"Publius"
nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B19E6FB8AAA7mpubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.250...> "Tim"
q.con> wrote in
> news:-4edndXBfehz5VDVnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@aci.on.ca:
>>>> Perhaps you can grasp the point if put this way.
>>> If "labor" is a fundamental component of market value, then how do
>>> you explain the market value of labor itself?
>
>> Supply and demand. S and D exist due to scarcity. Scarcity allows a
>> good or service to command a positive price in a market. Labour, among
>> other things, is a service. I'm letting go of your hand now.
>>
>>> Labor itself has value,
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>> which
>>> differs greatly depending upon the type of labor in question.
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>> Even you
>>> can probably see that trying to explain the the market value of labor
>>> in terms of the amount of labor invested in it would be circular.
>>
>> Who was trying to do that? Scarcity is the basis for the market value
>> of labour, and for the market value of anything else
>
> Aha. Now you're contradicting yourself. Previously, you declared that
> land,
> labor, and capital were the bases of market value. Now you say that
> "scarcity" is.
>
No, I said supply and demand from the get go, scarcity is the driving force
behind both supply and demand. I haven't contradicted myself at all. You've
simply demonstrated your inability to read.
> That might explain why the diamond-laden meteorite has a market value *in
> situ,* despite the fact that no labor has been invested in it. Diamond-
> laden meteorites are fairly rare, after all.
>
> Can we say, then, that labor has value, when it does (and it doesn't
> always), only when the particular labor in question is scarce?
>
> Note that we have to say "particular labor" here, because you insist on
> treating labor *per se* as a fundamental component of value, and refuse to
> analyze the factors which make some labor worth a lot, some worth only a
> little, and some worth nothing at all.
Still waiting fior an example.
>
> But perhaps the point is moot if scarcity is the fundamental factor
> determining market value, rather than labor. So let's look more closely at
> "scarcity."
>
> Why should the fact that an item is scarce render it valuable?
> Suppose I type up a random string of characters, a full page long, on my
> computer and print it out. We can probably be certain there is not another
> page exactly like it in the world; hence it will be unique, and that is as
> scarce as you can get. It must be exceedingly valuable, eh?
We can be certain that your page won't deal with basic economics.
>
> Before we go further with this, you should try to define "scarcity." The
> term has several meanings in economics, and you need to be clear on them
> before you can rely on that term to explain market value.
>
Done that. You should really learn to pay attention.
>>> Oh. Are you denying, or at least questioning, that the meteorite has >>
> a market value where it lies? Before an iota of labor has been
>>> invested in it?
>
>> You'd have to look up the going rate for meteorites. That takes
>> labour, as did determining the going rate. The rarity of the thing
>> would be, I believe, a significant factor in its market value.
>
> You mean that my labor in checking the current price for meteorites or raw
> diamonds is what imparts that value to the meteorite? Isn't that circular?
> Those things must already have a market value for me to look them up,
> don't
> they?
>
Already explained this to you.
> But you also offered rarity as an explanation of the meteorite's value.
> That is "scarcity" again. Are you now admitting that labor is not a factor
> in that value?
>
You were yammering on about labour being a non-issue for "most goods". Your
desperate attempt to not loose face made you run around till you found your
precious meteorite example. So do you think a meteriote is a good example
from which we can infer conclusions about "most goods"?
>> But getting back to the issue, how much would you get for the meterite
>> if you didn't find it?
>
> Nothing.
Ergo labour will always be involved. No one said that it's the only factor.
You said it might not exist at all. Now you contradict yourself.
> So is stepping out my back door and finding the meteorite
> sufficient "labor" to endow it with the considerable value it probably
> has?
> Why doesn't the same amount and kind of labor endow the dead pigeon I
> found
> yesterday with value?
>
>>> The authors of your first-year econ text are trying to get some basic
>>> ideas of economics across to boneheads. So they approach the subject
>>> via its simplest, classical formulation. If you'd delve further into
>>> the subject, you'd find that labor is not a *fundamental* component
>>> of value. Neither is land, BTW. The value of land is a function of
>>> its incidents and location.
>
>> It is a function of a lot more than that. But since you've delved
>> deeper cite me your sources, or do you get to bypass proof of
>> authority, again ?
Woopee, did you note how he mentions Romer labours? Why didn't he say human
capital?
So what changes by changing the name of labour to human capital, duh?
>>> When you've mastered all those subtleties, then you can tackle the
>>> puzzle of how *any* investment of *any* factors in *any* good can
>>> manage to impart value to it.
>>
>> Not until you solve the puzzle of how there is any good or sevice
>> without that investement. Note that *anything* is kinda meaningless,
>> yes?
>
> I already cited one. The meteorite has neither land, labor, nor capital
> invested in it, *in situ*. Yet it has value.
>
>>> No good has a market value, regardless of the
>>> amount of land, labor, and capital invested in it, unless someone is
>>> willing to pay for that good.
>>
>> And no consumer will buy a good that didn't have some amount of land,
>> labour, and capital investment, unless they are willing to pay for
>> nothing.
>
> What about the meteorite?
Don't know about you but I'd have to include it in the land category and
anyway you slice it some labour is involved.
>
