Trust me, good agricultural land is worth a great deal more than that!.
Land varies per acre by £5000 to £9000 depending upon its quality. Thats quite a chunk of change ( I think ) for most people in this day and age to find and stump up.
Trust me, good agricultural land is worth a great deal more than that!.
Land varies per acre by £5000 to £9000 depending upon its quality. Thats quite a chunk of change ( I think ) for most people in this day and age to find and stump up.
I tend to disagree.Well, but where do you have gold? Perhaps between the teeth.
That nowadays can be replaced by ceramic or plastic.
Gold doesn't have a real value anymore, its price is just a mass hysteria.
Gold has never had much intrinsic value beyond the fact that it doesn't tarnish and some limited uses in electronics.Well, but where do you have gold? Perhaps between the teeth.
That nowadays can be replaced by ceramic or plastic.
Gold doesn't have a real value anymore, its price is just a mass hysteria.
Gold has never had much intrinsic value beyond the fact that it doesn't tarnish and some limited uses in electronics.
However historically, in troubled times Gold has offered a safe harbour for wealth. It's perceived status as being more tangible and transferable than wealth in the form of fiat currency being, as it is, independent of a single currency or nation.
This is why I think it's interesting to consider that price, wealth, value and cost are all very different things. Gold has a high price and may be a store for monetary wealth. It has however very limited intrinsic value beyond its use as a medium of exchange or perhaps in jewellery - although even there it's value is largely one of perception.
I'm not sure how one would separate the ideas of PRICE VS COST??
But I can see how WEALTH and VALUE are two very different things.
Even then I would argue it can be different.From a business perspective, obviously, you are right - price sold minus total cost of production = profit. However, your sales price is your buyers cost
I came into some money a few years ago to have enough along with my own savings to be able to afford a small very modest woodland. I talked myself out of it. Almost every time I see a 'woodland for sale' sign I dream of what could of been......I assume the value of the woodland I bought five(?) years ago has gone up proportionally - not that it makes any difference; I'm not planning on selling it
Price and cost are very different things.
We sell rare breed hens. When we sell a point of lay hen it has a cost to us. We have purchased feed, our equipment has incurred wear and hence depreciation. So each bird that we sell has, to us, a cost. The price at which we sell them is very different since we need to factor in our time, the need to make a profit, the loss incurred when a certain proportion of chicks don't thrive, are cockerels etc. So to us, the price of those birds and their cost, to us, are vastly different. For many years in supermarkets the cost of a tin of baked beans was higher than their price to the customer (a so called "loss leader).
But wouldn't then a Price and Cost equation have an ascending value and ratio at every point of the logistical production and supply chain?
As an example if you live next door to ACME tinned sardines factory you could access the sardines at post production cost with very little added 'on'
If you lived on a remote Island at the donkey end of the world the cost of the Sardines would have all the logistical elements placed upon the transit and movement equation.
So the PRICE of the sardines wouldn't be a static fixed thing but subjective on a few levels.
The COST however maybe static -at point of source creation.
That right?