The Economist recently ran a piece describing oil, grains, fluids, wood, etc. all as pure commodities, which they describe as
“A comparatively homogeneous product that can typically be bought in bulk.”
I take issue with this extraordinarily narrow view of structures and things on this planet. I won’t even call them resources, because that loads them for human use. What about the non-market value of molecules, trees, wetlands or silicon? Commodity markets are among some of the strongest; as a result, both prices and trade have increased over the past few years.
Here’s the simple kicker: there are no infinite resources. In the economic long run, all categories and values of resources will be depleted and as they become more scarce, prices will rise.
So what’s the net outcome? Those with money get the goods.
But what if we refuse to conceptualize the ’stuff’ of this universe as solely an economic unit? How much is the Amazon rain-forest worth to this planet, for example? With daily harbingers of climate change and environmental destruction, perhaps the value of an object like this has risen.
I’m not certain what I’m trying to get at here, but just think about things in a different way, ok?
UPDATE: see: oil above $90/barrel.
light.sweet.crude.
