Re: What do workers compete for?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:15:20 GMT, Les Cargill
<lcargill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 05:12:45 GMT, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>>>royls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>>Your accusation uses a definition of "created" which is not
>>>reasonable in context.
>> 
>> Yes, it is, because it matches the relevant definition of "land" as
>> that which exists, but has not been created by human labor.
>
>But I *thought* we were talking about the Dutch
>creating land.

No, Bob or some other nitwit threw that in to divert attention from
the fact that land (in the economic sense) is not produced by labor.
 
>>>The point is that creation is nothing more than the act
>>>of modifying something already there into something else.
>> 
>> Right.  But in order to rescue his false beliefs from their collision
>> with the truth, Robert has to escape the inescapable implications of
>> the economic concept of "land" as that which has _not_ been modified
>> by human labor.
>
>Well, I remain unconvinced of *that*, anyway.

It's true by definition.  The three factors of production are labor,
land (what exists without labor), and capital (products used for
production).  Everything labor uses in production can be divided into
products and non-products.  The former is capital, the latter land.  I
don't know any simpler way to explain it.
 
-- Roy L