This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scarcity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The two-paragraph (at time of this writing) "Criticisms" section contains weasel words and asserts opinion (notably, "We hi should be careful here not to confuse wants and needs."). Perhaps someone can provide cites and adjust the language to reflect a NPOV? (I'm not the right guy to do it for this content.) Bionictulip 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
. Merely pointing out the fact that wants and needs are not the same. While there may not be enough to satisfy everyone's wants, there might still be enough to satisfy their needs. There might also be enough to satisfy their wants if their wants are not artificially inflated by things like advertising and peer pressure. If you can refute any of the information presented, by all means do so. Otherwise, don't accuse them of using "weasel words" when you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.80.32.134 ( talk) 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
The idea that scarcity doesn't really exist is truly a decadent one. If there isn't enough food... you will die. And people die all the time of scarcity. Not enough water, not enough shelter, not enough medicine. The "Criticisms section is ridiculous. Gingermint ( talk) 02:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The argument that seems to be given to support 'criticism' of scarcity is not logical. Even if the vast majority of people have finite, very small resource wants, all that is required to create scarcity is for one person (for the sake of argument, myself) to have wants that require more than the total remaining resources to supply. Is it considered original research to dismiss the clearly flawed 'criticism' argument? 81.23.50.245 ( talk) 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It's June 2010, I stumbled upon this article, and I must affirm that the "criticism" section is utter nonsense. At best, it's confusing the notion of "infinite wants" with the reality of limited resources. As others have said, the criticism stemming from this confusion is illogical. Whether in biology, or economics, organisms compete and cooperate for limited resources. The scarcity (limited amount) of resources is fundamental to analyzing strategic interaction, whether it be single-celled organisms or people. Ideological views on wants versus needs are irrelevant to this use of the term in biology, economics, and related disciplines. Bringing in Webster's definition further confuses the use of the term "scarcity" in economics. It would be similarly incorrect for me to criticize use of the term "payoff" in game theory after citing its definition in Webster's.
I'm deleting the criticism section. I normally try to leave more significant edits to real editors when I am browsing wikipedia, but in this case it looks really bad, and from the above, it seems like just about everyone knows it shouldn't be here. -- 76.115.3.200 ( talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a short (10 KB, 1489 word) copyrighted essay entitled "The Misconception of Scarcity" by Shmuel (Sam) Vaknin, Ph.D., which 62.162.201.35 ( talk) attempted to add to the article in this edit. Let us discuss what (if anything) from that essay can help this article. — Jeff G. 01:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That essay is pseudoeconomic silliness. One example: "It is truer to assume, for practical purposes, that most natural resources - when not egregiously abused and when freely priced - are infinite rather than scarce." Anyway, if you check the other contributions connected to that ip, the user was attempting to pepper the wiki with links to that (probably his) site. -- 76.115.3.200 ( talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The criticisms section includes the following:
The Technocracy movement argues that North America can achieve abundance and self-sufficiency, through the application of scientific principles and technology. They suggest replacing human labor with machines and cutting the work-week to four half-days (16 hours). They propose an economy with energy accounting, instead of finance. The value of goods would be based on the energy required to produce them. Machines would run at full-load to maximize efficiency. People would receive an equal share of total energy production in the form of goods.
However, the article on Technocracy says almost nothing about these ideas. The only idea mentioned in the article is energy accounting. The rest is not in the Technocracy article. Either that article needs to be expanded to include these concepts or the paragraph above needs to be trimmed/deleted.
71.212.9.95 ( talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The section on Harris's Lament does not include any citations for that phrase. I can find other documents on the net that use the term "Harris's Lament" to mean "All the good ones are taken," but none that cite Barney Miller as a source. Anyone want to try to find a good citation for this? Tim Pierce ( talk) 12:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
An anon user removed several items from the "See also" section. I undid their edit and Rubin undid my edit with the following explanation, "no, they are only indirectly related, through other topics".
Here are some of the topics that Rubin believes are only indirectly related...
Rubin, I'm still awaiting your responses at the following articles...
-- Xerographica ( talk) 10:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I came looking for info on artificial scarcity. There's a link near the bottom... which redirects back to the same page. Brilliant work, whoever did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.0.56 ( talk) 22:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now the end of the lead says, without citation,
I'm deleting this, for the following reason. Suppose the price of good X is $10 per unit, and the price of good Y is $1 per ounce or $16 per pound. Which is scarce relative to the other? The price of one good relative to the other cannot answer this, because whether the relative price is above or below 1 depends on the arbitrary choice of units, which are not comparable across the goods.
Perhaps what we could say is that if preferences for all goods do not change and the number of individuals does not change, then if the price of a single good goes up over time, it must be becoming more scarce. But that's too involved to bother mentioning, at least in the lead. Loraof ( talk) 16:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and topic of "rare" is under discussion, see talk:Rare -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 07:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Removing bomb at top of Lead Section can only help. There are no "sentence fragments" here. Did this page get bombed because it seems to make a political statement? Cormagh ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This line, "For example, although air is more important to us than gold, it is less scarce simply because the production cost of air is zero." Should be edited to say, "For example, although air is more important to us than gold, it does not have scarcity because the production cost of air is zero."
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems unwieldy to see all these page titles with scarcity in them without the benefit of a disambiguation page. This page is clearly about an economic concept, why not retitle it (Move it) to Scarcity (economics) like the Scarcity (social psychology) article? I will also develop the disambiguation page to go with this. Also, propose to move the book reference to the see also section. (A bit commercialistic the way it's laid out as part of the lead.)
Cheers, Risk Engineer ( talk) 15:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)