[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

You don't seem to understand the concept of inflation. Here is a quote pulled from the Wiki page on the topic:

Yes, that is the correct definition of inflation. Changing the language so it means what you want it to mean isn't playing fair...

And it costs more to do the survey, and it costs more to buy or lease the drilling equipment, and it costs more in every other aspect - but you choose to ignore all that because it doesn't bolster your narrow argument.

It costs more (in large part) because there is more effort involved: you have to send survey teams to more distant places, use faster computers & more complex software to analyze the data, use vastly more complex drilling rigs & drill far deeper to get to the oil... None of this is inflation, however you want to define it.

You could do exploration much more cheaply by going to e.g. West Texas with 1920s or 1950s style equipment (which would cost somewhat more because of inflation), but it wouldn't get you anything :-)

"Saving" it from what, exactly?

Keeping it so that it is a good place to live, of course. Do you clean your house & maintain it? Or do you let the dirt accumulate & trash pile up in the yard, and let everybody and his brother use it as a crash pad?

There are fifty states, probably a zillion real estate listings for available property in them and you say "No place on Earth where I could afford to own a decent tract of land".

Look at the prices on those real estate listings, then look at my bank account :-) Then consider that I'm probably in at least the upper 20% of Americans. If I can't afford it, what hope does the rest of the country have, not to mention the world?

So according to your bizarre, radical definition, every homeowner in America is "super-rich". Do you realize how absurd all these statements of yours sound?

No, do you realize your own ability to read simple English? Most homeowners live on small plots of land: usually not more than an acre, often much less.

And finally we now have an admission of your subscription to the old Malthusian nonsense...

What do you mean, finally? If you'd asked, I'd have told you from the start. And it's only nonsense to those terminally invested in wishful thinking...

I said: Why do you feel a NEED for 100 acres or more upon which to live? Do you have a need to be alone, away from society?

And I replied that I can't tell you WHY, all I can tell you is that I do. It's built in, and seems the normal, natural, & desireable way to live. Tell me why would you want to live surrounded by houses, streets, &c? (And not economic reasons: assume you've won the lottery, and can afford to live where you choose.)

Likewise, why would you think that living in a place where I have a bit of space & natural landscape around me equates to being alone or rejecting society? Quite the contrary: it's only (in my experience, at least) when you have few neighbors that you can actually get to know them as people. If I wanted real social isolation, I'd move to Manhattan.

Then why did you voice your disdain for "Mc Mansions"?

For the same reason I'd voice my "disdain" (though that's really the wrong word) for favelas & shantytowns, except that then it'd be tempered with an understanding of poverty. I can understand living like that when you have to ('cause I've been there); what I can't understand is doing it by choice.

And why did you cite the real estate listing for an enormous tract of land that virtually no one can afford?

Enormous? You have to be kidding: it's only about 40 acres, which is quite small by my standards. And the fact that virtually no one can afford it simply proves my contention that there are few if any places left where an ordinary person can afford to own a decent-sized bit of land.