Re: [ox-en] Commons in a taxonomy of goods

2010/6/18 Stefan Meretz <stefan-/[email protected]>:
> On 2010-06-17 01:11, Diego Saravia wrote:
>> economy is a social science,
>
> you mean: a social process...

mmm, that is an ontological discussion

we are speaking about the science, how to classify "goods"

>> a good is not a good without society
>
> true
>
>> all goods properties are social ones.
>
> nope, temperature is a physical one, just for instance

ok, but that is outside of economy science, is about thermodynamics science

not all goods are physical ones, others have several different
temperatures or continuous ones , etc

>> I do not understand what do you want to say with this text:
>>
>> "Scarcity is not a goods property, but a social form of goods to be
>> produced (namely: commodity)."
>
> Goods are not scarce by its nature (like having a temperature).

They are scarce by its economic nature, its depends on the good, and
what their consumers want.

> If they
> are produced as commodities, then they are scarce, because if they are
> not scarce, they will not be sold.

Its not about commerce. You can be Robinson Crusoe, produce a good, and it can
be scarce

>Thus scarcity is a social form of
> goods being produced as commodities.

not all goods, binary free software packages can be produced allmost
without any marginal cost, and distributed arround all the planet

they are not scarce, they are free

ok, we can argue about what is a commodity

>> If you have 5 apples and 6 persons, and every person want an apple
>> you can say that apples are scarce

> No, the availability of apples may be limited at one time at a location.

off course, you say its not a phisical property like T, is an economic
one, it depends on demand.

> Limitedness and scarcity are two different things. If you need more
> apples, then more apples can be produced to overcome current
> limitations.

ok, we can define such a property "limitedness"

but it is not obvious than you can produce more apples, you need
trees,  land, work, etc

If you take a simple model without thinking about capital, you need to
work to get apples, and if you
put work in apples you will not get all the oranges you need, so, the
scarcity cames from other place in that case: work

> However, if you produce apples as commodities, then they
> are scarce and none of the 6 persons wanting apples get one of the
> million apples being produced unless they exchange them with money.

money in the case of a "modern" economy

> Scarcity is a precondition of being a commodity, thus a social form of
> products being produced as commodities.

let think on more fundametal variables: work, apples, oranges, we do
not need to think about money, or commodities in this discussion, or
even commerce or interchange. We can think about a small family
economy to argue about "goods classification". 3 brothers in an island

we do not need more than 3

2 for a "club"

3 are all population


>> so you need people and apples, its a social problem
>
> That's what I say: The way of production is a social (societal)
> question.

ok, we agree on that

>> but I do not understand what this can mean in terms off clasical
>> goods clasification for you
>
> Classical goods classification is inappropriate, as shown. They mix
> socially produced with natural properties.

natural properties? I do not see no one  in classical arguments



-- 
Diego Saravia
[email protected]
NO FUNCIONA->dsa-AySywPH+/[email protected]

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]