"Publius"
nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B1A7683AF58Empubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.247...> "Tim"
q.con> wrote in
> news:q6mdnfRRgfxovlPVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@aci.on.ca:
>>>> 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.
>
> Your 9/10 post:
>
> "According to whom? The market value, if it's at equilibrium, is the
> price where the supply and demand curves meet. The supply curve is, in
> part, determined by the price of inputs, one of which will always be
> labour."
>
> Nothing there about "scarcity."
Nothing need be said unless one doesn't have the foggiest clue about basic
economics. Obviously you don't. I'll give you a hint: economics is the study
of the allocation of scarce resources.
You'll have to excuse herr weiss for interrupting. If you go down further I
explain the connection between scarcity and S&D to him. Oh, and excuse me
for assuming you knew something about basic economics.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Example of what?
>
Some meaning in your assertions.
>>> 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.
>
> No answer, eh?
>
You give yourself too much credit. I wouldn't pay for what you've typed here
in this thread. Why, your labour holds no value for me. But if some fool
were to purchase it at bottom they'd have to admit they are willing to pay
something for your labour.
>>> 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.
>
> Must have missed it. Can you point me to the link, or restate your def?
No, I'm not here to hold your hand.
>
>>> 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.
>
> You mean where you claimed that opening my back door and opening my eyes
> is sufficient "labor" to endow the meteorite with value? Do you realize
> you are trivializing your factor with such nonsense?
>
>> 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"?
>
> Nope. Didn't claim labor was a "non-issue." Claimed that it was useless
> for analyzing or predicting the market values of many goods, and that it
> therefore can't be a fundamental determinant of those values.
>
Oh no. Take a look at your original post:
"And of course, the amount of labor time invested in producing a good has
little or nothing to do with its market value, for most goods, even though,
for most goods, some labor will have been required to produce them. "
> You have a hard time staying focussed on the question at hand. As I said
> before, no one is denying that some labor, of some kind, is necessary
> for production of most goods. What I've been saying is that the labor
> invested in those goods is not a reliable determinant of their market
> value.
>
>> So what changes by changing the name of labour to human capital, duh?
>
> Already answered that one, remember? What changes is that "labor" is no
> longer perceived, erroneously, as a single, uniform,
> "undifferentiated," fundamental factor of production, as Marx and other
> lefties would lead you to believe. It is an ill-chosen term which
> misleadingly lumps a number of distinct and unrelated factors together,
> some of which have great value, while others have little or no value.
>
Ah, so the economists who wrote the text book are commies. That as good as
you can do? Well if its an erroneous concept why haven't you cited some
texts with the right definition, duh?
Sorry, but you're just too desperate to admit when your wrong.
Come back when you've read some basic economics.
