It is quite obvious that you do not fundamentally understand what you are talking about. You gave me the colloquial definition of scarcity as used by laypeople. In economics, however, scarcity has a much more specific definition.
Scarcity is not simply a comparison between how much of something exists and how many people want it. In your original example about there being more houses than homeless people, there is so much wrong with that premise that it is not even worth unpacking in a comment section. That example alone demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept.
Scarcity exists because the resources available on this planet are objectively finite. There is only a limited amount of resources that can be extracted, produced, or used at any given time. If we could somehow eliminate those limits, then scarcity would no longer exist.
Energy is a good example. There is a scarcity of energy on this planet. Not everyone has access to it, whether because of physical limitations, political constraints, insufficient infrastructure, or some combination of those factors. If we were able to provide effectively unlimited energy to everyone, then energy would no longer be scarce.
But since energy is limited, and because there is a significant global wealth gap, some people will inevitably go without while others enjoy an abundance.
My original comment was that I rarely engage with people on this topic when discussing economic systems like socialism because the nuances are often far beyond what they’re prepared to discuss. This exchange is a perfect example of that.
You have added so much unrelated nonsense, a Gish gallop involving Jeff Bezos, Jeffrey Epstein, capitalism, socialism, and even something about pedophiles being rewarded. None of these points, subjects, or talking points are remotely connected to what I was saying in any way, shape, or form.
You’re simply asserting that they’re relevant and somehow support your argument, but they don’t. They’re unrelated distractions that do nothing to address the point I actually made.
More importantly, none of this has anything to do with socialism or capitalism. What exists in the United States today has, in many ways, evolved beyond traditional capitalism into a corporatocracy, a word I know you probably don’t know the definition of.
Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issues you’ve raised. Public ownership of the means of production has had its own massive problems throughout history, as evidenced by the many failed socialist states of the past, as well as those that still exist today. Those systems did nothing to solve the problems you’re talking about and, in many cases, only exacerbated them.
Furthermore, I couldn’t care less if you find me untrustworthy in every possible facet.
However, I do appreciate the length of your comment being manageable.
Scarcity - as defined by economics
It is quite obvious that you do not fundamentally understand what you are talking about. You gave me the colloquial definition of scarcity as used by laypeople. In economics, however, scarcity has a much more specific definition.
Scarcity is not simply a comparison between how much of something exists and how many people want it. In your original example about there being more houses than homeless people, there is so much wrong with that premise that it is not even worth unpacking in a comment section. That example alone demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept.
Scarcity exists because the resources available on this planet are objectively finite. There is only a limited amount of resources that can be extracted, produced, or used at any given time. If we could somehow eliminate those limits, then scarcity would no longer exist.
Energy is a good example. There is a scarcity of energy on this planet. Not everyone has access to it, whether because of physical limitations, political constraints, insufficient infrastructure, or some combination of those factors. If we were able to provide effectively unlimited energy to everyone, then energy would no longer be scarce.
But since energy is limited, and because there is a significant global wealth gap, some people will inevitably go without while others enjoy an abundance.
My original comment was that I rarely engage with people on this topic when discussing economic systems like socialism because the nuances are often far beyond what they’re prepared to discuss. This exchange is a perfect example of that.
You have added so much unrelated nonsense, a Gish gallop involving Jeff Bezos, Jeffrey Epstein, capitalism, socialism, and even something about pedophiles being rewarded. None of these points, subjects, or talking points are remotely connected to what I was saying in any way, shape, or form.
You’re simply asserting that they’re relevant and somehow support your argument, but they don’t. They’re unrelated distractions that do nothing to address the point I actually made.
More importantly, none of this has anything to do with socialism or capitalism. What exists in the United States today has, in many ways, evolved beyond traditional capitalism into a corporatocracy, a word I know you probably don’t know the definition of.
Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issues you’ve raised. Public ownership of the means of production has had its own massive problems throughout history, as evidenced by the many failed socialist states of the past, as well as those that still exist today. Those systems did nothing to solve the problems you’re talking about and, in many cases, only exacerbated them.
Furthermore, I couldn’t care less if you find me untrustworthy in every possible facet.
However, I do appreciate the length of your comment being manageable.