> I'm not saying things other than land have no value/costs (I think that's what you were implying?) The single argument I made was quite clear and unambiguous

> I'm not saying things other than land have no value/costs (I think that's what you were implying?) The single argument I made was quite clear and unambiguous. Everything composed of matter is finite in nature, and that fact contradicts your previous suggestion that land is somehow special in this regard. > Setting aside the long-term "everything on this planet is finite" and the even less useful "the universe is infinite" arguments I think you may be using a different definition of "argument" than me. Feel free to elaborate. > none of them operate on a time scale that's relevant to an individual today Quite to the contrary. Scarcity is the basis of the entire field of economics. > land is finite in a way that very few things are Land is more finite compared to what? Land and refrigerators are apples and oranges. Land is also as hypothetically infinitely divisible beyond practicality as any number of other things including refrigerators. > All the land there is already belongs to someone. The only way to get land, is to buy/take it from someone else. Does this not also apply to all raw materials which a refrigerator is composed of? > Fridges aren't finite in the same way, as we can always make more, as long as we have the resources. See above > If we run out of resources, we may be able to figure out how to make them out of different resources. Changing which finite resource you are using does not change the fact that those resources are still finite. > no, artificial islands and reclaiming oceans aren't viable enough to matter yet Somehow, you claim that these are not viable options, yet offer the possibility of making refrigerators with different resources. If land costed enough to make artificial islands a good investment, they would exist. Similarly, if refrigerators could be produced and sold using different raw materials, we would see that reflected in refrigerators currently available for sale. > If we run out of those, we have a much bigger problem than fridges and no time to talk about economics It is an established fact in economics that (at least privately owned) resources generally never run out. The less that is available, the more expensive resources are to extract, and the harder it is to maintain economies of scale. These and other factors contribute to higher costs of the raw goods themselves and products produced with them, driving demand to the use of other raw materials to achieve similar ends. For example, we are not going to ever run out of oil. It will simply increase in price until electronic vehicles or other options will become dominant, and the use of oil will become more confined to niche products. > As it stands now, if someone wants to destroy the supply of fridges, they would have to keep buying them as they are made almost indefinitely (i.e. NOT a one-time cost). If enough fridges are purchased, the finite nature of which is represented by raw materials required, then the exact same thing will happen as in the case where enough land is purchased. The prices will increase until it becomes impossible to keep making purchases. > Once we run out of all the base materials to construct fridges with and the "fridge economy" is based entirely on trading working fridges and recycling old ones for material to make more, then you can start to compare the two. Again, this is impossible, and if you read and understand everything else I have said above then it will be quite clear that you can in fact compare the two, which was my (actual, not "implied") original argument