Re: marginalism

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barkley,

Is this your point?

We should first treat all resources as precious, before we decide
if a specific resource is scarce or abundant.

Harry

> From: Barkley Rosser <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:17:16 -0500
> To: Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>, pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: marginalism
>
> Just for the record, I have various problems
> with "marginalism," and am not frequently some
> great defender of it.  But, the idea that its biggest
> problem is some alleged "unlimited" supply of
> resources is the least of its problems in my view.
> Barkley Rosser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clifford Poirot" <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: marginalism
>
>
>> In some ways resources are even more constrained in the longer run as
>> population pressure and increased energy use bumps up against limits.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Barkley Rosser [mailto:rosserjb@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:17 AM
>> To: william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: marginalism
>>
>>
>> "The new approach to economics"???  Is
>> this something you cooked up or something you
>> picked up from reading the late Julian Simon?
>> Very simply, in the short run many resources are
>> limited.  It takes time to drill new oil wells or increase
>> output rates from old ones.  It takes time to dig new
>> coal mines or other mines.  So, marginalism is
>> certainly relevant in the short run.
>> It becomes less so in the long run, although
>> even there, it is false that resources are "unlimited,"
>> although many that may be constrained in the short
>> run are not very constrained in the longer run.  Ironically
>> those that are really in the shortest supply are not the
>> non-renewable ones, but the so-called renewable ones.
>> Once you have driven a species to extinction it is gone
>> forever.  Unlike methane, we will not find it on Jupiter.
>> Barkley Rosser
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:56 AM
>> Subject: marginalism
>>
>>
>>> ***>Price is where marginal benefits + utility (aka
>>> market cost) = cost. (The whole point of marginalism
>>> and STV) Cost is another term for price.  So...price
>>> + utility = cost is circular logic.  Circular logic
>>> is impossible, therefore supply and demand is
>>> junk.<***
>>>
>>> Your argument is invalid not because marginalism is
>>> not invalid, but because you have falsely described
>>> marginalism.  Marginalism is invalid because it is
>>> premised on the false assumptions that resources are
>>> scarce and demand is unlimited, so the two must
>>> intersect.  Marginalism is perfectly logical premised
>>> on those assumptions.
>>>
>>> The new approach to economics is premised on the
>>> facts that resources are permanently abundant and the
>>> physical capacity to consume is permanently limited.
>>>
>>> Resources become abundant through continuing
>>> discovery, development and innovation.
>>>
>>> And it is physically possible to consume only so much
>>> per unit time.  The limit to consumption is the point
>>> of satiation.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> "smithaa02" <sadf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Capitalist Pig" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
>>>> news:lnfipvksijllub6jk84ucisvlb8anmdj92@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:32:23 -0500, "smithaa02" <sadf@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've debunked marginalism, STV, and supply and demand all
>>>>>> in one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, I'm impressed!
>>>>
>>>> You should be...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Price + utility can't equal price for that is circular logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't call it circular logic, I would call it a mistake. I have
>>>>> no idea how you could come up with such silly definition.
>>>> Price is where marginal benefits + utility (aka market cost) = cost.
> (The
>>>> whole point of marginalism and STV) Cost is another term for price.
>> So...
>>>> price + utility = cost is circular logic.  Circular logic is
> impossible,
>>>> therefore supply and demand is junk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> Enter for a chance to win one year's supply of allergy relief!
>>>
>>
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;6413623;3807821;f?http://mocda3.com/1/c/563632
>> /125699/307982/307982
>>> This offer applies to U.S. Residents Only
>>>
>>
>