Talk:Scarcity

message: 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)
replies: text: I can see that there are problems with that section, in-fact I'm not quite sure what it's even talking about or what point is trying to be expressed. I think a better way to have a criticism section would be to talk about Post scarcity/Abundance ideas (possibly mentioning Artificial scarcity). For now I've gotten rid of that sentence you're talking about, by reverting it to an earlier more encyclopaedic sentence, and added a bit to make it more NPOV. It should probably be stated who is criticizing scarcity, namely people or groups advocating post scarcity, such as the Technocratic movement. --Hibernian 05:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There weren't any "weasel words" or assertion of scarcity.
. 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of "Criticisms" section 

message: *Concept and misconception of scarcity in economics.
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. (talk|contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent attempted addtion to article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technocracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harris's Lament 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Artificial scarcity no longer links back here. Sometimes pages are deleted or redirected, links to those pages take time to correct.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial scarcity 

message: Right now the end of the lead says, without citation,
:Simply put, the price of a good signals the relative scarcity of the good.
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)
thread_title:  Price signals relative scarcity? 

message: The usage and topic of "rare" is under discussion, see talk:Rare -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rare"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bomb at top of article not relevant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion:Proposal to move article to Scarcity (economics)