No.71565
Human population will inevitably outstrip natural resources. Peak Wheat and Peak Oil production have already been reached.
No.71568
The market is about allocating limited resources, not creating them ex nihilo.
No.71571
>>71565
How will the market handle ancient debunked theory based on shaky Smithian assumptions?
https://mises.org/library/malthusian-trap
>peak wheat production has already been reached
We're overproducing and far from the peak. Oil doesn't have to stay forever and we keep finding more oil each year. Instead of a decline there's a continuing rise.
No.71573
>>71570
>>71571
But the second sentence was bait.
No.71574
>>71565
This →>>71568. If you do not understand that all resources are scarce, then of course you are going to look at that chart and scratch your head. Also fuck peak oil, there isn't any such thing right now. They have been calling peak oil since the '60s. Plus before then we will move into Thorium and Chloride Salt Fast Reactors. Take a look at the future of energy my friend.
http://www.elysiumindustries.com/
No.71575
No.71576
>>71575
Oh, you're serious. It's California, of course they squandered their water.
No.71577
>>71575
This is worldwide.>>71576
No.71578
>>71575
A lot of that issue has to do with the state subsidizing crops, especially crops that would not normally grow there.
No.71579
>>71565
First of all, this: >>71568
What would be likely to happen, if a natural resource was getting scarce, would be for the owners to hold it back and release it to the market over a longer period of time. To the same effect, speculators might buy it up and then release it over a longer period, anticipating rising prices in the future (due to higher scarcity).
No.71580
>>71579
ummm that resource is food. It's not like consumers can forgo that and wait for prices to drop…..>>71579
No.71581
>>71580
I was focusing on the oil. Concerning wheat, as people don't like to starve, we'll come up with a substitute. It may not be a cheap substitute, but that's fine, as food is currently a negligible expense in the developed world. And the underdeveloped world, well, our response to them will be to embrace the market and stop wasting their money on petty wars no one cares about.
Assuming, of course, that there is indeed such a thing as peak wheat. I have my doubts, as the environmentalist lobby is notoriously manipulative.
No.71588
You have a specialized system for allocating scarce goods and you think it's going to die of scarcity? Stop meddling before you break everything!
No.71603
No.71604
No.71632
>>71591
Surely you mean "insufficiently regulated" because we are not even close to "unregulated" free trade.
No.71647
Psst. The methane deposits already broke. It wasn't even human action. We're headed toward a prehistoric maximum - expect a four degree rise no matter what political positions are taken.
No.71691
>>71565
>Human population will inevitably outstrip natural resources.
citation needed
No.71698
>>71565
People have been saying we've hit 'Peak X' since the 19th century, coal, natural gas, arable land, oil, etc. have been again and again predicted to be exhausted any time now. Yet with each year the natural resources available to be used has increased. In essence all resources are inexhaustible it just becomes less economical over time unless there is an increase in technology. But say that suddenly the world becomes static and technological improvement ceases, the free market has mechanisms to naturally limit consumption of scarce resources far more efficiently through the price system. If oil prices goes up due to scarcity, all the products that use oil go up in price, which reduce the amount demanded from consumers which naturally limits consumption.
This is stuff you learn about in like economic classes in High school, at least they taught this where I went to school. I don't get how people just don't know this by osmosis by now.
No.71796
>>71698
Supply and demand.. sure.. What happens when the supply isn't enough to meet demand?
I guess those that cannot afford food and water will simply die off in a "market adjustment"
No.71809
>>71796
When there is not enough food to feed everyone, people die. Simple as that, and there's no way to prevent it, unless you assume that market interventions can somehow create food where there was none before. Jesus did that. Are you Jesus?
Please, refrain from being a moralizing, hysterical cunt in the future.
No.71817
>>71809
Of course, we have to assume that the supply lowers sharply enough for people to be unable to adapt in time.
No.71835
>>71817
It's not like there's politicians trying to keep the shortage a secret.
No.71836
>>71796
Most often shortages of food, presently, are a result of price controls. The market, through innovation and efficiency, responds rather well to demand unless an artificial constant is placed upon it. If there was an intense explosion in the population of world faster than the market could adapt to, then I would say you have a point. However, even if you look at African famine and their population growth rate, you cannot draw a correlation between the two.
No.71844
>>71836
Peter Bowbrick had some interesting thoughts on food rationing during famines, if you wanna check him out. And he destroyed mainstream famine research, too.
No.71861
>>71591
Have you tried ending state subsidisation and control of the energy sector?
(Russia, China, Venezuela, Brazil…)
No.71866
>Human population will inevitably outstrip natural resources.
Human population finds new ways to allocate limited resources every day.
>Peak Wheat and Peak Oil production have already been reached
And we're figuring out how to make oil from bacteria's shit, and we're throwing away shit tons of food daily.
Resource shortages are a legal issue in most cases, and the only places that have massive shortages of anything these days for more than a couple years because of natural disasters are places with shit tons of legal mumbo jumbo and overpopulation from living in low-tech countries which are partially low-tech in the first place because of legal issues.
No.71877
>>71568
to further expand upon this, what you are describing happens in nature outside of humans too
when rats eat all the food in an area, and cant escape it, some starve, fertility rates go down ect and the next generation eats a bit better since there are less
now with a market you can allocate them pretty well, but humans both in and out of a market (although I cant think of any way to do this better then a market) are constantly pushing to extract the resources more efficiently as well
No.71887
>>71844
>Peter Bowbrick
Hadn't heard of him before, I will check out his work. Thanks for sharing.
No.71888
No.71892
>>71888
you did not convince me
No.71950
As long as humans don't decline intellectually, populations can create as much resources as they need to consume.
The question is how you reverse the low-IQ high-fertility problem.
No.71951
>>71835
This is one of the big hazards from state action. Attempts to prevent hoarding, speculation, panic, and/or gouging add up to a potent inhibition against market-function disaster response. Statism is one of the big hazards in resource collapse X-risk scenarios because states might indeed prevent people from reacting appropriately to shortages.
No.72035
>>71892
you didn't read them.
No.72038
>>72035
None of these present a significant threat of sudden collapse of anything. Maybe you didn't read them yourself?The titles sound baity to lure you into reading. The texts only refer to already existing difficulties the market has and keeps dealing with.
No.72097
>>72038
who said anything about this being sudden?,,, it's slow but inevitable. You won't even start to feel the pinch until around 2060. (but it will happen)
No.72104
>>72097
>it's slow but inevitable
That's just it. It's easily foreseeable and slow enough to react.
No.72129
No.72157
>>72104
so what are you going to do about it?
No.72158
>>72157
I already am. The world is. I'm using as much as I can and need to. When prices go up and I have to watch my consumption I will. No higher authority or force has to do anything about that.
No.72170
>>71581
Tell that to bangladesh in 1943. They'll totally understand.
Acting like a literal kulak for holding fois because muh prices.
No.72171
>>72170
The straw is strong with this one.
No.72176
>>72170
what would you do instead? make a rule that prevents it?
No.72177
>>72170
>muh prices
Come up with a better method of resource allocation.
No.72181
>>72177
If I bring up Cockshott and Allende's application of his theory you are just going to shoot it down for not citing Misus.
Screw off.
No.72192
>>72181
The reason why I don't shut up about it is because it shows what hecks they are. I criticized them in more detail at other occasions. For example, they simply missed the point of the calculation-problem in Towards a New Socialism, and in a paper, they covertly took income to measure labor time. There's plenty of reasons not to take these two niggers serious. Another reason is that no lefty has proven actually capable of summing them up. Instead, you drop a paper by them and expect us to read it. That's a pretty good indicator that you yourself don't know what exactly they're talking about, you're just glad they exist and have (supposedly) btfo'd us.
No.72201
>>72181
We shoot it down for not addressing its critique not only because it's poor practice, but because it has no answer to it at all as well. He doesn't address Mises because he would be unable to even begin.
No.72466
>>71575
>>71575
extract oxygen out of silicate rocks and combine it with space hydrogen lol
No.80968
>>71892
picrelated, its you