

The one thing I dislike about “THE LEFT NARRATIVE”, and I am generally left leaning, is that “left” people pretend that “left” solutions somehow end scarcity or end things costing.
That can’t be true. Just because a new solution would be more social oriented, doesn’t mean it suddenly doesn’t take material, time, effort and education to do things.
The market economy, in theory, finds fair and correct prices. Obviously when it’s being manipulated that’s not true. But people criticizing it must show some understanding that what they are criticizing is the malfunction and the unlimited negative consequences and NOT the concept of “some things are rare”.
So no. Scarcity is not a political choice. It is a natural fact.
Artificial scarcity, that’s a choice.
Yes. And sometimes that’s true and sometimes it’s NOT true. That’s my point.
The way the authors use the word confuses the two. Which is wrong and bad and not helping.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scarce
“deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand : not plentiful or abundant”
Let’s be really clear here with an example:
Housing is scarce. That is a FACT. No amount of taxation or even change of ownership will change that housing is scarce right now. That’s scarcity. We could have a complete and happy and peaceful world revolution tomorrow, socialize everything and the day after tomorrow there would still be scarcity. That’s what the word means.
As for how to solve this problem and where to get the money to invest into housing, that’s where taxing the rich comes in.
But even then we are limited by the amount of material we right now and the amount of people who can work in construction right now and the amount of machines we can use to build new housing right now.
Again, do tax the rich. And that does depend on political will.
Just be very clear in the messaging of what that can solve and what it can not solve.