4 ms·

What do you have against your brother putting $500 back into the economy? That's good for everyone How is it good for everyone else? Everyone else now collecti

by jimmyk 10y ago

What do you have against your brother putting $500 back into the economy? That's good for everyone How is it good for everyone else? Everyone else now collectively has $500 less to spend on other goods and services. Instead of scarce resources being used to create those other goods and services, they will be used to grow weed. That sounds to me like it's decidedly bad for everyone else.

majewsky 10y ago
Exactly. Because there's only so much money to spend every year, and when it's used up, the economy shuts down until New Year's Eve. /s
- jimmyk 10y ago
  Do you not believe there are scarce resources? Or do you not believe money is used to direct how those scarce resources are used?
  - rorykoehler 10y ago
    Considering the amount we waste is enough to feed the rest of the planet, no we don't really have scarce resources and resources are becoming less and less scarce every year.
    - jimmyk 10y ago
      I'm talking about economic scarcity. In economics, scarcity does not mean you don't have enough of something to fulfill some particular purpose. It means you have to make trade-offs. If I spend my day chopping wood, I can't spend my day cutting grass. Our time is fundamentally scarce. If I use a gallon of gas to drive to the store, I can't use that gallon of gas to light a huge fire. If we're using farmland and labor and capital resources to grow marijuana, we're not using that farmland and that labor and those capital resources to create other goods and services for people to consume. Does that make sense?
      - rorykoehler 10y ago
        With technology there is no upper limit on productivity. We will always be able to produce more than enough. Take your growing weed example. We could do it indoors in skyscrapers with robots. You could grow enough weed for the whole world to chain smoke, in one building in the desert if it came to the point where that made sense (which it might in the nearish future). Capital is essentially imaginary and therefore limitless given the right incentives.
        jimmyk 10y ago
        With technology there is no upper limit on productivity. But it will never be enough to satisfy all human wants and needs. We will always be able to produce more than enough. More than enough for what purpose? We could do it indoors in skyscrapers with robots. You could grow enough weed for the whole world to chain smoke, in one building in the desert if it came to the point where that made sense (which it might in the nearish future). Surely you understand that if we're using those robots and that skyscraper to grow weed, we can't also use those robots and that skyscraper to produce some other good. Surely you understand that less of some other goods would be produced because we chose to use that particular productive capacity to grow weed rather than to produce those other goods. Surely you understand that the raw materials, including human labor, used to build the robots and the skyscraper were not available to be used to produce other goods, and that the energy needed to grow the weed could not be used for other purposes. Surely you don't believe that human desires have already been fully sated, except for more pot, and that resources are just sitting around idle until jobless stoners get UBI money to buy pot. Capital is essentially imaginary and therefore limitless given the right incentives. This is the first I'm hearing that capital is "essentially imaginary". What do you mean by that? What do you mean by 'capital'?

by jimmyk 10y ago

majewsky 10y ago

Exactly. Because there's only so much money to spend every year, and when it's used up, the economy shuts down until New Year's Eve. /s

jimmyk 10y ago
Do you not believe there are scarce resources? Or do you not believe money is used to direct how those scarce resources are used?
- rorykoehler 10y ago
  Considering the amount we waste is enough to feed the rest of the planet, no we don't really have scarce resources and resources are becoming less and less scarce every year.
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    I'm talking about economic scarcity. In economics, scarcity does not mean you don't have enough of something to fulfill some particular purpose. It means you have to make trade-offs. If I spend my day chopping wood, I can't spend my day cutting grass. Our time is fundamentally scarce. If I use a gallon of gas to drive to the store, I can't use that gallon of gas to light a huge fire. If we're using farmland and labor and capital resources to grow marijuana, we're not using that farmland and that labor and those capital resources to create other goods and services for people to consume. Does that make sense?
    - rorykoehler 10y ago
      With technology there is no upper limit on productivity. We will always be able to produce more than enough. Take your growing weed example. We could do it indoors in skyscrapers with robots. You could grow enough weed for the whole world to chain smoke, in one building in the desert if it came to the point where that made sense (which it might in the nearish future). Capital is essentially imaginary and therefore limitless given the right incentives.
      - jimmyk 10y ago
        With technology there is no upper limit on productivity. But it will never be enough to satisfy all human wants and needs. We will always be able to produce more than enough. More than enough for what purpose? We could do it indoors in skyscrapers with robots. You could grow enough weed for the whole world to chain smoke, in one building in the desert if it came to the point where that made sense (which it might in the nearish future). Surely you understand that if we're using those robots and that skyscraper to grow weed, we can't also use those robots and that skyscraper to produce some other good. Surely you understand that less of some other goods would be produced because we chose to use that particular productive capacity to grow weed rather than to produce those other goods. Surely you understand that the raw materials, including human labor, used to build the robots and the skyscraper were not available to be used to produce other goods, and that the energy needed to grow the weed could not be used for other purposes. Surely you don't believe that human desires have already been fully sated, except for more pot, and that resources are just sitting around idle until jobless stoners get UBI money to buy pot. Capital is essentially imaginary and therefore limitless given the right incentives. This is the first I'm hearing that capital is "essentially imaginary". What do you mean by that? What do you mean by 'capital'?