Economics Uses a False Definition of Scarcity (and Ignores Abundance)

     Mainstream economics is using an incorrect definition of scarcity.

     Scarcity is usually defined as if it were synonymous with finite, limited, and fixed.

     But scarcity, finitude, limitedness, and fixity are not the same thing. That's why we have different words for each of those concepts.

     If you examine the various definitions of scarcity, it is almost as if scarcity has no independent definition unto itself; it seems to be defined solely through its relation to limits, and being finite and/or fixed. At best, the definition of scarcity is incomplete.

     Fixed means there will never be more and there will never be less of a given resource (for example: naturally-occurring, non-manmade land on earth, if you ignore the formation of islands by volcanoes).

     Limited means that the amount of a given resource can never exceed a certain number or size (like how wolf populations are limited by the amount of prey animals available to them for food).

     Finite means that the amount of a given resource can be quantified with reference to a real number; that is, it is not infinite.

     Scarcity refers to a state in which you have less than you need, and need more than you have. It is not the same thing as the resource being fixed or finite (although they may be related; it is a supply and demand relationship).

     The real trouble in defining scarcity incorrectly, and assuming these terms to be interchangeable, is that we come to believe that every resource is scarce (and also fixed, finite, and limited, all at the same time).

     The most popular prevailing definition of economics (coined by British economist Lionel Robbins) is (to abbreviate) "the study of human management of scarcity". Management of abundant resources is not mentioned. 

     Is there something about the management of abundant resources which is inherently "against economics", or which is "not economics"? No. Is there something about management of abundant resources which is completely unconnected to the management of scarce resources, that would merit giving the study of them two different names? No.
     So, then, why isn't abundance included in the definition of economics?

     What this shows is that the prevailing definition of economics implicitly assumes that all resources are scarce. Mere definitions of words are not supposed to make such haughty claims. The issue of whether all resources are scarce, should be determined through debates between economists, not by the dictionary.

     But still, we go on assuming that all resources are scarce, because we have been told that since we were born.
     And since the primary form of 'human management of scarcity" is through governance by the state (which entails the use of legitimized violence), it is further assumed, by the teachers of mainstream economics, that all resources which are scarce (which is supposedly all of them) must be managed by the centralized, monopolistic state.
     This way of thinking leaves absolutely no room for free markets, heterodox economics, nor decentralized planning of resource distribution.

     Scarcity is not defined as "a state in which everything is scarce, which is everything, always, and therefore we must have one supreme government rule over us, and over all of our economic affairs"; it is a situation in which we have less of a given resource than we need.
     These two definitions have almost nothing to do with one another, and yet most of us do not care which of these things is the actual definition of "scarcity". And the reason why we don't care, is because we would never guess that knowing its true definition might have some positive effect on our lives, or make it easier for us to live (and acquire the resources we need) without having to work so long and so hard.

     Those who study economics must not make the mistakes, and wild leaps in logic, which come with defining scarcity as something it's not.
     Scarcity, finitude, limitedness, and fixity are four different things, and abundance of some resources (such as air) exists. Therefore, any definition of economics which does not address these differences (or at least take them into account), is an incorrect definition of economics.

     The idea that all resources are scarce is being used to excuse and justify more competition, and more ruthless competition, than is necessary. Truth be told, competition is the less efficient and less ethical choice, in emergencies and non-emergencies alike, as compared to cooperation. It is because of the over-emphasis of the role of competition in solving economic problems, that the role of cooperation (especially voluntary cooperation) is being undermined and under-emphasized.
     Entire business schools, and university systems, are founded upon the principle that education is necessary to help individuals compete in a global economy in which resources are scarce.
     If universities cannot prove that all resources are scarce, and prove that competition is preferable to cooperation when it comes to managing resources in emergency as well as non-emergency situations, then our educational institutions are guilty of widespread education fraud, and should be found legally responsible as such.

Written on May 17th, 2023.
Published on May 17th, 2023.

Thanks to Tom o'Donnell and Tim o'Donnell
for teaching me this information.