>>On Sep 9, 10:36 am, "Andy F."
tesco.net> wrote:>>> "Fred Weiss"
papertig.com> wrote in message>
>>> It's clearly and obviously always true that nobody except a slave ever
>>> works
>> for less than what they're willing to work for.
>
>>If all you have are tautologies to offer in this discussion, there's
>>not much point in continuing it.
>
> That's right. If I say something that's obviously true, it's pointless for
> you to argue with it. But you're going to argue anyway.
-------------------------
Yes, unfortunately for fweddy, he basis his 'theories' on his reading of ayn
rand novels and not on facts garnered from observing matters in the real
world (rand did the same thing; so we have a snowballing of half-baked ideas
adding to one another to give a junk heap mish-mash of incoherent
proclamations about the world).
-------------------------
>
>
>>The fact is many people work for less than they *want to*. The
>>exigencies of the market, plus the context of their own particular
>>careers/profession sometimes makes that necessary. Does that make them
>>slaves?
>
> That's a silly question which has nothing to do with what I said.
>
>>>>For example, a product can be in great supply precisely because people
>>>>don't want it. There are times even that you can't "give 'em away" and
>>>>you actually have to pay people to dispose of it for you.The same
>>>>thing can be true of a product in short supply.
>>>
>>> That only ever happens for short periods.That's why I said 'in
>>> equilibrium'.
>
>>Now are you going to tautologically define "short periods" so that you
>>never have to address the clear fact that supply is often not the
>>determinant of value?
>
> You're just blathering because you can't find a single example which might
> prove me wrong.
>
-----------------------------------
Exactly, fweddy doesn't know the difference between short run and the runs
in his stockings.
------------------------------------
>> Besides, how do you explain the differential in
>>pricing when two or more diverse and completely different products are
>>in similar supply? (The variation of course has as much, if not more,
>>to do with *demand* which also can have relatively little to do with
>>the "labor" involved - either on the part of those wanting it or those
>>supplying it).
>
> How do I explain what? You haven't given a single example of anything.
>
>>>>Supply can be a
>>>>variable. But it can also be completely irrelevant to economic value.
>>>
>>> Only a complete ignoramus would make such a silly statement.
>
>>Bald assertions don't add any logical weight to tautologies. When you
>>can explain how some products in relatively short supply can still be
>>relatively worthless while some others in relative abundance can still
>>be much sought after, then and only then are you in a position to make
>>such pronouncements.
>
> I'm in a position to make as many pronouncements as I want.
>
> If you need to have basic economic concepts explained to you, then I would
> reccommend reading a book such as "Very Basic Economics For Dummies And
> Morons"
>
>>>>In relation to my Edison example, before even a single light bulb was
>>>>produced for commercial production, the invention itself was worth a
>>>>fortune. The value was in *the potential*, underscoring even more the
>>>>uselessness of "labor" as a measure of economic value.
>>
>>> You mean the patent rights were worth a fortune.
>>> Patent rights, of course, were created by the government in order to
>>> reward
>>> inventors for their * labor*.
>
>>Then why aren't patents granted for every invention submitted, even
>>those which involved comparable (or even greater) *labor* to those
>>accepted?
>
> Patents are only refused if it's not a real invention, or if the labor
> involved is trivial.
>
>>And how can mere "patent rights" be worth a fortune before a single
>>drop of labor has been exercised in bringing them to market?
>
> That doesn't happen.Nobody ever got a patent without doing some work.If
> you don't believe me, here's what Edison said:
>
> "I never did anything by accident, nor did any of my inventions come by
> accident; they came by work. "
>
>
>>And why
>>are some patents worth more than others, even if the labor involved in
>>creating them may be significantly less (or vice versa)?
>
> That's because the labor of a genius is worth more than the labor of an
> idiot.
>
>>>>Thus and once again the labor that went into it is irrelevant, at
>>>>least as a fundamental determinant of economic value - even the labor
>>>>you put into acquiring it.
>>
>>> "What people are willing to work for " has got everything to do with the
>>> value of labor.
>
>>Even if no one is willing to pay you what you are willing to work for?
>
> Yes, obviously. If they don't pay what I'm willing to work for, they don't
> get the goods.
>
>>You still need to get a clue - but apparently you are not willing to
>>do so. But until then I'm not willing to see any value in your
> .arguments, no matter how much labor you exert in presenting them.
>
> There isn't any labour involved. I'm doing it for fun.
>
>
