the need for Authority(a thread for Sgt Thorne)

[LEON]

The correct answer to this question "Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?" is yes. There is no it depends on this and that concrete, because the question is not about concretes.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think "obtuse" is the operating word here. Someone so indebted to feminism that he can't acknowledge reality. I mean obviously it's such a complex subject that sport fighting leagues everywhere have separate divisions for men and women, as does the Olympics. Not to mention that everyone everywhere knows this from experience.

[callmeslick]

I think "obtuse" is the operating word here. Someone so indebted to feminism that he can't acknowledge reality. I mean obviously it's such a complex subject that sport fighting leagues everywhere have separate divisions for men and women, as does the Olympics. Not to mention that everyone everywhere knows this from experience.

Wow, talk about sexist. No, it is not clear cut, whatsoever. They have weight classes in those leagues, and in high schools around the nation, women in lower weight classes have been beating males in wrestling matches, when co-mingling of sexes is allowed. Thanks, LEON, for clarifying your definition of 'concrete'....by which, you apparently mean my use of logic and actual insight. Sorry if that offends you, but, frankly, that is the ONLY way to address real issues.

[callmeslick]

The correct answer to this question "Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?" is yes. There is no it depends on this and that concrete, because the question is not about concretes.

the only person who is SURE that is the correct answer is YOU. Hence the issue here, you are absolutely convinced you have the correct answers, and when I throw nuance and hence, reality, into the mix, you get flustered. Sorry, but no, that is not the correct answer, unless you throw in a bunch of qualifiers. An example that works might be: Which sex is stronger, on average, with strength being narrowly defined as the ability to lift weight over one's head? Anything less nuanced would have a correct answer of "that depends" or "it varies widely". I'll stand by my definition: that until some man shows me he can pass a 9 pound object out his anus without crumbling into a whimpering heap, I'll give a nod to my female friends.

[callmeslick]

and, on that note, it's off to a few hours of spare ribs, cake and merriment!!

[LEON]

The correct answer to this question "Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?" is yes. There is no it depends on this and that concrete, because the question is not about concretes.

the only person who is SURE that is the correct answer is YOU. Hence the issue here, you are absolutely convinced you have the correct answers, and when I throw nuance and hence, reality, into the mix, you get flustered. Sorry, but no, that is not the correct answer, unless you throw in a bunch of qualifiers. An example that works might be: Which sex is stronger, on average, with strength being narrowly defined as the ability to lift weight over one's head? Anything less nuanced would have a correct answer of "that depends" or "it varies widely". I'll stand by my definition: that until some man shows me he can pass a 9 pound object out his anus without crumbling into a whimpering heap, I'll give a nod to my female friends.

Can you forget your concretization for a moment. Concretes is irrelevant in this question, it's about concepts, and meaning of concepts. As I said, this is a different world - concretes has nothing to do with this.

If you don't understand this, you don't understand concepts.

Edit: Even when I say it's not about concretes, you fall into concretization and specification. Are you even curious on what a concept, and a conceptual understanding is?
For instance "furniture" is a concept. One cannot find a concrete in reality that correspond to furniture. One can find a specific furniture, but the concept and word "furniture" has no concrete in reality. Furniture is a concept and thus a abstraction.

Edit 2: Another example; Cars are faster from A to B, than walking. If one understand concepts one understand what that means. A person who understand reality through concretes would objecting; -No, not if the car has no gasoline, if the car puncture, or if the car must drive a detour due how the road goes, and the walker can take a shortcut over the lawn. All this is irrelevant to the statement that cars are faster than walking, because it's about a concept, not concretes.

[Spidey]

This is a great debate…but I do wish to make a couple of points, but leave the main fighting to you guys.

1. Economics definitely have an affect on population, and Vice Versa as well, no you can’t apply one principal to the other, but it is nice to understand the relation of the two.
2. Men are generally stronger than women because they can produce more adrenaline on demand. (and for other reasons, beyond the obvious points)

[Will Robinson]

The correct answer to this question "Men are physically stronger than women. Yes or no?" is yes. There is no it depends on this and that concrete, because the question is not about concretes.

the only person who is SURE that is the correct answer is YOU. Hence the issue here, you are absolutely convinced you have the correct answers, and when I throw nuance and hence, reality, into the mix, you get flustered. Sorry, but no, that is not the correct answer, unless you throw in a bunch of qualifiers. An example that works might be: Which sex is stronger, on average, with strength being narrowly defined as the ability to lift weight over one's head? Anything less nuanced would have a correct answer of "that depends" or "it varies widely". I'll stand by my definition: that until some man shows me he can pass a 9 pound object out his anus without crumbling into a whimpering heap, I'll give a nod to my female friends.

Are you not narrowly confining your criteria of stronger to the specifics of the birth canal physiology?!? And further obfuscating by comparing that to the mans anus?

Don't be afraid to accept the "concept" that men are properly considered the stronger sex. there are exceptions but the concept is sound. I think your politically correct programming has muddled your ability to comprehend.

[Sergeant Thorne]

and in high schools around the nation, women in lower weight classes have been beating males in wrestling matches, when co-mingling of sexes is allowed.

That's just because they're meaner!

@ TC

Here you're talking girls and boys, not women and men, slick. When I was young, my year-older sister and I used to get into it, and we were relatively evenly matched until about 13-15 when I significantly passed her up in physical strength. Luckily (coincidentally?) we started getting along fairly well around that time as well.

[callmeslick]

snipped blabber about concepts vs concretes.

first off, define 'concretes'
second, quit talking down to people who disagree as if they are children. They are not.
third, what does any of this crap have to do with overpopulation and your insistence that economy overrides simple biological facts?

[CUDA]

second, quit talking down to people who disagree as if they are children. They are not.

physician heal thyself. That is a tactic you use with impunity

[callmeslick]

please, CUDA, give me a break. I treat even those who disagree with me with respect if they come to the table with respect, whether I find the arguments specious or not.

[callmeslick]

and in high schools around the nation, women in lower weight classes have been beating males in wrestling matches, when co-mingling of sexes is allowed.

That's just because they're meaner!

@ TC

Here you're talking girls and boys, not women and men, slick. When I was young, my year-older sister and I used to get into it, and we were relatively evenly matched until about 13-15 when I significantly passed her up in physical strength. Luckily (coincidentally?) we started getting along fairly well around that time as well.

you apparently never knew many Women's Lacrosse players. Mean as hell, but strong, too. The whole 'men are stronger' argument is a joke, because it always seems to be men who wish to narrow the definition of 'strength'

[Sergeant Thorne]

No, it's not a joke, slick, it's the rule. It's also a well-known scientifically understood fact. All you've brought to the argument is youth-wrestling and Lacrosse. We'll be nice and pretend "child-birth" never happened.

[Will Robinson]

and in high schools around the nation, women in lower weight classes have been beating males in wrestling matches, when co-mingling of sexes is allowed.

That's just because they're meaner!

@ TC

Here you're talking girls and boys, not women and men, slick. When I was young, my year-older sister and I used to get into it, and we were relatively evenly matched until about 13-15 when I significantly passed her up in physical strength. Luckily (coincidentally?) we started getting along fairly well around that time as well.

you apparently never knew many Women's Lacrosse players. Mean as hell, but strong, too. The whole 'men are stronger' argument is a joke, because it always seems to be men who wish to narrow the definition of 'strength'

Ok, you are a smart guy so you stop narrowing the field to come up with your examples!

Make a test to measure strength in the human being that a reasonable person would consider a good general test of strength. Make it ten or twenty tasks that cover all the typical uses of strength as commonly undertaken by humans. Make it difficult enough that only 10 or 20% of a large random sampling of males would be able to pass. Now go draw the same size of random sampling of females and have them take the test....

I know from life experience....as do most reasonable people, perhaps all who are reading this know, that the females will not have the same success rate. You would have to increase the number of females you apply the test to MANY times over the number in the males sample before you came up with the same number of females that could pass the test. Many more!

Hence the concept that males are considered stronger.

Testosterone. Read about it.

Women's lower body strength tends to be more closely matched to men's, while their upper body strength is often just half that of men's upper body strength. In a 1993 study exploring gender differences in muscle makeup, female participants exhibited 52 percent of men's upper body strength, which the researchers partially attributed to their smaller muscles and a higher concentration of fatty tissues in the top half of the female body [source: Miller et al]. Another study published in 1999 similarly found women had 40 percent less upper body skeletal muscle [source: Janssen]. Even controlling for athletic aptitude doesn't tip the upper body strength scales in favor of the female; an experiment comparing the hand grip strength of non-athletic male participants versus elite women athletes still revealed a muscle power disparity in favor of the menfolk [source: Leyk et al].
Acknowledging this gender difference doesn't imply that weight-lifting women can't combat this bit of biological determinism and beef up their biceps; instead, men simply have a head start in that department thanks to their elevated levels of testosterone. The sex hormone has anabolic effects, meaning it promotes muscle development. Secreted by the pituitary gland, testosterone binds to skeletal fiber cells and stimulates the growth of proteins, the building blocks of meaty muscles [source: Roundy]. At the same time, however, testosterone also may shave off men's strength for the long haul.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/h ... rength.htm

[Top Gun]

How many times must I mention The tragedy of the commons. What is privately owned is taken care off, what is collectively owned is not.

You know, the idea of "tragedy of the commons" doesn't really support your points at all...in fact it basically undermines them. That concept involves the idea that if people are allowed to use a shared resource as much as they want, they'll wind up bleeding it dry. The easy way to prevent this is by setting limits on how people are able to use the shared resource--that is, by government regulation. We don't set up national parks and forest reserves and then say, "Okay, this is public land, so you can cut down as many trees as you like." Instead, it goes something like, "Okay, this is public land, which means that NO ONE can cut down trees here." That way the resources are shared by everyone, and the tragedy is averted.

Honestly, anyone espousing the idea that private ownership of air and water resources would somehow be beneficial has absolutely no understanding of history, even fairly recent history.

[LEON]

A concrete is a particular. For instance the word LEON is a reference to me - a particular person.

The word men is a reference to all men that exist, thus a concept.

If I had asked; Is man A stronger than woman B? Then we need to know who man A and woman B is? i.e. two particular persons (concretes).

But, I asked; Is men stronger than women? Then we need to examine the concept man, and the concept women. If one start to talk about two particular persons here, one fall into concretes, which has nothing to do with the question.

Have I been condescending? I'm sorry if I have been. But, I don't know to express this differently if my opponent doesn't understand. I try my best to explain these things. If there is any politeness codes I have violated, which I'm not aware of, please let me know.

Reason I wanted to explore this, concretes vs concepts, is because every argument I make is based on concepts. If I use a concrete, it's mostly to illustrate my point, not an attempt to make a main point. However, when the responses I get is if I have made points on concretes I get confused. To me it sounds like we are going off topic.

Car is a concept. It means every car. Ford Thunderbird 85 model, is a particular car, i.e. a concrete car. This is how I use these words. If this is wrong usage if these words, I'm sorry.

[Jeff250]

However, one must compare. Why does everybody who question free market fall into the nirvana fallacy. China used to have serious environmental disasters and famines that killed several million people. Since the 70's, when the economy was loosen up, China has lifted far more poor people up from poverty, and faster, than anything else in history. Sometimes as much as 2 million people per month. The left should celebrate.

I'm not trying to argue planned economies versus market economies, because, all things being equal, planned economies will always lose badly to market economies. I think everyone here knows that. What I am skeptical of though is whether free markets are the best solution to issues like environmental damage. I consider myself libertarian, but I've just never found any free market solutions that are proposed by many libertarians particularly convincing. In the west, it seems like we have a historical example of how free markets failed to solve our pollution crises.

How to protect our air quality is a good question. At the moment both the sea and the air is pretty much treated as common property, and thus pollution happen as well. Though I don't think there's an alarming crises.

Because the regulations and government incentives that we have in most western countries were, although far from perfect, effective in reducing pollution. On the other hand, countries like China where they lack regulations or have regulations that are poorly enforced, are suffering pollution crises.

I believe a stronger sense of property rights is a way to go. Like tall factory chimneys is from a time where property rights were strong. Something they did to prevent lawsuits from citizens who had gotten their property polluted. But, as time went, and government intervened in the economy, GDP became more important than some citizens property rights, and those rights declined and became less important. Sort of the same consideration one made back when we got smoke in our lungs.

I'm far from a lawyer, but I'm skeptical of how practical such lawsuits could be. If I got lung cancer, which company would I sue, and how would I prove that they (or any company) was responsible?

If someone stabs me in the lungs, I can sue the person who injured me, but yet we still have criminal laws because we don't think that lawsuits are enough. How is someone giving me lung cancer different? One of the roles of government is to prevent people from harming each other. I believe that pollution easily fits that category.

[Sergeant Thorne]

How many times must I mention The tragedy of the commons. What is privately owned is taken care off, what is collectively owned is not.

You know, the idea of "tragedy of the commons" doesn't really support your points at all...in fact it basically undermines them. That concept involves the idea that if people are allowed to use a shared resource as much as they want, they'll wind up bleeding it dry. The easy way to prevent this is by setting limits on how people are able to use the shared resource--that is, by government regulation. We don't set up national parks and forest reserves and then say, "Okay, this is public land, so you can cut down as many trees as you like." Instead, it goes something like, "Okay, this is public land, which means that NO ONE can cut down trees here." That way the resources are shared by everyone, and the tragedy is averted.

Honestly, anyone espousing the idea that private ownership of air and water resources would somehow be beneficial has absolutely no understanding of history, even fairly recent history.

Top Gun, I'm afraid you cannot answer the problem of "tragedy of the commons" by removing consumption. Logically speaking a solution must involve the continued use of the resources--this is an understood requirement in such a problem. I think it's rather obvious to note that what people do not have a stake in, they do not care about. If the trash that people throw out their windows when they're driving (really makes me angry) ended up in their living-room/bedroom, it might soon stop. I think Leon's suggestion of private ownership of water, air, and sea is counter-intuitive or difficult to imagine, right off-hand, but I think it bears some thinking about. How could air, water, and ocean be privately owned?

National Parks in the U.S. do allow use of the resources, but these uses are monitored and managed using tax-payer money, and the end-result is reported to the tax-payers because the preservation of the parks are their interest. You can log (in some places), hunt, harvest mushrooms and other things, fish, camp. All governed by laws, and usually by permit to help offset the cost of management. So use is only restricted inasmuch as is necessary for the achievement of the purpose of the parks (according to the ability of the folks in charge), which is to preserve natural areas for the use and enjoyment of all.

[callmeslick]

A concrete is a particular. For instance the word LEON is a reference to me - a particular person.

The word men is a reference to all men that exist, thus a concept.

If I had asked; Is man A stronger than woman B? Then we need to know who man A and woman B is? i.e. two particular persons (concretes).

But, I asked; Is men stronger than women? Then we need to examine the concept man, and the concept women. If one start to talk about two particular persons here, one fall into concretes, which has nothing to do with the question.

Have I been condescending? I'm sorry if I have been. But, I don't know to express this differently if my opponent doesn't understand. I try my best to explain these things. If there is any politeness codes I have violated, which I'm not aware of, please let me know.

Reason I wanted to explore this, concretes vs concepts, is because every argument I make is based on concepts. If I use a concrete, it's mostly to illustrate my point, not an attempt to make a main point. However, when the responses I get is if I have made points on concretes I get confused. To me it sounds like we are going off topic.

Car is a concept. It means every car. Ford Thunderbird 85 model, is a particular car, i.e. a concrete car. This is how I use these words. If this is wrong usage if these words, I'm sorry.

thanks for clarifying your meaning. I would tend to use the word 'specifics' where you choose 'concretes'.

[flip]

In this particular case Leon is using the correct word. The opposite of specifics would be generalizations. The opposite of concept would be concrete. The only reason I say anything is because I know Leon's native language is not English. Don't want his idea confused over an argument of which wording is correct.

[callmeslick]

In this particular case Leon is using the correct word. The opposite of specifics would be generalizations. The opposite of concept would be concrete. The only reason I say anything is because I know Leon's native language is not English. Don't want his idea confused over an argument of which wording is correct.

oh, I agree completely, and further would like to congratulate Leon on his overall use of the language. In this case, however, he uses the idea of concrete examples or specific examples interchangably, and I just wanted a bit of clarification. I would still argue, however, that conceptualization is all well and good, but if one cannot justify the concept with specific examples of whether the concept is valid, it is merely a mental exercise, with no practical value beyond that. For instance, if we are(and we were) pondering the threat to mankind of human overpopulation, and how that could be addressed through privatization of any and all resources, one needs concrete examples of the validity of such a position. I merely was citing examples by way of explaning the dangers of such an approach, or as TG did earlier, how the actual concrete examples(in this case National Parks) actually undermine Leon's position that government needs to cede control to private entities.

[LEON]

I have never claimed that the government can't do something good in their attempt to save the environment. Question is compared to what, and how will it work in the long run?
I gave an example, Communist Soviet, as an argumentum ad absurdum, on what can happen when the state owns property. I also gave the example on the differentiation between eagles and chickens, one is protected, the other we kill. In Botswana they have tried this with rhinos, grant private property on rhinos, whereby their owner make sure they are protected - and multiplying - and then sell hunting licenses.

Take another example from reality, in my country. A funny one:

"Back in the 80's, Department of Agriculture found that it was too many cows in my country. So they decided to reward farmers for every cow they slaughtered, and thus try to decrease the population. After some few years, the department found that the population actually had increased, despite the increase of slaughter. Why? Simple; when one is rewarded to slaughter cows, farmers make sure they have enough of them -- insemination had increased"

Funny how animals multiply, when one starts to kill them. The difference is of course if they are privately owned or not.

Top Gun and Jeff I'll come back to you. You made some valid points.

[callmeslick]

still not clear on how the examples of eagles/chickens or cows in Norway(yup, I saw that coming....pay people to do something, they will figure out a way to get more pay), relate to the original statement you made, Leon. If you recall, you flatly stated that human overpopulation was not a problem, at the present time, at least. I asked why you thought that to be the case, and off to the races we went with a mix of conceptual thinking and various specific(concrete) examples. Why don't you feel overpopulation should be a concern, not that it really has a damned thing to do with the original post topic, but, hell, we've gone off the tangent this far, why not continue?

[LEON]

Simple, if resources is not owned privately, everybody will hoard as much they can, thus run empty.

Same if the state try to impose a price sealing, same hoarding will occur, and we will suffer a shortage.

Free prices and private property make sure we have enough resources.

[Will Robinson]

We have too many people who depend on the government to provide them with basic necessities to keep the government completely out of the procurement process.

[LEON]

We have too many people who depend on the government to provide them with basic necessities to keep the government completely out of the procurement process.

What do you mean? Do you talk about our current society, or any society, i.e. there's not possible to make a society whereupon the government do not take care of somebody.

For the record. I do think the Government has a role in society. I'm not an anarchist.

[callmeslick]

Simple, if resources is not owned privately, everybody will hoard as much they can, thus run empty.

no, it wouldn't, if well-managed centrally. This is where government comes in, as cited in the National Park example.

Same if the state try to impose a price sealing, same hoarding will occur, and we will suffer a shortage.

but, you are suggesting private ownership of things(air, for example) that have no market price, at present. Plus, I see the issue with overpopulation sort of like putting pressure on a balloon. Excess pressure in one place, can have dramatic consequences elsewhere. Private ownership makes such uneven pressures even more likely, as it further fragments any possible control mechanisms.

Free prices and private property make sure we have enough resources.

sure, they do, if you are the OWNER. For the rest of the population, tough luck. You don't seem to see the issue that the overpopulation is not evenly spread out, or systematically ordered in any way. Thus, making all resources private property means that the resources are allocated only to the highest bidders, leaving vast amounts of humanity out in the cold, so to speak.

[LEON]

Simple, if resources is not owned privately, everybody will hoard as much they can, thus run empty.

no, it wouldn't, if well-managed centrally. This is where government comes in, as cited in the National Park example.

Yes, that can theoretically work. However, one will run into the problem of calculation. With this system we are back to the same system as Soviet. Most people who support centrally planning believe that if we only could elect the right people into office - the smart ones, they would figure the right allocation and so forth. They even talk about using computers. I have no confidence that the calculation problem can be solved that way.
Here in Norway, every service run by the state is overused and have long waiting lines. Why - because the state isn't govern by economic incentives. They use statistics and bureaucratic decisions.

Same if the state try to impose a price sealing, same hoarding will occur, and we will suffer a shortage.

but, you are suggesting private ownership of things(air, for example) that have no market price, at present. Plus, I see the issue with overpopulation sort of like putting pressure on a balloon. Excess pressure in one place, can have dramatic consequences elsewhere. Private ownership makes such uneven pressures even more likely, as it further fragments any possible control mechanisms.

I don't think air ever can be privatized. I'm not sure if I understand you point here. Edit; looks like you are talking about externalities here. I'm not sure what that got to do with price control. Except that price control actually create externalities.

Free prices and private property make sure we have enough resources.

sure, they do, if you are the OWNER. For the rest of the population, tough luck. You don't seem to see the issue that the overpopulation is not evenly spread out, or systematically ordered in any way. Thus, making all resources private property means that the resources are allocated only to the highest bidders, leaving vast amounts of humanity out in the cold, so to speak.

Highest bidder is the point. That's how resources are allocated.

[callmeslick]

Simple, if resources is not owned privately, everybody will hoard as much they can, thus run empty.

ok, conceptually speaking, if resources WERE owned privately, why wouldn't everyone owning them hoard them in the near term, in an attempt to drive the point up? I'm speaking here of necessary resources, such as water or food, let's just agree to drop air.

[LEON]

How many times must I mention The tragedy of the commons. What is privately owned is taken care off, what is collectively owned is not.

You know, the idea of "tragedy of the commons" doesn't really support your points at all...in fact it basically undermines them. That concept involves the idea that if people are allowed to use a shared resource as much as they want, they'll wind up bleeding it dry. The easy way to prevent this is by setting limits on how people are able to use the shared resource--that is, by government regulation. We don't set up national parks and forest reserves and then say, "Okay, this is public land, so you can cut down as many trees as you like." Instead, it goes something like, "Okay, this is public land, which means that NO ONE can cut down trees here." That way the resources are shared by everyone, and the tragedy is averted.

Honestly, anyone espousing the idea that private ownership of air and water resources would somehow be beneficial has absolutely no understanding of history, even fairly recent history.

I don't quite see how you refutes the tragedy of the commons here.

In a national park extracting resources is prohibited. Of course that would preserve our resources. But, I don't believe one can extend that thought to our economy and prohibit the use of resources. The state could also prohibit pollution - problem "solved". However, I don't think anyone would agree on that solution.

When the state run the economy, or part of it, they face the calculation problem, i.e. what is the best and most efficient way to regulate and allocate resources. Without guidance from prices, one must use statistics. They therefore tend to overuse resources - like building bridges, roads, tunnels to nowhere, here in Norway it took them 30 year to decide on our opera house. Only God knows how much money were wasted in that process. But, when one face no economic incentives, or calculation, when one can just tax and divert resources from the private market, things like that happen.
When private property is lacking, people lack incentives to refining. Like when Indians was given reserves, but no property rights, they didn't refine either. Many parts of Africa have the same problem. The state fail to protect the fish in the ocean, when one nation decide on the fish net mesh size, another nation has a smaller size, thus everybody ends up with a size where the catch is maximized. This is part of the tragedy as well.

I have not claimed that the state cannot protect the environment at all. Like callmeslick pointed out, the state saved the eagles. However, question is why the eagles was even endangered in the first place. If it was because private property was prohibited so nobody could homestead them, then that is the core cause.
In Africa, every time some guards prevent snipers from killing a rhino, they of course save a rhino, no doubt, but at the same time the black market price for rhinos went up also, thus create a even higher pressure from the black market to kill the next rhino. (this is a good illustration on both negative and positive feed back loops)
Same when the state burn opium and cocaine fields, it create shortages, prices goes up, and farmers are way more incentivized to cultivate cocaine than for example corn. It create misallocation of resources.
Same when the Government subsidizes farmers with water. It change the farmers calculation and accounting - he can now change to more water sensitive products, e.g. rice, thus divert water from areas who needs it more. Again, misallocation.

When resources is not privately owned, the state must allocate them, which create misallocation and tragedy of the commons.

[LEON]

Simple, if resources is not owned privately, everybody will hoard as much they can, thus run empty.

ok, conceptually speaking, if resources WERE owned privately, why wouldn't everyone owning them hoard them in the near term, in an attempt to drive the point up? I'm speaking here of necessary resources, such as water or food, let's just agree to drop air.

Point up? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I assume you are talking about withheld resources from the market, in order to increase prices, right?

First, what is a resource? A resource is not something we simply find on the ground, or in nature, ready for use. I'm not going in depth into this, but, we must both find a way to use resources and further how to extract it from nature. For instance oil. First, one must research and find where one can drill - this can take a long time and require investments. Then one must invest in all the equipment necessary for the extraction.
If one own a water supply, one must invest in equipment to pump up water, bottle the water and transport it to the market, or, build all the pipelines distributing it to all the homes. One is therefore eager to make a return on one's investments.

If one just halt the supply, income would stop as well. One must answer to all the shareholders, creditors, etc. One has expenses, liability, so forth. I'm not sure how easy it is to just halt the supply.

However, in monopoly theory, one can cut back on output, in order to drive up prices. This is different than cut supply completely. Now the supplier have more revenue, and everybody in the business is happy. In theory that is.

In my previous post, I wrote about what would happen when supply is restricted from the market - like burning of cocaine fields and so forth - prices go up which incentivize more production some place else. Same mechanism occur when one try to halt supply or cut back output, higher prices from higher demand will attract other suppliers. It's an invitation to competitors to enter the market. All this is derived from the mechanism of prices.

[callmeslick]

oops, Leon, that should have been 'price point'. Apologies.

[callmeslick]

Simple, if resources is not owned privately, everybody will hoard as much they can, thus run empty.

ok, conceptually speaking, if resources WERE owned privately, why wouldn't everyone owning them hoard them in the near term, in an attempt to drive the point up? I'm speaking here of necessary resources, such as water or food, let's just agree to drop air.

Point up? I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I assume you are talking about withheld resources from the market, in order to increase prices, right?

First, what is a resource? A resource is not something we simply find on the ground, or in nature, ready for use. I'm not going in depth into this, but, we must both find a way to use resources and further how to extract it from nature. For instance oil. First, one must research and find where one can drill - this can take a long time and require investments. Then one must invest in all the equipment necessary for the extraction.
If one own a water supply, one must invest in equipment to pump up water, bottle the water and transport it to the market, or, build all the pipelines distributing it to all the homes. One is therefore eager to make a return on one's investments.

but, if the projections for available water supply showed that over a given time period, prices would likely treble, I am quite sure that the investment would be made,and production forestalled in order to maximize return. This may seem like the conservation of resources, but in reality is simply another form of hoarding, for personal profit.

If one just halt the supply, income would stop as well. One must answer to all the shareholders, creditors, etc. One has expenses, liability, so forth. I'm not sure how easy it is to just halt the supply.

maybe not to that extreme, but look how the oil market has been manipulated. It is not only easy, but quite profitable.

However, in monopoly theory, one can cut back on output, in order to drive up prices. This is different than cut supply completely. Now the supplier have more revenue, and everybody in the business is happy. In theory that is.

In my previous post, I wrote about what would happen when supply is restricted from the market - like burning of cocaine fields and so forth - prices go up which incentivize more production some place else. Same mechanism occur when one try to halt supply or cut back output, higher prices from higher demand will attract other suppliers. It's an invitation to competitors to enter the market. All this is derived from the mechanism of prices.

all well and good if, indeed, more of the item in question can be produced, but for items such as natural resources or even food(which require such resources, along with labor, to be produced), there becomes a finite limit on the potential increase in production. Further, with food, particularly, there are natural vagaries in production(example, massive loss of Russian wheat crop a few years back due to weather) that play into the supply and demand equation. To return to the matter of overpopulation of humans, there WILL get to be a point where there is no possible way to maintain adequate foodstuffs in supply to feed the world's people(we actually might already be at that point, but it is unclear due to massive disparities between rates of consumption in wealthy and poor societies). And that gets back to the classic biological model of a population crash. The trigger is frequently lack of food, water or reproductive environment. Now, to translate that to humans, it might not mean simply that a lot of people starve to death to get the equation back in order. Given human nature, it would more likely be that violence breaks out in order to secure food supplies, which most likely would both lower the population and by way of collateral damage, the food production and supply as well.

[LEON]

but, if the projections for available water supply showed that over a given time period, prices would likely treble, I am quite sure that the investment would be made,and production forestalled in order to maximize return. This may seem like the conservation of resources, but in reality is simply another form of hoarding, for personal profit.

That is conservation, and good, because we will then have resources available in a period when we otherwise would had a shortage, furthermore we will not have tripled prices either. Yes, they do it for profit, not to help you and me, however, I don't see any problem with that.

(...) look how the oil market has been manipulated. It is not only easy, but quite profitable.

How is that done?

(...)there becomes a finite limit on the potential increase in production(...)

Seems you still have this notion that we will run out of resources. You overlook some factors in your analysis, but, I must author an answer to Jeff first. I'll be back.

[callmeslick]

but, if the projections for available water supply showed that over a given time period, prices would likely treble, I am quite sure that the investment would be made,and production forestalled in order to maximize return. This may seem like the conservation of resources, but in reality is simply another form of hoarding, for personal profit.

That is conservation, and good, because we will then have resources available in a period when we otherwise would had a shortage, furthermore we will not have tripled prices either. Yes, they do it for profit, not to help you and me, however, I don't see any problem with that.

I guess that's where personal philosophies come in. I have a huge problem with that, and the inevitable turmoil it traditionally causes(the struggle that inevitably ensues when the gaps between 'haves' and 'have-nots' grows too wide).

(...) look how the oil market has been manipulated. It is not only easy, but quite profitable.

How is that done?

by withholding oil production to force prices up. Not a problem for me, as oil is a BIT less necessary than food and water, but illustrative. Of course, once we treated petroleum as a commodity to be traded, we clever humans found other ways to push prices higher, and still maintain production levels. Some of us made a nice living from that for a few years.

(...)there becomes a finite limit on the potential increase in production(...)

Seems you still have this notion that we will run out of resources. You overlook some factors in your analysis, but, I must author an answer to Jeff first. I'll be back.

'notion'? What notion do you have that resources are not, by mere definition, finite? I mean there are limits even to produced products, but core resources( air, oil, productive land, minerals) are ALL finite, and functionally non-renewable(final quibble is another of those pesky 'concretes'....I know that air can be created slowly over time, and likewise oil, but the time required and the rate of replenishment pale compared to utilization). The only ongoing replenishment is indeed water, but even that could easily be outstripped by human population growth, unless a HUGE chunk of biomass, either human or any other collection of species, dies off. And, therein lies the overpopulation danger in a nutshell. These inter-species interactions make up a very deceptively fragile chain, which could easily get broken beyond repair.

[LEON]

by withholding oil production to force prices up. Not a problem for me, as oil is a BIT less necessary than food and water, but illustrative. Of course, once we treated petroleum as a commodity to be traded, we clever humans found other ways to push prices higher, and still maintain production levels. Some of us made a nice living from that for a few years.

One must forecast a shortage and an increase in prices in order to speculate. One cannot make money if one create that future shortage by withheld oil production or withheld oil from the market, because when you release your stored oil, prices drop right down again. In the mean time you have lost storage expenditure. Besides one have encouraged other to produce as well (same mechanism I described in some previous post), which mean that prices will drop even further, thus make your losses even bigger. One need an actual shortage, which make demand and price go so high that one can speculate and make money.

When a speculator forecast a shortage, he start to bid on future oil contracts, i.e. oil that is not produced yet. This make the spotprice goes up, and encourage production in present time. The speculator have a deal to buy that oil in the future. When the spotprice goes up present suppliers will keep some of their oil back, this make present price go up, which again will decrease present consumption and leave more oil for future consumption.

What we have here is less consumption and more production in present time, which prepare us for a future shortage.

When we finally reach the period of shortage, all the oil in storage and the newly produced oil will hit the market and force the price down, which would otherwise been very high. The speculator have raised too low prices in present time, and forced a too high future price down, thus provide price stability, and a steady stream of available oil.

The speculator have exploited an inertial in the supply and demand mechanics. If the speculator had not bid on a future contract, production had not started before the price had began to raise in the future. Then we had suffer a delay before production had provided us with oil again. The speculator has actually moved a future price signal to present time, thus an increase in production in present time as well - before we have a shortage.

When speculation was prohibited on onions, back in 1958, price volatility actually increased.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2011/05/chart- ... il-prices/

[callmeslick]

by withholding oil production to force prices up. Not a problem for me, as oil is a BIT less necessary than food and water, but illustrative. Of course, once we treated petroleum as a commodity to be traded, we clever humans found other ways to push prices higher, and still maintain production levels. Some of us made a nice living from that for a few years.

One must forecast a shortage and an increase in prices in order to speculate.

...ever done this with your own, or anyone else's real money, LEON? I ask, because I spent at least a decade speculating, with no such artificial creation on my part, essentially making near-guaranteed money throughout the period. Why? Because with very lax regulation of the US commodities market, and a lot of free capital, the bouncing of futures contracts back and forth just kept pushing prices up over the terms of the futures contracts.Once again, theory meets practice, and the meeting isn't exactly as 'conceptual' as theory would like it to be.

[callmeslick]

LEON, for reference to the above:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M

I hope this chart stayed on the monthly setting, if not, please call up monthly. What should jump out at you, is that over the 10 year period in the window of the chart, there were essentially about 10 months wherein one couldn't essentially guarantee profit by speculating on light-crude futures, with any degree of decent judgement. At no time was there any true shortage of global oil supply. The only reason prices dropped(and almost immediately started to head back upward again) was the sudden tightening of the supply of not oil, but liquidity to fuel the speculation.

[Top Gun]

What I think would be great to prevent that sort of ridiculous speculation would be if said speculators actually had to take physical possession of the quantities of oil futures they were tossing around. We'll see if they like doing it when a few hundred thousand barrels are plopped down in the driveway of their McMansion.