"Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message
news:12256fc1-cdbd-44c1-9d5a-4ff3c15224e2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 12:41 pm, "Tim" q.con> wrote:

Even your vaunted economists wouldn't say that. They are not free - as
most goods aren't - because there are costs involved in producing them
- and luxury cars are costlier to produce than ordinary cars. But
those added costs have nothing to do with scarcity. Not long ago
computers were very expensive. Now comparable computers are in fact
virtually free - or cost pennies (current computers of course aren't
comparable - they have far more power).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh wouldn't they? Why do most vaunted economists define economics as the
study of the allocation of scarce resources then? Please, just one example
of a free good, just one. Now, as to costs, you have completely failed to
realize that the raw materials, labour, and capital that go into producing a
good are scarce; that's why they have a cost associated with them. If a
business could plug an extension cord into a tree to get electricity then
they wouldn't purchase electricity off of the grid. Economies of scale are
responsible for the increase in purchasing power re. computers; e.o.s do not
do away with scarcity.