Imagine you are stranded in a desert and you only have one bottle of water left. You are thirsty and desperate for a drink, but you also know that you will need the water to survive until you can find more. This is a classic example of scarcity: you have a limited amount of a resource (water) and you must make choices about how to best use it.
In this situation, you might decide to ration it and take small sips over a longer period of time to make it last as long as possible. Alternatively, you might decide to drink as much as you can in one go, satisfying your thirst momentarily, but this burst of hydration may not be enough to give you the energy to find more water in the future. Regardless of which choice you make, you are faced with a difficult decision.
Scarcity applies to all resources, not just water. Whether it’s money, time or even love and attention, we are constantly faced with choices about how to allocate our limited resources.

Scarcity forces us to weigh the pros and cons of how we use our resources and make trade-offs.
There are two types of scarcity
- Artificial scarcity, also known as centralized scarcity, includes things like limited-edition designer bags, rare sports cards, and numbered art pieces. These can be easily replicated or counterfeited.
- Natural scarcity, also known as decentralized scarcity, includes things like oceanfront property and precious metals like gold. These are harder to replicate or counterfeit.
The main difference between the two is control.
Centralized scarcity is determined by a single entity, like a company or government, while decentralized scarcity is not controlled by anyone. An example of centralized scarcity is that of luxury, limited-edition fashion items, such as bags or sneakers: it would be virtually costless for the company to produce 1,000 more units, but the elevated price is controlled by this artificially determined scarcity. It is the company’s control over the number of units which determines their value. By contrast, the only way to find and exploit salt, shells or gold is by expending a considerable amount of effort and energy (or ‘work’). In the case of these naturally scarce resources, that expense only makes sense economically if the resulting good is highly valued.
No one person or group controls the price of a naturally occurring resource to influence its price, but it’s the other way around: it is the demand for that good in the market which determines whether energy should be expended to extract more of it.
Scarcity influences our choices. Understanding it can improve our decision-making: we are often faced with the choice between immediate gains and long-term benefits, and these trade-offs shape our path to achieving our goals.
Example of time preference
You have the option to receive $100 today or $110 in a year. If you have a high time preference, you might choose to receive the $100 today because you value having the $100 now more than the benefits of waiting a year for the extra $10. On the other hand, if you have a low time preference, you’ll prefer to wait for the larger reward because you are more focused on long-term planning and less concerned with immediate gratification.

Time preference refers to the idea that people generally prefer to have something NOW rather than later.
Going back to the earlier example of the bottle of water in the desert, drinking all the water right away, even if it means you won’t have any left for later, shows a high time preference: the thirst you feel in that moment is so pressing that you discount the thirst you might feel in the future in favor of satisfying your present thirst. This is perfectly natural: we tend to prefer present gratification over present privation for a future benefit, because the future is always uncertain.
Trying to ration water by taking small sips at a time, on the other hand, demonstrates a lower time preference and a rational allocation of a scarce resource. This means you are willing to delay satisfying your thirst in the present to improve your long-term chances of survival. This does not come naturally and requires significant effort, self-control and future orientation.

Opportunity cost refers to the value of the next best alternative that you give up when you make a decision. Every decision involves trade-offs, and so every decision carries an opportunity cost.
In the desert example, the opportunity cost of drinking all the water right away is the survival benefits you would have gained from rationing the water and using it over a longer period of time.
Let’s say you decide to ration the water and take small sips over a longer period of time. As a result, you have the energy and hydration you need to search for more water. While you are searching, you come across a cactus that contains a small amount of water. It’s not a lot, but it’s enough to quench your thirst for the moment. If you had decided to drink all of your water at once, you might not have had the energy to search for more water and come across the cactus.
In this case, the opportunity cost of drinking all of your water at once would have been the chance to find the cactus and get more hydration.
This example illustrates how opportunity cost involves not just the immediate trade-off between two options, but also the potential future opportunities that may be gained or lost as a result of our choices.
Our willingness to give up a larger reward in the future in exchange for a smaller reward now is influenced by our time preference, or how much we value immediate gratification versus long-term planning.
Activity: Time preference
- Listen to the teacher’s explanation of the candy choice.
- Decide whether you would like to receive a small candy or marshmallow now or wait until the end of the class to receive two candies or a larger, more desirable candy.
- Commit to your decision and let the teacher know your choice. Receive your candy either immediately or at the end of the class, based on your decision.
- Participate in the class discussion about the activity, reflecting on your decision-making process and the concept of time preference.
Conclusion and Discussion
- What factors influenced your decision to take the candy now or wait for a larger reward later?
- How do you feel about your decision now that the activity is over?
- Can you think of real-life examples where high time preference might be harmful and where low time preference might be beneficial?
- What are some potential consequences of choosing high time preference over low time preference?