> 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?
>
Where did I say that? I've told you before, labour will always be a factor,
I didn't say the only one.
> You're kidding, right?
No, your just desperate.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
I tried that with you notion of scarcity but got no results.
>
>> 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*.
>
Nope, that would be you. Remember, you said capitalism had solved the
problem of scarcity. But now you are vacillating.
>
>> ... 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.
So capitalism has failed there?
>
> 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.
>
No, but that doesn't apply to you. Funny how you have to avoid textbooks to
make your point. It's obvious that you hate anyone who writes a textbook, I
guess you think they are all lefties, but that don't concern me.
>
> You're quickly geting to the point of "too stupid to argue with".
>
Whine, whine whine. You surpassed that point long ago. But I'm not arguing
with you, I'm telling you, you are full of shit. And for a guy who keeps
regurgitating shite like "you're too stupid" you sure come back often enough
to get your medicine.
>
>
>
