The Myth of Scarcity

[Hannah Bell]

"Easy access to health care has created a society of consumers with an insatiable demand for medical services.(1) All individuals, all mental health care systems, and all nations face the ubiquitous problem of scarcity. The demands of society are infinite, but its capacity to meet those demands is finite.”(2)


These statements are repeated so often that they are assumed to be true. “Everyone knows” that unreasonable demand has created a social crisis.“Everyone knows” that government debt is caused by spending too much on social programs. The few brave voices that protest, “What about corporate tax cuts, bailouts and giveaways?” are drowned by a chorus of high-paid experts who insist that there simply isn’t enough to go around.

The myth of scarcity has one purpose: to justify not sharing the social wealth. There is no evidence that society does not have, and never could have, sufficient resources to meet human needs. On the contrary, the resources spent on war alone could provide everyone in the world with a very good life. Let’s look at the facts.

In most nations, the production of wealth has consistently outpaced the growth of the populations that produce that wealth.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the annual value of all goods and services produced. Between 1950 and 2000, the population of the United States increased 86 percent, from 151 million to 281 million. Over the same 50 years, US GDP soared 3,239 percent, from $294 billion to $9,817 billion. In other words, the production of wealth grew 38 times faster than the population...

The goal of all Malthusians is to ensure that the grapes of wrath are never harvested, to continue the rule of the few and the misery of the many, to obscure what would otherwise be obvious: that ordinary people create all of society’s wealth and deserve their share of it.


http://susanrosenthal.com/articles/the-myth-of-scarcity

[Greyhound]

1. There's 5 for ya. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

2. all from you?

[Greyhound]

9. I would if I could. n/t

[quaker bill]

3. We can "afford"

a great many things. We would have collect some taxes from the wealthy few, sacrifice some portion of our military empire, and perhaps cut back a bit on billion dollar bombers. We could still have the strongest military on the planet (just not 5 times stronger, perhaps only twice as strong as the next competitor).

If the purpose of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was to give the wealthy more money so they would create jobs, they got the money, where are the jobs? (answer: India and China, census says that is where the money actually went)

The populist reason to collect taxes from the rich is that we get to keep their money here instead of letting them spend it outsourcing whole industries to China. (as they have and will continue to)

K&R

[Turbineguy]

4. "insatiable demand"?

Yeah, everybody I know, gets up every morning and hangs out at the Doctor's office. But Tuesday is special. They go to the ER.

[Hannah Bell]

5. one of my favorite things to do is go to the doctor, i'm sure most people feel the same.

[maryf]

6. ordinary people create all of society’s wealth and deserve their share of it.

In a nutshell...K&R

[xchrom]

7. Strong recommend. Nt

[Starry Messenger]

8. k & r

[TonyMontana]

10. Scarcity is not a myth, it's a fact

This person doesn't really understand the concept of scarcity.

-1.

[Panaconda]

11. Go into detail

Explain further.

[TonyMontana]

12. It's a simple economic definition and the basis of all modern economics

There are limited resources on this planet and unlimited wants of human beings. It's because of scarcity that people make the choices they make. Every choice is a trade off.

What this blogger is talking about is equity: What is the fairest way to distribute the limited wealth among the people?

You can google it or take a first year economics course if you want to know more. All I know is that the premise of this entire thing is false.

[leftstreet]

14. Why are you blaming the people?

"unlimited wants"

"people make choices"

"limited resources"

"scarcity"

These are rightwing talking points, but since you're new here I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait til you've done some research

[Panaconda]

15. Who gave you that definition?

That's the first question you should ask yourself.

I have to laugh a little as I've taken more than enough economic courses from very high brow professors and most all of them open the first day of econ class with some variant of the definition you describe. Why is this? Simply because this is so? Well of course not, they teach that because they are pushing an agenda and this specific agenda is neo-liberal economic theory. That's the basis from which the faulty definition arises.

Ever had a Marxist Econ teacher? Ever had an Anarcho-Syndicalist Econ teacher?

Most of these jerks you are referring to have long forgotten what "economics" originally meant just as they don't know the root meaning of "resource." Do you?

Every single word in your post is false, including the big lie that people are making choices all along the way. Most people have few or no choices, the capitalists have fooled you into thinking that 37 different flavors of the same-sugared cereal means you have choices.

What you call "modern economics" is a false and predatory doctrine that has been forced down our throats by those who are vested in the catechism of capitalism.

The very use of "limited" to describe "resources" is a contradiction by the way, and if your professors did not teach you to question their dogmatic ways then they failed you.

[TonyMontana]

16. Yeah, it's a giant conspiracy

:eyes:

What resources would you characterize as NOT limited?

Even the sun is going to run out of fuel in about 10 billion years.

[Panaconda]

18. You completely dismissed the point

By using such a dismissive labeling it seems you want to avoid an in-depth examination of your point. Are concerned that some of your core beliefs might be on shaky ground?

If you are going to use 10 billion years as your marker then you are either being dishonest in your argument or you really have no basis for it.

A better thing to use in order to illustrate the point might be topsoil. How would you consider this a scarce resource? How is this a limited resource? Explain.

resource
from Old French ressourse relief, from resourdre to rise again, from Latin resurgere , from re- + surgere to rise

resource
1611, "means of supplying a want or deficiency," from Fr. resourse, from fem. pp. of O.Fr. resourdre "to rally, raise again," from L. resurgere "rise again" (see resurgent). Resources "a country's wealth" first recorded 1779.

Most folks take it for granted that what their professor says is true but there are layers of cultural accretion that come with all of this. This has nothing to do with conspiracy nor coincidence. A good student and teacher will always challenge their own assumptions.

[bemildred]

19. People do not, in fact, have unlimited wants.

Though it is true that rich, greedy people do push the limits of that. But that is neurotic psychology, not economics.

[laughingliberal]

29. +1000 nt

[billlll]

22. Prosperity for all IS possible now

As best as I can comment off the top of my head....

LWing is saying we have resources now today for prosperity for all (PFA).

So, the RW lie is to claim that now today there is scarcity... So poverty MUST exist....

and the parasite wagecrushers are not to be blamed for it.

Truth is overwhelmingly on the side of the LW at this moment in time.

Sure, a huge population would outpull water etc. But not today. Huge desire now, would also outpull water, etc.

But a desire for mere prosperity CAN be met for the existing population. Prosperity, Yes. Wild luxury, No.

Scarcity is a myth now today--- prosperity for all is the truth now today...... If one ends wagecrushing.

It is sad very sad to hear that neolib RW extreme dogma is in classrooms now.
Unbelieveable.

[laughingliberal]

30. +1 nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. That's not actually a meaningful statement.

I suspect that what you mean is "if all the resources currently available were divided equably, everyone would be reasonably prosperous". I don't know whether that's an accurate claim or not (in some areas, noteably energy consumption, I'm fairly sure it's not), but whether it is or not the word "possible" doesn't belong anywhere near it.

[ThomCat]

23. Unlimited wants? FAIL!

A service cannot, by definition be finite. No matter what level of that service is offered, one more person can always be trained to provide more of that service.

A service is not like a natural resource that can run out.

So Unlimited Wants and Limited Services are TWO very obvious fallacies in your argument.

[TonyMontana]

25. Not even close

Unlimited wants is human nature. Don't kid yourself. If you could have everything, you would have everything.

And it's laughable that you think services are unlimited. Training "one more" person requires finite resources, not to mention that THERE ARE A FINITE NUMBER OF PEOPLE as well.

[maryf]

26. Why would anyone want everything?

When did the word enough become obsolete? I am finding everyday that I have far too much, and I am not wealthy...

[laughingliberal]

32. Bravo! I believe we've gained some insight into a mindset that caused a lot of our problems. nt

[bobbolink]

37. You're absolutely right!

I can't fucking WAIT to have a heart transplant!

I. WANT. MY. HEART. TRANSPLANT!!

[bobbolink]

36. Of course it can run out. Given that the AMA limits the number of docs who can graduate from Med

School, of course there are limits.

See? The limitations are there.

And those who are proclaiming them are the ones who created them.

Devilishly clever of them.

Assholes. :nuke:

[EconomicsIsGod]

38. Services unlimited? FAIL!

I'm not sure what definition of service you are using but so long as it includes people, time, money, or any resources, it is finite. Every person you train to be a doctor is one less engineer, attorney, etc. Every dollar you spend training that person is one less dollar you can spend on syringes and band-aids. Ever syringe and band-aid you use to treat a patient is one less syringe and band-aid that is available to treat a different patient.

See where I'm going with this?

[phasma ex machina]

34. Most people in the real world know how modern economics sucks.

Only a minority of workers produce useful goods while everyone else does "make work." If every worker spent a couple of days making useful goods at a productive job everyone could enjoy five days off each week for nobler pursuits in the arts and sciences. But that requires sharing the good jobs. Jobs that holders typically refuse to share due to infantile ego dysfunction.

[leftstreet]

13. It's the RICH who are the surplus!

Excellent article, well worth the read

K&R

[rrneck]

17. I think the population of any species

has to exist in relation to available resources. As with most lies, those told by capitalists contain this truth.

Unlike other species, we have the ability to make artificial demands on our resource use. Not only can we build cars, but we seem to want to build eight thousand pound cars. Not only can we build dwellings, we seem to covet overblown expressions of personal taste. That's the corporate slight of hand in action. The wealthiest among us are leveraging our resource use to exploit our insecurities for profit.

All we really need is pretty much what every other species on the planet needs. We need to sleep warm and dry, get enough to eat, and make enough of us to replace those that die. The difference is that what we do has to have some sort of meaning, and we have been suckered into buying that meaning rather than discovering it for ourselves. That way we become complicit in the injustices perpetrated against others to support our ersatz lifestyles. It's a dog eat dog world because the dogs forgot what it was like to be a dog.

I'll bet if we put as much effort into understanding each other as we spent just on product reviews, we could go a long way toward building an equitable society.

[Romulox]

20. Unfortunately, we are living through a massive SURPLUS--of labor.

That's the root of all common people's problem--there's too many of us to be useful to them.

[Hannah Bell]

24. "surplus" -- in relation to what?

[Romulox]

41. In relation to our ability to consume. nt

[Hannah Bell]

42. i beg to differ. there's plenty of work that needs doing & would be "consumed".

it just isn't profitable.

work like routine health checks for all, for example.

[Romulox]

45. You and I agree on this point. I am simply using shorthand.

"work like routine health checks for all, for example."

Resources aren't allocated by need in our society, but rather by ability to pay. The productive capabilities of our society far outstrip our own ability to pay the ruling classes for those goods and services.

So while, yes, we could provide healthcare for all, our government instead diverts the money to international financiers and war profiteers, leaving we, the American consumer financially unable to consume the products and services that we, the American workers, are capable of producing. Hence the present wide-scale unemployment and a recession/depression.

[Hannah Bell]

48. gotcha,

[L0oniX]

21. K & R

[midnight]

27. In the late eighties/early nintties we were asked by morning news outlets

to start thinking about limits for those trying to access the healthcare system. I wondered why news outlets were unveiling this idea as a hot new topic hitting the health care field..... This question that Americans were going to have to come to terms with came soon after HMO were introduced and sold as the gatekeepers preventing doctors from overcharging..... Those who are promoting this idea of scarcity have been at it for a long time....

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phasma ex machina]

31. k&r

[laughingliberal]

33. K & R nt

[suffragette]

35. THE MORAL-HAZARD MYTH:The bad idea behind our failed health-care system.

I've posted this link before in health threads, but must post it again here since it's right in the zone:http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact

It's well worth reading the whole article.

[Overseas]

39. K&R ! //nt

[AdHocSolver]

40. The problem isn't insufficient resources. It is the waste of the resources that we have.

The amount of food thrown away each day in the U.S. could feed the entire population of many third-world countries that have large numbers of malnourished, hungry people.

If the U.S. had invested more resources in mass transit rather than producing gas-guzzlers, we could be saving millions of barrels of oil every day. Even many of today's SUV's and trucks with computer controlled electronic ignition, fuel injection, and other modern technologies can't get as good gas mileage as my old 4,000 pound full-size 1964 Ford with its iron block V8, gas-wasting carburetor, and mechanical points ignition. Waste has been built into many of today's vehicles to ensure high demand, and high profits, for the oil companies.

In the good old days, one could buy products (American made) that would last for years, and be repairable. People bought shoes expecting them to last for years. The heels and the soles were replaceable inexpensively, and shoe polish made the tops look like new. Today, shoes (mostly imported) fall apart in six months and cannot be repaired.

Electronics is another type of consumer product that used to be repairable. Nowadays, if it stops working, you throw it away and buy a new one. More designed-in waste.

Packaging is another area of waste. The package uses more resources than the product it contains, and costs more than the product to produce. So-called convenience costs.

The examples are endless. Waste is profitable.

Moreover, the huge demand for shoddy, over-priced products is "created" by corporations. The huge amounts of money spent on advertising increases sales and profits, which is why it is done.

[Hannah Bell]

43. +100. shoddy products that require replacement every few years while people

go in want.

[leftstreet]

46. +1

Excellent description

So much labor is becoming obsolete. Can a person even find a shoe repair place anymore?

[LongTomH]

44. Too late to rec, I'll give it a kick!

:kick:

The article by Susan Rosenthal is excellent. She points out that much 'scarcity' is artificial. Case in point: Oil is a finite resource; but, when gas prices went to near $4 a gallon, the driver was more speculation by the investor class than actual scarcity of resources.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. US gdp per capita is $48k. Median personal income is $25k.

There's lots of wealth to go around. The problem is that it's not going around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Some things are scarce - agricultural land, fresh water, some minerals, crude oil, natural gas ...

For all of these things, if the whole world population consumed them at the rate of the richest (say, the richest billion, which will include nearly all of us on DU), then there wouldn't be enough. They just aren't physically there, or can't be extracted quickly enough using present techniques. Scarcity is not a myth.

For healthcare, the demand may not be 'infinite', but it has always grown, and there is no end in sight to the growth in demand. It grows faster than GDP, in all developed countries, and I think that would apply to developing countries too (because their current use of healthcare is relatively low, and there's no reason to expect them to always want less healthcare than we want in the developed countries). It's not just a question of the work-hours that are put into healthcare; there is demand for new procedures, equipment, and drugs, and for previously incurable conditions to be cured.

[McCamy Taylor]

52. And some things aren't. Like guns. Do the math. They want us to live in fear.

How much mosquito netting could you buy for African kids to prevent malaria with the money used to arm the various factions in the Congo?

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Scarcity creates a fearful, compliant work force that will pay the rich their tax dollars

(and give away their labor for next to nothing). It is basically the battered woman syndrome but on a huge scale.