Re: What do workers compete for?

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:38:36 -0700, "Karl Hallowell"
<khallow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:06:23 +0000, royl wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 May 2004 02:28:03 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <robert_kolker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>>>Mark Monson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Capital can be
>>>> produced, land can't.
>>>
>>>Tell that to the Hollanders. God made the Dutch, but the Dutch made
>>>Holland.
>> 
>> I have already refuted this lie many, many times, and yet you just keep
>> repeating it.  Why?
>> 
>> The Dutch did not produce any land.  They dried out land that was
>> formerly under water.
>> 
>> Stop lying about it.
>
>I guess he keeps repeating this "lie" because it's an effective counter
to
>the argument that land can't be produced.

No, it isn't, any more than "2+2=5" is an effective counter to "2+2=4"

>Among other things, your
>definitions clearly differ since most people don't consider seabed to be
>"land".

In economics, land is a production factor consisting of any resource
that is neither labor nor something produced by labor.

>Having said that, I see a reasonable argument that units of space-time (a
>finite volume over a finite period of time) aren't created (or destroyed)
>in the environment of Earth nor is mass, and a number of other physical
>quantities. So defining "land" to be these space-time quantities (in
>suitable reference frames!) is reasonable. And it allows one to
>extrapolate this idea to places where surface area may be ill defined
>(space and underwater, for example).

See above.  Land is defined that way in economics for very good
reasons.

-- Roy L