<p>For completeness, you might want to include the definition of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility" rel="noreferrer">Fungibility</a> as well:  "In economics, fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are essentially interchangeable, and each of its parts is indistinguishable from another part."</p>

<p>If you have a collection of objects, and each object is (in some relevant sense) interchangeable with any of the other objects, then they are <em>fungible</em> and thus a <em>commodity</em>.  If there aren't very many of them, they may be <em>scarce</em>.</p>

<p>However, if you have a collection of objects, none of which are interchangeable with any others in a relevant sense, then they are essentially unique objects.  You could still say that they were <em>scarce</em> (there is only one of each) but not that they are <em>commodities</em>... though in practice, people typically don't refer to unique objects as <em>scarce</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-11T16:52:02.597Z
2019-06-11T16:52:02.597Z
Bill Clark
<p>I feel like Wikipedia may be misleading me in a subtle or egregious way.</p>

<p>The very first line of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Scarcity</a> is:  "Scarcity is the limited availability of a commodity..."</p>

<p>It does, of course, helpfully provide that "a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">commodity</a> is an economic good or service that has full or substantial fungibility..."</p>

<p>My question, then, is:  Does it really make no sense in economics to discuss the scarcity of non-fungible goods?</p>

<p>(In the interest of full disclosure, my interest in the subject is mostly related to thinking around whether post-scarcity has anything at all to say about non-commodities, but that's quite a different set of questions.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-11T16:48:59.730Z
What is an example of a non-fungible good?
Herr K.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-11T20:18:16.213Z
An original Picasso is an example of a non-fungible good.  It's certainly scarce in that there's a limited quantity -- namely, one.  It's not a commodity, for the same reason (there is no substitute for unique items.)
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-12T01:13:57.057Z
*Time* is always scarce, because it's always fleeting. IDK if that's typically considered a "commodity", but time is the ultimate scarcity.
David Zemens
<macroeconomics>
Does scarcity apply only to commodities?
Roger
# Does scarcity apply only to commodities?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-11)

I feel like Wikipedia may be misleading me in a subtle or egregious way.

The very first line of [Scarcity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity) is: "Scarcity is the limited availability of a commodity..."

It does, of course, helpfully provide that "a [commodity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity) is an economic good or service that has full or substantial fungibility..."

My question, then, is: Does it really make no sense in economics to discuss the scarcity of non-fungible goods?

(In the interest of full disclosure, my interest in the subject is mostly related to thinking around whether post-scarcity has anything at all to say about non-commodities, but that's quite a different set of questions.)

**Tags:** macroeconomics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What is an example of a non-fungible good?  
> **username_2**: An original Picasso is an example of a non-fungible good.  It's certainly scarce in that there's a limited quantity -- namely, one.  It's not a commodity, for the same reason (there is no substitute for unique items.)  
> **username_3**: *Time* is always scarce, because it's always fleeting. IDK if that's typically considered a "commodity", but time is the ultimate scarcity.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-06-11. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

For completeness, you might want to include the definition of [Fungibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility) as well: "In economics, fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are essentially interchangeable, and each of its parts is indistinguishable from another part."

If you have a collection of objects, and each object is (in some relevant sense) interchangeable with any of the other objects, then they are *fungible* and thus a *commodity*. If there aren't very many of them, they may be *scarce*.

However, if you have a collection of objects, none of which are interchangeable with any others in a relevant sense, then they are essentially unique objects. You could still say that they were *scarce* (there is only one of each) but not that they are *commodities*... though in practice, people typically don't refer to unique objects as *scarce*.


---

