Scarcity

2011-10-14

Scarcity means that there isn't enough to go around. It has been an prominent assumption in free-market economic ideology. The feeling of scarcity feeds cut-throat competitiveness and class tensions (rich versus poor, ethnicity versus ethnicity, man versus woman). Such tension shows itself most in hard times, as they are now.

Fortunately, no one has actually ever proved that there isn't enough. Certainly, our resources are limited, so there isn't "enough" for everyone to be really wasteful, or for unlimited growth. But there might be enough for everyone to have food in their belly's, a decent roof over their head, education, health care, and time and places to socializes. In fact, some evidence suggests that there really is enough. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the world already grows enough food everyone (Ziegler, 2008). We should be a little cautious about this estimate, since high-tech commercial agricultural practices in use today are generally quite ecologically primitive and far from sustainable. Still, there's a good chance that we can sustainably grow enough food for the entire world population for the time being.

If we consider the monetary wealth in just the United States, the gross domestic product per person per year is about 46,000 in year 2000 U.S. dollars. That should be plenty to cover the needs of every person. Note that this amount would have to cover the cost of all public services per person.

Whether or not there is enough, the rich are not off the hook, nor are the middle class, nor even the poor. If we waste too much by consuming products and services that do not make us happier or harm ourselves, others, and the environment, then we may easily not have enough. If we consume our natural resources at too high a rate (which we do), then our resources, included renewable resources, will run dry very quickly (as they already are in cases such as lumber and fish and many other things). If some people horde way too many of our total available resources (which they do), then some deserving people won't have enough (as plenty don't). Whether or not some people are lazy or otherwise undeserving of receiving enough, if some of us waste and horde too much, there won't be enough for deserving and hardworking people either.

Thus, if we are to be humane, we must consume responsibly and save responsibly. If we find ourselves hoarding too much despite trying not to in the first place, we better give some of our resources back. We must also do our part to work so that we can "harvest" our own share of renewable resources. Note that I'm not arguing for large-state socialism, but rather for individual responsibility. I also agree firmly with Schumacher that meaningful work rather than welfare is important for people's well being.

As one final note, getting enough relies on being able to mobilize resources to where they are needed. All too often, people are unable to get enough because of political and logistical reasons or simply greed. The vast food deserts in Chicago ghettos are a good example. So too is the city of Kinshasa in the DRC, where abundant food grows just across the Congo river, but Kinshasans are unable to transport the food and so go hungry. So too are the many cases in which suppliers rather waste food than sell to the poor at prices they can afford. We need to work towards making sure that enough can get to those who need it.