...Trying to get you to see that the world is only black and white when you read about it in a book.
:: All land is compared with the (commercial OR agricultural) 'fertility' of other land. If unfertile land is conterminous to fertile land, then its value is increased by the investment already in place. What is that investment? LABOR---past labor.
Newport Beach is on the beach. The desire to live on the beach enhances the property value for aesthetic reasons regardless of how much developement occurs in Hemet, CA. Some things are worth more simply because they are desired more.
(Stu)...a rookie card of Mickey Mantle?
(Barry)...Antiques do not negate the labor theory of value in the least. Consider the LABOR looking for 'treaures,' consider the LABOR of maintenance expenses...
Now Barry, that was just you wanting to have something to say. The $25,000 a mint condition Mickey Mantle rookie card would fetch is ever so much higher than the finding and maintenance expenses. That was nonsense!
:: You'll find either more 'expensive' components (past LABOR) or more (fresh) LABOR (-time) in the more expensive car.
So a Ferrari at $150,000 has 150 times more labor in it than a Nissan?
You're being serious!? I'll grant you it has 10 times more, perhaps - but 150 times more? You wish you had a point.
:: Is not 8 years of school & internship not (past) LABOR?
Would you pay more for a brain surgeon who was acclaimed as a talented practitioner of his art vs. one perceived as merley average? I would. Lots more! Isn't this labor theory just another way of marginalizing talent and placing artificial constraints on progress of those who might benefit from the naturally occurring differences that occur in our species?
Same old thing.
:: ...a menu from the last night of dinner aboard the Titanic?
$10,000 if you have one. How much labor did it take to keep one in your purse and place it in a cedar chest as a memento?
(Barry)...Consider the LABOR going into advertising.
I wonder if Levi Strauss advertises more than Armani. I think so. Then I wonder if Armani sells an articles of clothing for far more than Levi Strauss. I think so. Then I wonder why Russian youth will offer almost as much relative value for Levis than others would for the Armani. Is it:
1. The high labor costs of shipping stuff to Russia?
2. That maybe only half of it makes it to the store?
3. That Russian kids really place artbitrary value on certain items?
Are Beanie Babies really that much more labor intensive to manufacture than G.I. Joes?
:: N.B. Let us not forget that capital is LABOR and materials---AND materials are past LABOR (dead labor).
So why should my labor, transformed into the means of production in my business, be given to my employees? Do I not own my labor after I hire employees?