alt Hacker News> That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit.
Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity.
> If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it.
Hence resource allocation. If there were an infinite number of apples, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity.
> There is a large social element involved
There is only the human social element involved. There isn't a magical deity in the sky waving a magic wand or a group of space aliens from Xylos IV deciding who gets what. Resources are allocated only by how people, and people alone, decide they want to allocate them.
You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. It is simply something people made up at random and decided to run with it. People could, in theory, change their mind on a whim such that suddenly you could become able to afford something.
> The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources
Now you're finally starting to get on-topic. So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Not going to happen. The harsh reality is that creating problems is human nature.
That is quite hard to marry up with
> Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it.
though. If there are n people who want things and (n-1) things, then someone being unable to afford something isn't some pretend state. There is certainly an element of social construct in that the word we use is "afford", if we all agreed to use a different word that'd be possible. But the thing/people ratio being below one is not a social construct; and whatever you want to call it and whatever allocation scheme you want to use there will still be people who can't have one. Someone can't afford the thing.
> You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe.
In many cases it is. Eg, topically, how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Ditto most energy emasures like watts of solar energy or power from nuclear decay.
> So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment?
Well I suppose I don't. Although I'll admit the question is too convoluted for me to be sure of that.