Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Self Sufficiency and Comparative Advantage

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 2:51:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Demonstration: I was thinking about this for a few hours last night. There seems to be some confusion about the relationship between self sufficiency and comparative advantage. These two economic concepts compliment each other, they are not necessarily in opposition.

I would like to show a quick little demonstration on how self sufficiency and comparative advantage work best together. First there are some basic fundamental laws of economic survival that should always apply to a building a settlement.

- Never build a settlement where there are not enough current resources to support the population the settlement needs to support.

- Necessities for all settlements are food, water, shelter, and protection.

- Never let over-population disrupt the economic stability of resources within the settlement.

- Never depend on another settlement for survival.

Now, lets move on to show how comparative can work with self sufficiency to create the best result.

Settlement A - Produces high quality cloth.
Settlement B - Produces high quality hand tools.

1st step - Trading these items becomes a great advantage to both settlements, this is what's known as comparative advantage. This is healthy for advantageous for both settlements at the current time of the trading.

2nd step - Settlement A teaches Settlement B how to produce high quality cloth. In exchange, Settlement B teaches Settlement A how to make high quality hand tools.

3rd step - Both Settlements now no longer need each other for that specific trade off and move on to a different trade off.

Conclusion: This system shows a simple example on how self sufficiency and comparative advantage compliment each other to make a stronger result than either can produce on their own. Both settlements are self sufficient on necessities, but trade desirable products through comparative advantage. This system makes both settlements stronger than they were before, while also both settlements not being dependent on each other for economic stability. A settlement should always be able to keep it's own economy stable through self production, while always aiming to advance to a higher degree of living through inner development and comparative advantage.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 3:01:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 2:59:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/13/2011 2:48:11 PM, Tiel wrote:

I would like to show a quick little demonstration on how self sufficiency and comparative advantage work best together. First there are some basic fundamental laws of economic survival that should always apply to a building a settlement.
*Snips off all the unproven premises which means he's demonstrating nothing.

2nd step - Settlement A teaches Settlement B how to produce high quality cloth. In exchange, Settlement B teaches Settlement A how to make high quality hand tools.

3rd step - Both Settlements now no longer need each other for that specific trade off and move on to a different trade off.
That's not how comparative advantage works, they had comparative advantages due to things like labor costs, supply routes, economies of scale that only work with a certain degree of specialization by those within a settlement, not just lack of skill
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 4:14:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 3:22:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
No matter how much change of knowledge you have, I don't think you'll be able to efficiently grow oranges in Alaska.

Indoor hydroponics? [but it would still be cheaper to fly them my airship from Florida].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 5:14:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 4:14:01 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/13/2011 3:22:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
No matter how much change of knowledge you have, I don't think you'll be able to efficiently grow oranges in Alaska.

Indoor hydroponics? [but it would still be cheaper to fly them my airship from Florida].

Exactly. Self-sustainability has huge economic costs to it. It's possible, but you will lose a lot of wealth and opportunities, in the process.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 6:46:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 3:22:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
No matter how much change of knowledge you have, I don't think you'll be able to efficiently grow oranges in Alaska.

Reply: You don't need oranges to survive. Any desire you have to eat oranges is only a desire, not a need. I am talking about using only trade for desire, never survival.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 7:03:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 5:14:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/13/2011 4:14:01 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/13/2011 3:22:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
No matter how much change of knowledge you have, I don't think you'll be able to efficiently grow oranges in Alaska.

Indoor hydroponics? [but it would still be cheaper to fly them my airship from Florida].

Exactly. Self-sustainability has huge economic costs to it. It's possible, but you will lose a lot of wealth and opportunities, in the process.

Reply: Self-sustainability has huge economic costs and you will lose wealth and opportunities? Explain your assertion thoroughly. I did.

Self production is not counterproductive to the stability of a self sustainable economy, it is the driving force. You must first understand that this is a different economic system. I have just explained how such a thing works in harmony with comparative advantage. If you have specific problems towards the self sustainable system, then list them and I will address them properly. You are making assertions with nothing to support your claim. There is nothing in my demonstration that can give you weight in support of such assertions.

Self Sustainability - Survival Needs

Comparative Advantage - Desired Items

Show me the flaw and I will address it properly.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 4:30:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 6:46:16 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/13/2011 3:22:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
No matter how much change of knowledge you have, I don't think you'll be able to efficiently grow oranges in Alaska.

Reply: You don't need oranges to survive. Any desire you have to eat oranges is only a desire, not a need. I am talking about using only trade for desire, never survival.

Food is a matter of survival (As is Vitamin C-- never heard of scurvy?) And creating a category of "need" foods and "Want" foods, trade in the former being banned, will ensure that no one ever eats any of the "need" foods except the few in which you had a comparative advantage anyway, as they'll be mind-bogglingly expensive compared to ones in which trade is permissible.

Keep in mind, famines are local phenomena-- it'll be the "Want" foods that drag you out of any famines :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 2:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 4:30:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/13/2011 6:46:16 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/13/2011 3:22:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
No matter how much change of knowledge you have, I don't think you'll be able to efficiently grow oranges in Alaska.

Reply: You don't need oranges to survive. Any desire you have to eat oranges is only a desire, not a need. I am talking about using only trade for desire, never survival.

Food is a matter of survival (As is Vitamin C-- never heard of scurvy?) And creating a category of "need" foods and "Want" foods, trade in the former being banned, will ensure that no one ever eats any of the "need" foods except the few in which you had a comparative advantage anyway, as they'll be mind-bogglingly expensive compared to ones in which trade is permissible.

Keep in mind, famines are local phenomena-- it'll be the "Want" foods that drag you out of any famines :P.

Reply: You bring up a good point about scurvy. Vitamin C can be gained from many sources. Many green vegetables and peppers have high amounts of vitamin C and can be grown in any area where orange trees cannot survive. Thank you for bringing up the issue, it was well placed.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 3:01:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
These can be effectively grown in Alaska?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 3:12:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your main problem, Tiel, is that almost no comparative advantage is purely by a learnable skill, but usually by the geography or demographics of a particular location. It would also be inefficient to create a factory for creating high-quality cloths in both settlements when it is only really needed in one settlement.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 5:51:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 3:12:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
Your main problem, Tiel, is that almost no comparative advantage is purely by a learnable skill, but usually by the geography or demographics of a particular location. It would also be inefficient to create a factory for creating high-quality cloths in both settlements when it is only really needed in one settlement.

Reply: 1.) I see no problem. Self sufficiency and comparative advantage compliment each other. The difference is that comparative advantage should never be depended on for survival, only used for desirable items. If you see a major flaw with this, then point it out and I will address it properly.

2.) High quality factory made cloth is a desirable item, not a needed item for survival. Also, a small high quality cloth factory could be built in each settlement.

Question: Why do you feel that this should not be the goal?

Opinion: The settlement having it's own high quality factory is the most efficient solution. It would be a welcome addition to the settlement if it fit the desires of the population.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 5:58:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tiel, so you admit that self sufficiency would dramatically reduce one's wealth. Question: Why is this a benefit. Most people would prefer wealth and leisure time over poverty and long hours of work.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:03:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 5:51:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:12:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
Your main problem, Tiel, is that almost no comparative advantage is purely by a learnable skill, but usually by the geography or demographics of a particular location. It would also be inefficient to create a factory for creating high-quality cloths in both settlements when it is only really needed in one settlement.

Reply: 1.) I see no problem. Self sufficiency and comparative advantage compliment each other. The difference is that comparative advantage should never be depended on for survival, only used for desirable items. If you see a major flaw with this, then point it out and I will address it properly.

The problem is, we can live better if we depend on comparative advantage for survival as well as wanted items. We should produce what we can produce best. I don't know how to create food, but I don't need to know how to create food.

2.) High quality factory made cloth is a desirable item, not a needed item for survival.

However, what if what place is better suited for producing high-quality cloth because it is closer to the cotton? You can't teach that.

Also, a small high quality cloth factory could be built in each settlement.

However, this would be more inefficient, as per the law of economies of scale.

Question: Why do you feel that this should not be the goal?

Because the goal should be efficiency. What do you gain from self-sufficiency? Trade isn't in danger of disappearing.

Opinion: The settlement having it's own high quality factory is the most efficient solution.

Your opinion contradicts just about every law of economics known to man.

It would be a welcome addition to the settlement if it fit the desires of the population.

However, this would also cut jobs in the other settlement. The end result would be producing the same amount of cloth with even more labor.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 5:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Tiel, so you admit that self sufficiency would dramatically reduce one's wealth. Question: Why is this a benefit. Most people would prefer wealth and leisure time over poverty and long hours of work.

Reply: No, I didn't admit any such thing. wealth and leisure time would be greatly improved to the majority population in a self sufficient settlement. An accumulation of wealth means that the minority can only obtain a higher standard of living by taking from the majority and accumulating it towards that higher standard of living. When everyone has close to the same standard of living, you call this a lower standard of living. But what you use a standard of measurement for wealth can only be obtained by a minority and never the majority. I can try to demonstrate this with simple mathematics if you need me to. Let me know.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:29:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Tiel, so you admit that self sufficiency would dramatically reduce one's wealth. Question: Why is this a benefit. Most people would prefer wealth and leisure time over poverty and long hours of work.

Reply: No, I didn't admit any such thing. wealth and leisure time would be greatly improved to the majority population in a self sufficient settlement. An accumulation of wealth means that the minority can only obtain a higher standard of living by taking from the majority and accumulating it towards that higher standard of living. When everyone has close to the same standard of living, you call this a lower standard of living. But what you use a standard of measurement for wealth can only be obtained by a minority and never the majority. I can try to demonstrate this with simple mathematics if you need me to. Let me know.

I enjoy mathematics. Show me the mathematical equation. Understand Tiel, that wealth is not a zero sum game. Trade benefits both parties, which is why trade occurs in the first place. Furthermore, the price of a material is not equivalent to the value of the material. Take for example, the internet. While internet access is cheap, you'd have to pay the average person millions to end there use of the internet. Value is subjective. The price of a product does not determine how much value one obtains from an item.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:38:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:29:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Tiel, so you admit that self sufficiency would dramatically reduce one's wealth. Question: Why is this a benefit. Most people would prefer wealth and leisure time over poverty and long hours of work.

Reply: No, I didn't admit any such thing. wealth and leisure time would be greatly improved to the majority population in a self sufficient settlement.

If more people are doing things that they are less experienced at and less efficient in, then they will take more time doing them or make them more poorly, thus decreasing their wealth and leisure time.

An accumulation of wealth means that the minority can only obtain a higher standard of living by taking from the majority and accumulating it towards that higher standard of living.

Zero-sum fallacy.

When everyone has close to the same standard of living, you call this a lower standard of living.

No, we call that the same standard of living. Whether it is low or high depends on, obviously, whether it is low or high, although generally, third-party attempts to make everyone's standard of living the same will lower the average standard of living.

But what you use a standard of measurement for wealth can only be obtained by a minority and never the majority.

Unsubstantiated claim based upon the zero-sum fallacy.

I can try to demonstrate this with simple mathematics if you need me to. Let me know.

Go ahead, then.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:47:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:03:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:51:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:12:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
Your main problem, Tiel, is that almost no comparative advantage is purely by a learnable skill, but usually by the geography or demographics of a particular location. It would also be inefficient to create a factory for creating high-quality cloths in both settlements when it is only really needed in one settlement.

Reply: 1.) I see no problem. Self sufficiency and comparative advantage compliment each other. The difference is that comparative advantage should never be depended on for survival, only used for desirable items. If you see a major flaw with this, then point it out and I will address it properly.

The problem is, we can live better if we depend on comparative advantage for survival as well as wanted items. We should produce what we can produce best. I don't know how to create food, but I don't need to know how to create food.

Reply: I disagree. Prove it.

If your dependent source for giving you food fails, you die.

2.) High quality factory made cloth is a desirable item, not a needed item for survival.

However, what if what place is better suited for producing high-quality cloth because it is closer to the cotton? You can't teach that.

1.) You can grow cotton in green houses. 2.) You don't need cotton, it is a desire. 3.) If you want high quality cloth that bad then go live where they make it, or trade for it. Either way, you will not die with out. 4.) Fabric items can be made from many different materials besides cotton.

Also, a small high quality cloth factory could be built in each settlement.

However, this would be more inefficient, as per the law of economies of scale.

No, it wouldn't be inefficient as far as the self sufficient community is concerned. Your economics of scale does not apply to self sufficiency.

Question: Why do you feel that this should not be the goal?

Because the goal should be efficiency. What do you gain from self-sufficiency? Trade isn't in danger of disappearing.

It is efficient. It's efficient towards self sufficiency. You gain stability and security from self sufficiency. No, trade won't disappear and it doesn't need to. I have already shown how trade would work.

Opinion: The settlement having it's own high quality factory is the most efficient solution.

Your opinion contradicts just about every law of economics known to man.

No, it doesn't. You must not know very much about any laws of economics as they apply to self sufficiency.

It would be a welcome addition to the settlement if it fit the desires of the population.

However, this would also cut jobs in the other settlement. The end result would be producing the same amount of cloth with even more labor.

No, it wouldn't. The settlement's population would be able to produce enough people to do the work. You must understand that we live in a day and age where people hardly need to do anything. An entire factory can pretty much do all the work with machines.

Side note: I don't think that you are understanding the concept correctly. It is about modern day self sufficiency as the goal and how comparative advantage works in harmony with this idea.

Opinion: When you aren't dependent on trade and money, you can just live. Machines provide this luxury for humans, it's just that the social structure is built around money and greed.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:50:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:36:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 6:29:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Tiel, so you admit that self sufficiency would dramatically reduce one's wealth. Question: Why is this a benefit. Most people would prefer wealth and leisure time over poverty and long hours of work.

Reply: No, I didn't admit any such thing. wealth and leisure time would be greatly improved to the majority population in a self sufficient settlement. An accumulation of wealth means that the minority can only obtain a higher standard of living by taking from the majority and accumulating it towards that higher standard of living. When everyone has close to the same standard of living, you call this a lower standard of living. But what you use a standard of measurement for wealth can only be obtained by a minority and never the majority. I can try to demonstrate this with simple mathematics if you need me to. Let me know.

I enjoy mathematics. Show me the mathematical equation. Understand Tiel, that wealth is not a zero sum game. Trade benefits both parties, which is why trade occurs in the first place. Furthermore, the price of a material is not equivalent to the value of the material. Take for example, the internet. While internet access is cheap, you'd have to pay the average person millions to end there use of the internet. Value is subjective. The price of a product does not determine how much value one obtains from an item.

Reply: I never said that doesn't benefit both parties. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite and it is the topic of this post. The post is about how self sufficiency and trade work in harmony and benefit each other.

I'm not sure what you are getting at by bringing up your philosophy on value. I know what value means.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:54:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:38:47 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2011 6:29:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Tiel, so you admit that self sufficiency would dramatically reduce one's wealth. Question: Why is this a benefit. Most people would prefer wealth and leisure time over poverty and long hours of work.

Reply: No, I didn't admit any such thing. wealth and leisure time would be greatly improved to the majority population in a self sufficient settlement.

If more people are doing things that they are less experienced at and less efficient in, then they will take more time doing them or make them more poorly, thus decreasing their wealth and leisure time.

An accumulation of wealth means that the minority can only obtain a higher standard of living by taking from the majority and accumulating it towards that higher standard of living.

Zero-sum fallacy.

When everyone has close to the same standard of living, you call this a lower standard of living.

No, we call that the same standard of living. Whether it is low or high depends on, obviously, whether it is low or high, although generally, third-party attempts to make everyone's standard of living the same will lower the average standard of living.

But what you use a standard of measurement for wealth can only be obtained by a minority and never the majority.

Unsubstantiated claim based upon the zero-sum fallacy.

I can try to demonstrate this with simple mathematics if you need me to. Let me know.

Go ahead, then.

Reply: You don't really show how anything is wrong. You just refute it and act stubborn. You provide a weak case. Nothing I said is zero sum fallacy. You don't seem to understand the system very correctly.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:57:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Statement: Do not forget that humans have machines to do work now. This greatly reduces the demand of labor hours and gives a great amount of extra free time to the population. This raises the standard of living dramatically.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:01:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:57:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
Statement: Do not forget that humans have machines to do work now. This greatly reduces the demand of labor hours
Nah, it increases standard of living, but by no means are we in a post-scarcity economy. Labor is still in high demand.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:04:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:57:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
Statement: Do not forget that humans have machines to do work now. This greatly reduces the demand of labor hours and gives a great amount of extra free time to the population. This raises the standard of living dramatically.

Machines need maintenance. Machines can only be created if there is enough capital and enough labor to maintain the machines. In your self-sufficient society, how is your society going to even maintain enough space to produce all the goods necessary? And if the products are mass produced, then wouldn't it be better to trade the excess amount of goods, since the machines can produce more products then the society desires.

Machines are actually included in comparative advantage analysis.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:15:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:47:20 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 6:03:20 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/14/2011 5:51:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/14/2011 3:12:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
Your main problem, Tiel, is that almost no comparative advantage is purely by a learnable skill, but usually by the geography or demographics of a particular location. It would also be inefficient to create a factory for creating high-quality cloths in both settlements when it is only really needed in one settlement.

Reply: 1.) I see no problem. Self sufficiency and comparative advantage compliment each other. The difference is that comparative advantage should never be depended on for survival, only used for desirable items. If you see a major flaw with this, then point it out and I will address it properly.

The problem is, we can live better if we depend on comparative advantage for survival as well as wanted items. We should produce what we can produce best. I don't know how to create food, but I don't need to know how to create food.

Reply: I disagree. Prove it.

I don't know how to create food.
I'm alive.
. I don't need to know how to create food.

If I were to learn how to create food, which I don't have an aptitude for, it would detract from my learning of other things that I do have an aptitude for, and that I could use to better society as a whole.

If your dependent source for giving you food fails, you die.

In America, there are thousands of businesses that are capable of supplying me with food. If they are all wiped out somehow, I was probably wiped out with them.

2.) High quality factory made cloth is a desirable item, not a needed item for survival.

However, what if what place is better suited for producing high-quality cloth because it is closer to the cotton? You can't teach that.

1.) You can grow cotton in green houses.

That is more inefficient than growing cotton without needing green houses.

2.) You don't need cotton, it is a desire.

There's still no reason to actually try to exchange comparative advantages like you are suggesting.

3.) If you want high quality cloth that bad then go live where they make it, or trade for it. Either way, you will not die with out.

Why would anyone move just for the sake of cotton? I'll trade, thank you very much.

4.) Fabric items can be made from many different materials besides cotton.

And if my settlement doesn't care to create any of them?

Also, a small high quality cloth factory could be built in each settlement.

However, this would be more inefficient, as per the law of economies of scale.

No, it wouldn't be inefficient as far as the self sufficient community is concerned. Your economics of scale does not apply to self sufficiency.

Economies of scale is used specifically for comparison in different scenarios. Of course it applies to self-sufficiency. If everyone tries self-sufficiently, you reduce the output of each producer of each good, which therefore makes production more expensive. You cannot wish away laws of economics, sorry.

Question: Why do you feel that this should not be the goal?

Because the goal should be efficiency. What do you gain from self-sufficiency? Trade isn't in danger of disappearing.

It is efficient. It's efficient towards self sufficiency. You gain stability and security from self sufficiency.

This stability and security will only be useful in a one-in-a-trillion chance. Meanwhile, it leads to significant cuts in actual efficiency, as in, work versus production.

No, trade won't disappear and it doesn't need to. I have already shown how trade would work.

Yet trade can work for essential goods, too. There's no good reason to change that.

Opinion: The settlement having it's own high quality factory is the most efficient solution.

Your opinion contradicts just about every law of economics known to man.

No, it doesn't. You must not know very much about any laws of economics as they apply to self sufficiency.

Laws of economics do not change when one becomes self-sufficient. It instead describes why such self-sufficiency is efficient.

It would be a welcome addition to the settlement if it fit the desires of the population.

However, this would also cut jobs in the other settlement. The end result would be producing the same amount of cloth with even more labor.

No, it wouldn't. The settlement's population would be able to produce enough people to do the work.

But wouldn't you rather have them doing other things to better society, instead of doing work that wouldn't be needed if it weren't for your attempts at self-sufficiency?

You must understand that we live in a day and age where people hardly need to do anything. An entire factory can pretty much do all the work with machines.

Then instead of needing more people, you'd need more machines.

Side note: I don't think that you are understanding the concept correctly. It is about modern day self sufficiency as the goal and how comparative advantage works in harmony with this idea.

Except that you're merely eliminating comparative advantage in some places and leaving it in others. I wouldn't call that "harmony."

Opinion: When you aren't dependent on trade and money, you can just live.

You'll still be dependent on your own work.

Machines provide this luxury for humans, it's just that the social structure is built around money and greed.

Unfounded claim.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:17:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 6:54:27 PM, Tiel wrote:
Reply: You don't really show how anything is wrong. You just refute it and act stubborn. You provide a weak case. Nothing I said is zero sum fallacy. You don't seem to understand the system very correctly.

The zero sum fallacy is the assumption that wealth is transferred, but not created. You claimed that the majority could only gain wealth by taking it from the minority. How is that not the zero sum fallacy?

I also asked for the math that you claimed would support your arguments. Go ahead, show us the math.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:41:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 7:04:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 6:57:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
Statement: Do not forget that humans have machines to do work now. This greatly reduces the demand of labor hours and gives a great amount of extra free time to the population. This raises the standard of living dramatically.

Machines need maintenance. Machines can only be created if there is enough capital and enough labor to maintain the machines. In your self-sufficient society, how is your society going to even maintain enough space to produce all the goods necessary? And if the products are mass produced, then wouldn't it be better to trade the excess amount of goods, since the machines can produce more products then the society desires.

Machines are actually included in comparative advantage analysis.

He would need these http://en.wikipedia.org... but they would also have to be smart enough to find resources on their own [many space exploration agencies and companies are looking into these to build habitats in outer space, but they still would need human oversight].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:45:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 7:41:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/14/2011 7:04:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/14/2011 6:57:42 PM, Tiel wrote:
Statement: Do not forget that humans have machines to do work now. This greatly reduces the demand of labor hours and gives a great amount of extra free time to the population. This raises the standard of living dramatically.

Machines need maintenance. Machines can only be created if there is enough capital and enough labor to maintain the machines. In your self-sufficient society, how is your society going to even maintain enough space to produce all the goods necessary? And if the products are mass produced, then wouldn't it be better to trade the excess amount of goods, since the machines can produce more products then the society desires.

Machines are actually included in comparative advantage analysis.

He would need these http://en.wikipedia.org... but they would also have to be smart enough to find resources on their own [many space exploration agencies and companies are looking into these to build habitats in outer space, but they still would need human oversight].

Come back to me in a few centuries and we can see if this becomes a reality or not. It is theoretically possible for society to advance so much that nobody would feel the need to work since they have so much wealth. However, this will not occur in the near future.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 7:50:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also I'm going to go with genetically altering human beings so that they are intelligent and be willing to work for free as the way of the future.

Genetically altered humans > Robots.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 8:17:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like human house elves? Essentially creating a lower class of humans to enslave for original humans? That doesn't seem right.