Can some one splane me into what they are getting at?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132416.html
After the part about the value of land increasing with labor input, i got lost.
nope
Pretty much left me confused, perplexed, confounded, disconcerted, abashed and muddled too. :D
....thought I had a pretty reasonable grasp of the english language, guess not.... ::)
First off ,Sagof does not know what he is talking about. ground in britan will produce more wheat per acre than in the USA because of the weather that is more favorable to wheat culture . second he claims that it will produce twenty bu. without any intervention but the land in britan was cultivated and only produced 5lb.????????? 20x60lb.would be 1200lb. Nature does provide ecnomic value , Without the rain we would not produce much of anything.
Sometimes our "learned colleges" speak in such a way as to fool us into thinking that we do not know anything . Get out your BS meeterand you will see that you are far from the limits of your education. More like the talltail told was an example of a person oversteping his education by a long shot.
Seems labor theory states that land has no value until labor is put into it. So, this is contrary to what the Nature Economists believe. Nature has no value until labor is invested in it to produce "something/ anything"
Yes, it seems a ton of mumbo jumbo goes on out there in this "research" kinda stuff.
Ironwood
If what he says is true that land has no value, Then why do i have to property Taxs on something that's worthless. :'(.....Cheyenne
Here is my take on the article.
Economists have a hard time placing a monetary value on goods and services that are not valued in a traditional marketplace. Models that place a value on ecological services can be easily criticized. In particular because many of the services, such as clean air, water, wind pollination etc., produced by ecological systems are so abundant, Sagoff argues they have no intrinsic value.
By the way, the argument about wheat is from the example by John Locke who was writing in the late 1600s and likely refers to 5 British pounds sterling, not 5 pounds of wheat
God invented the natural world. Man invented money. You can't put a monetary value on anything in nature, since it is priceless. I have no idea what the article was talking about.