The mantle is denser than the crust. Mountains have more crust under them, hence less mantle. Therefore, since there is less of the dense material, the mass under the mountain is less than the mass under the ocean. Nothing to do with weight.

Because he is making the very large mistake of think everything that is not labor IN THAT BUSINESS is a 'fixed' cost. And it most certainly is not. Take the example of McDonalds. The mininum wage guy at McDonalds gets a raise, and the original poster assumes that his raise is the total increased cost to McDonalds, so it should not affect the price of McDonalds products all that much. But the minimum wage guy at the plant that prints soda cups also gets a raise, so the price of soda cups goes up to pay for it. And the minimum wage guy at the paper plant gets a raise too, so in addition to the cost to the printer going up because he has to pay his employee more, the cost of the raw cups also went up because the paper plant had to pay his employees more.

Looking at it from the other direction, the feed grower has to pay his hired hands more, so he must sell his seed for more money. The guy at the feed store has to pay his employees more, so the cost of feed to the rancher now went up by the amount the grower had to increase his pay plus the amount that the feed store had to increase his pay. And now the rancher has his considerably more expensive feed, plus he has to pay his hands more. So now the meat packer has to pay for the more expensive cattle, plus he has to pay his employees more. So when McDonalds buys a burger they are paying for raises for the seed grower, the feed store, the rancher, the packer, and everyone else in that supply chain. But you think when you BUY a burger at McDonalds the only increase would be the raise the McDonalds employee got?

It is not 'hand-waving away as profit', it IS profit. If you think it is something OTHER than profit, exactly what is it?

And face it, the only reason you keep harping on 'gold' is because it is such an outlier. The profit-to-labor ratio of gold is not at all typical. And how many minimum-wage employees do you think are concerned with the cost of gold? Back here in the real world, minimum wage employees are concerned with the price of food. And the price of food is very much influenced by labor costs. So if every employee in the food chain suddenly gets a raise, you would have to be a complete idiot the think the cost of food is not going to rise correspondingly. And if the price of food rises correspondingly, all those minimum wage people have exactly the same buying power as they had before.

The point I am making, and which you can't seem to grasp, is that the minimum wage does not only apply at the retail level, it goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SUPPLY CHAIN. Yes, the guy working at McDonalds gets a raise, but so does the guy working at the packing plant where the burgers were made, and the guy at the slaughterhouse, and the ranch hand where the cattle was raised, and the guy working at the feed store, and the farm laborer, and the guy at the tractor factory, and the guy at the tractor parts factory, and so on and so on. And if you can't see how all of that LABOR is the MAJORITY of the cost of your burger, you clearly can't think well.

Think real carefully now, what makes up the cost of storage, climate control, security? PROFIT and LABOR and NOTHING ELSE.

Answer this, if all labor and profit costs (including those paid to the government, criminals, etc) was $0, what would the cost of something be? There is only one answer: $0.

If 'profit' is confusing you, then use these terms instead: there are only two components to the cost of anything, money paid to people who did some work involved in producing the product, and money paid to people who did not directly produce the product. When you pay taxes, license fees, etc, some of that money goes to pay people who provided a service (labor), and some goes to people who were not directly involved in providing that service, just like profit.

Think for more than half a second, maybe it will come to you. In case it doesn't, here is a clue. The ONLY componenta of raw materials cost are labor and profit, unless you think that the earth itself is collecting money before coughing up raw materials. License fees are just covering profit and labor costs for the government.

Taxes and protection money are just profits to other parties. Gold? Is there a giant coin slot that you must pay into before the earth gives up its gold? Of course not. The only reason you have to pay for gold is because of labor and profits. Have some mining equipment? Where did that come from? Labor and profits.

This is one of the stupidest comments ever. ALL of the cost of goods falls into only two categories: labor, and profit. Often 'profit' is small or missing altogether, a 'high' profit is about 25% which leaves only labor as by far the largest component of cost.

What are you talking about? Title is a concept, not a physical thing. The state issues Certifcates of Title which prove that, as far as the state is concerned, you hold the title. The 'Certificate of' makes not one bit of difference. The state makes you surrender your 'title' because they are the official holder of the ownership record. You can't have two different entities claiming to be in control of the record.

And even if what you said made any sense, it doesn't change a single thing, because the bank doesn't hold the title in either case.

The State of New York definitely issues you the title when you buy a car, even there is a loan. If there is a loan the bank is listed as having a lien on the title, but you still have the title. When you pay off the loan you get a release of lien letter from the bank. You can then take the letter to the DMV and get the lien removed from the title. The only way the bank would ever get the title is by taking legal procedings against you.

Entirely, 100%, wrong. The title is in my name (not the banks). A lien is NOT the same thing as ownership.

Five years ago I bought a new car or $22K. I had a choice, sell some assets (stock) and pay cash, or get a cheap 5-yr loan (0.9%). I took the loan. Today, my loan is paid off, i still have the car, I also have not had to put any money into it, I could sell the car if I wanted, and my original $22K is now worth about $37K. Even if the car lost half its value (it didn't), I still have about $4K left. You, on the other hand, are out $700.

You may THINK you 'have better things to do with your money', but paying cash when cheap loans are available is just dumb.

I take it you don't understand the meaning of the words 'easily' and 'standard'. Kit cars basically start with a 'donor' car. Not exactly easy or standard. And why provide liks to both Chevy and Ford crate motors? They are just standard motors, right?

Also, learn the difference between may and will. Yes, there are certain situations where adding resources makes it worse. However, there are also situations (probably more situations) where adding resources makes it better. Therefore, the statement 'adding resources makes it worse' is false.

I have read it. What it says is that if you are time constrained, more developers does not necessarily speed up the process, and may lead to quality problems if you keep the same time constraints. It does NOT say that more resources is always a problem. Time is a resource, does adding time to a project mean it is going to be worse? Money is a resource, does hiring some top developers, and paying them accordingly, lead to a worse outcome? Good leadership is a resource, same question. Does having 10 people looking for bugs lead to a worse outcome than 1?