There is a distinction between the laws of logic, laws of nature (scientific laws), moral laws, political laws, social constructs that become trends, and random, happenstance patterns. Sometimes what falls into the latter two categories is arbitrarily called a "law" even though it is not a necessary truth of logic, a natural phenomenon in the external world, or a legal rule. Moreover, certain things in the latter two categories might even be wrongly treated in a reductionistic manner as a fixed, driving force of economics when their actual significance and scope are much smaller than the misrepresentations suggest.
The "law" of supply and demand is an example of such a thing. The core idea is that when there is a large supply of something that can be purchased, consumers are not willing to spend as much on it and the prices drop as a consequence. Inversely, when the supply of something is small, people are supposedly willing to spend more money to obtain it than they otherwise would because demand is allegedly high. While people sometimes act in a way consistent with these ideas, it is only in select circumstances, and this reaction to temporary or permanent scarcity and abundance is by no means a "law" of logic, nature, or moral philosophy. Sincerely calling a situational trend like this a "law" as some do signifies a lack of rationality.
Just because supply is small does not mean there is enormous demand or even any demand at all for a given item or service. Also, that a supply of something is limited does not mean that thing is economically valuable, and vice versa. Suppose a person has a small container filled with the only trash on the planet. Does the small existing quantity of the trash mean it is worth immense resources? Other than those who sincerely but arbitrarily wish to own actual trash, would anyone even have an interest in exchanging money for such a thing? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Trash would not be inherently valuable just because there is only one container full of it.
Someone might hypothetically be willing to pay a large amount of money to study or collect the trash due to its rarity, but this would never be a logically necessary outcome, as it also might come about that no one at all has interest in owning it whatsoever. All of that depends on the personalities and goals of the specific people involved. Wares like food will be pursued more than non-vital, miscellaneous items, but the fact that many people might pay more for food in times of scarcity does not mean that a small supply of something else like trash will even generate any interest at all. The popular conception of supply and demand is not a "law" of any sort. At most, it is a very limited trend that could change at any time even when people are paying more for rare things.
Supply and demand are factors that do impact community and national economies, and to deny that they have some relevance in certain cases is erroneous. It is simply also true that supply and demand do not form an inevitable, inherent structure that all economies are strictly bound to. The nature of various wares and the subjective priorities of potential buyers might lead to actions like those predicted by supply and demand reductionist and also might not. This is because supply and demand are just two of many factors that can have wildly differing impacts on a given situation. As important in a practical sense as they can be, all economic systems are mere social constructs, including popular components like the irrational reductionism surrounding supply and demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment