>
> "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:

>> "Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message

>
>
>

>> Wrong, again-zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Luxury cars aren't free
>> because -- here it comes, again-snore -- THEY _ARE_ SCARCE.

>
> 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.