrong man. She *deserves* poverty. See the poor bastard who invented the intermittant window wiper? Yeah, he should have had better lawyers. Oh wait. He spent his whole life fighting for his fair share of the pie, and luckily he got it. But he was rare.

All too often we ignore how people are taken advantage of in favor of admiring the swindler. Or simply not investigating the swindle.







Which tells me that human innovation is not Infinite, either. It dies with us.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So you're saying that labor is the actual "good" being exchanged in any transaction, right? If I trade you $10 for a meal, what we've actually exchanged is the time it took me to acquire the $10 and the time it took you to acquire the food and cook the meal. Correct?

If I may speak for Khross: fundamentally, yes.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

More or less.

_________________

No, it doesn't matter. Ideas, good ideas can cmoe from anywhere. Quit trying to weasle it to have your cake and eat it too. It doesn't necessarily prevent it at all. People have become incredibly self-educated despite terrible conditions.



I find that to be a common problem - blaming a victim after the fact. See that homeless guy over there? He should have looked left again before he crossed the street and got hit by the car that sped around the corner. His fault his brain injury makes it so he can't work. See that single mom over there? Clearly picked the wrong man. She *deserves* poverty. See the poor bastard who invented the intermittant window wiper? Yeah, he should have had better lawyers. Oh wait. He spent his whole life fighting for his fair share of the pie, and luckily he got it. But he was rare.

All too often we ignore how people are taken advantage of in favor of admiring the swindler. Or simply not investigating the swindle.[/quote]


Of course I'm going to blame him after the fact - I can't **** exactly do it before the fact, since I don't claim to be able to see into the future. That said, that phrase is just a colliquialism that amounts to an appeal to emotion fallacy. Who said anything about a brain injury? Physical disability and unwillingness to help oneself aren't neessarily tied together for any reason. A single mother didn't "deserve" poverty, and there are provisions in place such as child support to at least help with some of the burden.

You seem to ignore the **** fact that out of the great many people ranging from abject poverty to sub middle class, most of them are **** there because they are dicking around. Two of my friends from high school I consider poor. One works at Lowe's still, the other has had no less than 20 jobs since graduating high school. The latter has done numerous **** stupid things like spending his money taking worthless women on dates instead of paying his car, getting it repossesed, buying drinks at the Renassaince Faire etc. He deserves every **** thing he gets, I rub this in his face all the time, because maybe he'll learn (I've threatened to fly back home and outright kick his *** if he **** up his current job) since he's just blown all the chances his Dad and my friends have given him. He had every opportunity to have a better life, maybe not a millionaire but who knows, and he pissed it away in the stupidest way for the stupidest reason every time.

I'm sorry, but I'm don't feel bad for him at all.



This statement is completely irrelevant and nonsensical. It has nothing to do with wealth being finite or infinite nor does it tie it back to your theory of conservation of wealth and resources.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Well, yes. However, they rarely come out of abject poverty. It's the Micheal Jordan theory, and it's intellectually lazy in my opinion. You see someone like Micheal Jordan, who overcame adversity and succeeded, and you naturally assume that *everyone* must be able to do that, that everyone must have similar levels of adversity, or must be wired to endure it in the same way. That leads one to the faulty conclusion that anyone who does not had failed of their own volition.

This ignores many of the real barriers people face every day of their lives, both within and without.



Yes, some have. But I doubt you would argue that the US would be the economic and global power it is today if we did not have public education.



And that's why your view is irrational. He had no control over that car. He got hit. And as a result, he cannot be productive. You would blame him, and I would blame the accident, and try to support him.



Yeah. Because dead beat dads don't exist, right? hell, what right does she have to *my* money? She had those kids. Could have given them up for adoption. Her choice. Her fault.

(snip really ugly, hateful screed)


And we had gotten back to such a nice conversational tone, too.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The fact that we have finite resources means that individually determined resource allocation is a better idea in the end Monte - markets are complex systems.

Tell me who in government knows how much Windex to ship to Chicago in 2011 and how much ammonia to ship to windex?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except it was directed at people I've known for over a decade, guys who aren't going to grow up and don't deserve help. If I have to give money against my will, it might as well go to people who are at least trying. I can say without a doubt, I know those two don't deserve a dime of help from anyone.



I would argue the system of education has nothing to do with it. In fact, as schools become more like indoctrination camps rather than educational institutions (indoctrinating people to believe they are entitled to handouts), I would say public education is contributing toward lazy thinking rather than a questioning attitude.

BTW, MJ did not come out of abject poverty. He was born in Brooklyn and raised in North Carolina in relatively average environment. He's not a hood hoops to fame rags to riches story, like Michael Beasely or LeBron James. And for every LB James that made it huge, there are thousands of poor kids that probably made it through high school and made it better ... maybe not great, maybe not even average, but are living better for themselves than they were. But it's easy (and convenient) to discount them since you never read papers about them.



Selective reading is selective:



But nice job assigning me my position; strawmen are easier to sack then real positions.

And that's why your view is irrational. He had no control over that car. He got hit. And as a result, he cannot be productive. You would blame him, and I would blame the accident, and try to support him.





Uh, no, obviously as someone who believes strongly in personal responsibility (the jury is still out for me on abortion because we all know murder is "wrong", but it's a matter of what constitutes human life which is infinitely subjective), the dad rightly owes money to raise the children or he gets to get charged with negligence or whatever is applicable. Yea, it's patrly her choice and fault, but it's his too. Again, nice job assigning me my position.




Oh, cut the bullshit. I'm just curt and up front about my opinions. You are passive aggressive, snide and generally insulting through thinly veiled sarcasm and facetious-ism. Your lowbrow skirting around the technicalities doesn't serve to make it any more pleasant. Not that it being pleasant has anything to do with being able to discuss things in a relatively objective manner. I'm just willing to admit I'm an *******. Get over it.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Ok, thanks. My objection to that view is basically twofold:

First, I think it's just one of many equally legitimate ways of viewing/analyzing a transaction. In one sense, yes, the parties are trading the labor that went into producing the goods. However, it seems equally valid to say that the parties are trading the utility (usefulness, pleasure, etc.) that the goods provide, or that they're trading the exchange value of the goods (i.e. whatever else they might be able to get in exchange for the goods). I don't see why the "labor" level of analysis is any more fundamental than these other levels of analysis.

Second, and more importantly, most people obviously don't base their economic decisions on an explicit valuation referenced to labor, and the argument that they do so implicitly strikes me as plausible but unproven. Moreover, I can think of other plausible drivers of economic decisions (e.g. most people view the amount of labor they do as relatively fixed, and therefore make economic decisions based on available purchasing power, not labor). In any event, the point is that if labor isn't the (sole or primary) basis for actual economic behavior, then economic theories that assume it is will make lousy predictions.