[zosima]

For many commodities the opposite relation is true.

Only when the commodities are used in a high enough quantity is there enough incentive to really try to create as much of them as possible.

I don't think lobster is more scarce these days, than it was in the past. Rather the opposite.

[Turskarama]

It is extremely funny to me that you used lobsters as an example, as fishery collapse is probably the single most common type of resource exhaustion.

[zosima]

The choice of lobster was because I replied to a comment claiming lobster had become a luxury good, due to increasing rarity.

Here is some index of north american lobster catch: http://www.asmfc.org/species/american-lobster

Looks as though it may have stalled a bit since 2015. But before that lobster catch definitely grew a lot.

Obviously with things like lobsters there'll be geographical variations, but I don't think there's any reason to suppose that lobsters have become a luxury good due to scarcity.

[sudhirc]

This paper disagrees with you.

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/suppl_1/i7/62044...

[defrost]

    Evidence of lobster use comprises midden remains, artwork, artefacts, writings about lobsters, and written sources describing the fishing practices of indigenous peoples. 

I can't be the only one that loves a massive untouched midden pile.

+1 for your paper.

[zosima]

No it doesn't. It claims overfishing in many areas. Not a decline in lobster.

[sudhirc]

Seems like I am confused. Are you saying decline due to over fishing is acceptable? Doesn't that contradicts unlimited abundance argument?

[zosima]

Yes, your reply seems a bit disoriented.

Overlobstering is a despicable habit which should be stopped wherever it's happening.

It's just neither driving lobsters status as a luxury good, nor is it significantly affecting the amount of lobster.