alt Hacker News> But what if they stop believing?
That is what I'm asking you. Are you saying that you just want to use a different word capture the idea that only one person can have the apple? Because instead of saying Mr A can't afford the apple you're saying that Mr A can't have the apple because of a divine right ... that looks a lot like it has the same implications as affordability.
The social construct you're pointing at is the labelling of the situation rather than the underlying physics of the situation, is where I'm going with this. If scarcity is a factor, then affordability exists as a reality. You can relabel it as a social construct, but you can't escape the real world.
> Do you mean like if you attempted to take oil that isn't considered to be yours that an army will roll in and destroy you?
I mean that more than the social limits, the real limits are the bigger part of why I can't do what I want with oil.
> that looks a lot like it has the same implications as affordability.
Exactly. Now you're starting to get it. Mr B being able to get an apple by "devine right" and him being able to afford the apple are the exact same thing. And as you witnessed, Mr B was suddenly able to afford an apple he previously may not have been able to afford just because on a whim people changed what they believed in. So, as you can now plainly see, resource allocation is entirely a social construct, just as I said originally.
> The social construct you're pointing at is the labelling of the situation rather than the underlying physics of the situation, is where I'm going with this.
In other words you are trying to randomly change the subject? Resource scarcity is a thing. That much is true. We couldn't recognize resource allocation if it wasn't. But it is not the particular subject we are discussing.
The discussion, in case you have already forgotten, is about how better resource allocation would, apparently, solve many other problems people face. Whereas I am dubious of the claim. My take is that if humans are screwing up something as simple as resource allocation, they're going to continue to also screw up everything else even after you've taken resource allocation out of their hands such that all the other problems will remain.
Is this weird diversion of yours because you want to support the original assertion emotionally but can't actually stand behind it logically and hoping that if you can steer us into talking about something else that that we'll forget all about it?