Originally Posted by Benson

That blog seems to be contrasting a scarcity economy vs. an abundance economy. It seems rather light on the economy side; to me it seems like a lot of feel-good blather. The abundance notions are particularly light on economics; if treating "happiness and spirituality as the default state of being, and not just a medicine to temporarily dull the pain", for example, is what this abundance economy consists of, I think a supply-and-demand economy is more readily identified with the scarcity economy.

In my view, a traditional supply-and-demand economy is a scarcity economy; things have value because they are scarce. While it's true that the supply curve and the demand curve may have varying elasticity, that's a qualitative difference, and not one that justifies claiming it's a different type of economy.

And for the record:
My point was that "oil companies running up profits" was not bad; if they weren't making profits, they wouldn't be shipping gasoline, and I'd be buying a lot more shoes.

I didn't say (nor mean to imply) that the particular means that they have a history of making bigger profits by (collusion) is ok; that wasn't Anthony's claim.

FWIW, though, I'm a serious free-marketeer, and tend to oppose the sort of federal regulations and oversight you're discussing, but I've no great inclination to argue that here; my initial point was rather narrower, and I'll stick with that. Hence my non-respondence to vast chunks of this thread.

Originally Posted by Texrat

I realize the blog was rather light, and didn't mean to reference it as an authority-- just thought I'd point people toward a conversation-starter. But there is a marked difference between the traditional supply-and-demand economy and a scarcity economy; supply-and-demand depends on a renewable resource-- at least, renewable for all practical purposes within a reasonable timeframe. Once you cross the peak production threshold with ANY commodity, typical rules of supply-and-demand evaporate.

Things don't have intrinsic value because they're scarce-- they do so because they're needed by someone who, for whatever valid reason, can't or won't pursue/create them on his own. This is accentuated by the specialist modus operandi resulting from the industrial revolution.

I should have referenced this article: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...anePrices.aspx. It's an op-ed piece, but Jubak knows his stuff. He's very sober, and very objective.

And I'd be a serious free-marketeer, too, if it worked with human beings. But it doesn't-- at least, not on large scales. between communities or isolated groups, sure. But history adequately shows that if you scale a demand up high enough (ie, oil) you end up with collusion, monopolies, consumer-antagonistic speculation, and other evils all well documented. That's where regulations originate; they aren't plucked from thin air. Regulations are a governing body's response to the screaming of its constituents. It's an unfortunate reality, and one many don't want to face, but with all restraint removed, too many businessmen will drive a business into the ground while simultaneously screwing everyone who built and supported it. My theory is that the uglier, greedier, more short-sighted folk tend to rise to the top (by the very virtue of those characteristics)... while the nicer sorts are trampled.

That's why I'm a FAIR marketeer. I think marketing systems and processes should be equally fair to the buyer and seller. I think there should be just enough common-sense regulation built-in to temper natural human greed and take the place of altruism that is sadly lacking in commercial enterprise. The best regulations are, though, enforcements of civil and criminal laws. Too often criminal businessmen see that they can influence justice and get away with large-scale crime. That in turn drives demand for what end up as burdensome regulations. Which is sad given that if politicians were honest enough, they would work to correct things-- but too often they're cut from the same cloth (which is why I tend to vote independent and third-party; my motto is "fire 'em all and start over").

/rant 2

EDIT: for proof that the US isn't even a free or fair market, I point to the carrier-driven US cell phone model. Feh.

FWIW, though, I'm a serious free-marketeer, and tend to oppose the sort of federal regulations and oversight you're discussing, but I've no great inclination to argue that here; my initial point was rather narrower, and I'll stick with that. Hence my non-respondence to vast chunks of this thread.

Originally Posted by Texrat

EDIT: for proof that the US isn't even a free or fair market, I point to the carrier-driven US cell phone model. Feh.