"Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message
news:890cea0a-d2e4-4f20-bafb-0efda4ddf8af@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 2:32 pm, "Publius" nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

That's become a pattern with him in this thread.

------------------------------------------------

It's apparent in your posts in general.

------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting for him to answer the question how raw, undeveloped
land can be valuable - sometimes in the millions of dollars. Where's
the "labor" in the value?

------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting for a real world example to counter. My counter resting on
the demonstrable fact that the assessment of the land value required labour.
If it's hypothetical land, say undiscovered land, it only has hypothetical
value. You can't sell it. But labour is involved in assessing hypotheticals.
This is the point that Publius refused to address in his meterorite example.
An example that is surely not indicative of goods in general, which is what
Publius was putting it forth as. So the labour is in the assessment, in your
as of yet hypothetical.

------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, I'm concerned about our little Tiny Tim. He's told
us that food is scarce where he lives. Maybe he's undernourished and
he has to spend a lot of his time searching for food, so its difficult
for him to concentrate on the discussion.

-------------------------------------------------

I've told you that food scarcity is a fact of life faced by any animal.
Again you demonstrate the ability to confuse economic scaricty with the
general meaning of scarcity. Here's a hint: food is perishable.

------------------------------------------------

Btw, the reason why some land is more valuable than others is in fact
because of scarcity. That's an actual example of the concept applying
in economics. But why? Because you can't produce anymore!

------------------------------------------------------

What happened to virtual infinite resources? What happened to scarcity
doesn't exist? But I can see that at last you've begun to see the point(it's
hiding behind that white flag you're so apt at waving). Now think about oil
and food. Can you see the similarities and differences? But you still fail
to make a valid point! If land is scarce and that gives it value, how does
that explain the value difference of two different plots? Land is land. Your
point doesn't at all explain why some land is more valuable than other land.
At best it would explain why land is worth more than other commodities, if
you'd noted that, which you didn't. So it's really just another example of
your misunderstanding of basic economics.