Evidence would be any textbook, I hope. Problems are when economists speak lazily to laypeople and students or when use “want” in particular way so that definition comes out to one presented here. Indeed have used “use” in such a way, to some confusion, I see. Definition presented here is, as far as I know, the universally agreed upon definition in economics. No game, but need to understand how it differs from normal usage and common misconception.
Most economists, it is true, do not spend most their time on the most basic material....
Evidence would be any textbook, I hope. [...] Definition presented here is, as far as I know, the universally agreed upon definition in economics. No game, but need to understand how it differs from normal usage and common misconception.
This got me curious enough to haul out my old economics textbook, blow the dust off its top, and open it to page 2. An inset box headed “Key term” defines “scarcity” as “a situation that arises when people have unlimited wants in the face of limited resources”. The main text says
For any society in the world, the fundamental economic problem faced is that of scarcity. You might think that this is obvious for some societies in the less-developed world, where poverty and hunger are rife. But it is also true for relatively prosperous economies such as those of Switzerland, the USA or the UK.
It is true in the sense that all societies have finite resources, but people have unlimited wants. A big claim? Not really. There is no country in the world in which all wants can be met, and this is clearly true at the global level.
Talking about scarcity in this sense is not the same as talking about poverty.
On the next page is a subsection headed “Scarcity and choice”. It begins
The key issue that arises from the existence of scarcity is that it forces people to make choices. Each individual must choose which goods and services to consume. In other words, everyone needs to prioritise the consumption of whatever commodities they need or would like to have, as they cannot satisfy all their wants.
So I think your hope is in vain. My textbook defines scarcity as our unbounded desires outpacing our limited resources. Which, if I read you correctly, is what you emphasize scarcity isn’t. You define scarcity instead as the existence of alternatives from which one must choose — which the textbook mentions as a consequence of scarcity, rather than scarcity itself.
Hm, well, could argue that “want” is key word, undefined yet critical; could render section “scarcity and choice” redundant. But is probably not what author intended, and apophasis cheap tactic.. Concede point. New point: textbook definition insufficient to generate economics; my definition is sufficient to generate economics.
A familiar example of something scarce is ordering in a restaurant. There are so many enticing options, but you can only order one. You want more than what you can choose to have. Whatever option you choose, you could have chosen another one, and that which you did not choose is now beyond your reach. Even if you come back and order that other choice the next day, it’s not the same day, you’re not quite the same you. All this means that your options are scarce.
To say that having “so many enticing options” means that “your options are scarce” is exactly opposite of what people normally mean by “scarce”. And, per satt’s observation above, your definition of scarcity doesn’t match the textbook definition.
IMO starting a sequence with a definition of a word that is radically different from its every-day use and from its accepted academic use is not a good thing; I suggest sticking with more commonly recognized word usage.
The more commonly accepted usage doesn’t work—it’s literally wrong for the purpose of the technical term; one might as well complain that in “everyday” usage speed and velocity are synonyms—and the textbook definition is too dense, defining technical words with other technical words, leading to the illusion of understanding when none exists, as some of the comments show.
But frankly, I just never expected that people would get so hung up over the definition of scarcity. I just took it for granted that the community of a site with such a fantastic series of articles as this wouldn’t argue about definitions rather than rolling with the concept being conveyed. If “scarcity” is a problem, then just substitute “tabtab” or whatever random string on your own; no need to wait for me to do it.
It’s even more surprising because this is a community based around articles like this one. Surely it’s obvious that determining the proper label for the concept being conveyed does not make you stronger, and the goal instead should be to learn the economics presented in the articles. That there are things to learn is evidenced by the mistakes made in quite a few comments. For example, the most upvoted comment in this article describes the concept labeled scarcity erroneously, aside from the part of the description that came from my articles.
I realize my articles are very basic (but not easy) and not particularly relevant or fun. This article is riddled with errors, many of them quite egregious, and yet it seems to have been well-received, being topical and pretending to a shared understanding that is really a shared ignorance among the writer and all the commenters. It invites discussion, opinions, debate, and though it all may be based on illusion, those who see the phantasms will never know the difference. So I am unimpressed by the self-awareness, curiosity, and ability-to-learn represented by many of the responses to my articles. That doesn’t mean my own presentation isn’t at fault, but as I said elsewhere, I have already gained most of the benefit from these articles. That which remains to be reaped is mostly you all’s. That the modal response does not seem to be “How can I use these articles to become stronger?” is disappointing, albeit perfectly normal.
Responding days after the fact to someone who’s deleted their account, but what the hell.
The more commonly accepted usage doesn’t work—it’s literally wrong for the purpose of the technical term; one might as well complain that in “everyday” usage speed and velocity are synonyms
I sympathize with this.
But frankly, I just never expected that people would get so hung up over the definition of scarcity. I just took it for granted that the community of a site with such a fantastic series of articles as this wouldn’t argue about definitions rather than rolling with the concept being conveyed.
I don’t sympathize with this. It’s a hypocritical bullshit move to spend 2,500 words baroquelybelabouring your preferred meaning of “scarcity”, and to then affect surprise & disappointment about other people getting “hung up” about the word’s meaning.
If “scarcity” is a problem, then just substitute “tabtab” or whatever random string on your own; no need to wait for me to do it.
But part of the point of the “37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong” post you linked one sentence earlier is that words aren’t fungible like that, because they carry connotations (way 26), can be used in a needlessly odd and hard-to-understand fashion (way 20), start needless arguments (way 22), and so on!
It’s even more surprising because this is a community based around articles like this one. Surely it’s obvious that determining the proper label for the concept being conveyed does not make you stronger, and the goal instead should be to learn the economics presented in the articles.
Sure it can make you stronger; it can help you avoid the failure modes listed in “37 Ways”. And in the end there wasn’t much “economics presented in the articles” aside from the languid discussion of scarcity.
That the modal response does not seem to be “How can I use these articles to become stronger?” is disappointing, albeit perfectly normal.
This smells like a fully general counterargument one could use to brush off any criticism of one’s writing in a cool-sounding, world-weary way.
Evidence would be any textbook, I hope. Problems are when economists speak lazily to laypeople and students or when use “want” in particular way so that definition comes out to one presented here. Indeed have used “use” in such a way, to some confusion, I see. Definition presented here is, as far as I know, the universally agreed upon definition in economics. No game, but need to understand how it differs from normal usage and common misconception.
Most economists, it is true, do not spend most their time on the most basic material....
This got me curious enough to haul out my old economics textbook, blow the dust off its top, and open it to page 2. An inset box headed “Key term” defines “scarcity” as “a situation that arises when people have unlimited wants in the face of limited resources”. The main text says
On the next page is a subsection headed “Scarcity and choice”. It begins
So I think your hope is in vain. My textbook defines scarcity as our unbounded desires outpacing our limited resources. Which, if I read you correctly, is what you emphasize scarcity isn’t. You define scarcity instead as the existence of alternatives from which one must choose — which the textbook mentions as a consequence of scarcity, rather than scarcity itself.
Hm, well, could argue that “want” is key word, undefined yet critical; could render section “scarcity and choice” redundant. But is probably not what author intended, and apophasis cheap tactic.. Concede point. New point: textbook definition insufficient to generate economics; my definition is sufficient to generate economics.
In the OP you say:
To say that having “so many enticing options” means that “your options are scarce” is exactly opposite of what people normally mean by “scarce”. And, per satt’s observation above, your definition of scarcity doesn’t match the textbook definition.
IMO starting a sequence with a definition of a word that is radically different from its every-day use and from its accepted academic use is not a good thing; I suggest sticking with more commonly recognized word usage.
The more commonly accepted usage doesn’t work—it’s literally wrong for the purpose of the technical term; one might as well complain that in “everyday” usage speed and velocity are synonyms—and the textbook definition is too dense, defining technical words with other technical words, leading to the illusion of understanding when none exists, as some of the comments show.
But frankly, I just never expected that people would get so hung up over the definition of scarcity. I just took it for granted that the community of a site with such a fantastic series of articles as this wouldn’t argue about definitions rather than rolling with the concept being conveyed. If “scarcity” is a problem, then just substitute “tabtab” or whatever random string on your own; no need to wait for me to do it.
It’s even more surprising because this is a community based around articles like this one. Surely it’s obvious that determining the proper label for the concept being conveyed does not make you stronger, and the goal instead should be to learn the economics presented in the articles. That there are things to learn is evidenced by the mistakes made in quite a few comments. For example, the most upvoted comment in this article describes the concept labeled scarcity erroneously, aside from the part of the description that came from my articles.
I realize my articles are very basic (but not easy) and not particularly relevant or fun. This article is riddled with errors, many of them quite egregious, and yet it seems to have been well-received, being topical and pretending to a shared understanding that is really a shared ignorance among the writer and all the commenters. It invites discussion, opinions, debate, and though it all may be based on illusion, those who see the phantasms will never know the difference. So I am unimpressed by the self-awareness, curiosity, and ability-to-learn represented by many of the responses to my articles. That doesn’t mean my own presentation isn’t at fault, but as I said elsewhere, I have already gained most of the benefit from these articles. That which remains to be reaped is mostly you all’s. That the modal response does not seem to be “How can I use these articles to become stronger?” is disappointing, albeit perfectly normal.
Responding days after the fact to someone who’s deleted their account, but what the hell.
I sympathize with this.
I don’t sympathize with this. It’s a hypocritical bullshit move to spend 2,500 words baroquely belabouring your preferred meaning of “scarcity”, and to then affect surprise & disappointment about other people getting “hung up” about the word’s meaning.
But part of the point of the “37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong” post you linked one sentence earlier is that words aren’t fungible like that, because they carry connotations (way 26), can be used in a needlessly odd and hard-to-understand fashion (way 20), start needless arguments (way 22), and so on!
Sure it can make you stronger; it can help you avoid the failure modes listed in “37 Ways”. And in the end there wasn’t much “economics presented in the articles” aside from the languid discussion of scarcity.
This smells like a fully general counterargument one could use to brush off any criticism of one’s writing in a cool-sounding, world-weary way.