On Sep 19, 10:11 am, "Tim"
q.con> wrote:
> "Fred Weiss"
papertig.com> wrote in message
> 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.
You mean it's worth millions because someone spent a few hours
assessing it?
You're kidding, right?
> If it's hypothetical land, say undiscovered land, it only has hypothetical
> value. You can't sell it.
But I wasn't referring to undiscovered or unknown land. I was
referring to the land/acreage you can find listed in the real estate
section of any newspaper - or now by merely doing a Google search.
> 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.
I doubt that. He was just trying to refute your "labor theory of
value" by citing a counter example. You don't like meteroites? You
want others? We can give you plenty of others. But its hardly worth
the effort if your response is going to be as stupid as the one you
give above to my example of land.
> I've told you that food scarcity is a fact of life faced by any animal.
You do know that there is a difference between us and (lower)
animals,
the relevant one here is that we can *produce* more food - in fact
ever increasing amounts of it - by the application of intelligence
which (lower) animals lack.
> ....Here's a hint: food is perishable.
Some of it is. But we've also solved that problem, too. Have you ever
heard of airtight packaging, e.g. canning, or chemical preservatives,
or freezing?
> What happened to virtual infinite resources? What happened to scarcity
> doesn't exist?
Now you are just being blatantly dishonest. I've cited many examples
where scarcity applies, land just being one. Seats in a stadium is
another. What characterizes them is that *we can't produce more*.
> ... If land is scarce and that gives it value, how does
> that explain the value difference of two different plots? Land is land.
Umm...no it isn't. And furthermore, even apart from other
differences,
some land is more scarce than others, e.g. beachfront or land in
Monaco or Beverly Hills or Palm Beach.
Is it possible that you really don't understand any of this? It's not
exactly rocket science and you don't even need to go rushing to your
economics textbooks to understand it.
You're quickly geting to the point of "too stupid to argue with".
Fred Weiss
