"Publius"
nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B1B8CBB11580mpubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.247...> "Tim"
q.con> wrote in
> news:9ZWdnQIon90GxFLVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@aci.on.ca:
>>>>>> 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.
>
> You *do* have a hard time staying focussed. We're discussing scarcity as a
> determinant of value in this exchange, not labor. The page filled with
> randomly typed character is scarce. Why doesn't that scarcity impart great
> value to it?
>
>>> 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."
>
> Where in that last snip do you see a claim that labor is a "non-issue"?
> Where do you see a denial that labor is a factor of production for most
> goods?
>
> Can't seem to grasp the point, can you? I.e., that labor does not explain
> or predict the market values of most goods, even though it is a necessary
> production factor for most of them?
>
>> 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?
>
> I did. Did you read them?
Snicker. So you don't undestand the concept of textbook?
>
> Or do you mean first-year textbooks?
Any textbook will do. You do know the difference between a web page and a
text don't you? Oh, and I did read them. Do you have a point to make? Did
you read them? Why does wiki refer to HC as labour, duh? Why id the first
article mention Romer's labour, duh? Is he a ditch digger? Why does the 2nd
article, the one you stole your idea about a limited outlook on factors of
production, not talk about labour as an issue? We were talking about labour,
remember?
