Re: What do workers compete for?

Karl Hallowell wrote:
> 
> 
> I guess he keeps repeating this "lie" because it's an effective counter
to
> the argument that land can't be produced. Among other things, your
> definitions clearly differ since most people don't consider seabed to be
> "land".

It is not a lie. First of all vast amounts of water must be displaced 
with a system of dykes and poulders. Then the land exposed by impounding 
ocean water must be desalinated, so it is not simply a matter of 
uncovering otherwise wet ground. Much capital, much labor and much wits 
are required to take land back from the sea.

Even dry land is not usually productive. It has to be cleared and if 
very dry irrigated and then treated so the Ph. is right for crops. Then 
it has to be managed by drop rotation, grass planting to prevent 
topsoils from blowing away. This idiot lable of land applied to 
something that has to be worked to be useful is context dropping of the 
worst sort.

Usually the Marxists and the other Pinko-Stinkos have no concept of how 
to make land or any other resource useful and valuable. They just throw 
lables like capital and labor around. Well, I will tell you something, 
both God and the Devil are in the details and these Marixst idiots have 
no concept of the details.

Bob Kolker