The philosophy of wealth creation

[Big Black Dog]

I've been broke before and I've been semi-wealthy. I like being semi-wealthy the best. I seem to have more fun.

If you were unhappy while broke, being wealthier may have made you happier, but if you had a miserable outlook on life...that doen't change.

that said, I never cared for wealth. can't take it with me. It is nice to have access to, but I've always passed on having wealth own me and my mind. I'm happier without worries about losing that which is intangible.

I was never very unhappy being broke but maybe it's just me or something, but life is alot more fun if you don't have to worry about where your next meal is going to come from.

About being semi-wealthy... When I leave this world I will leave it the same way I entered it. Naked, broke, and most likely by accident.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Wealth is the fruit of someone's labor. A tree is not wealth for humans until is is converted to paper or houses or toys. A puddle of oil is not wealth until it is converted into its different useful components.

So I would argue exactly opposite the OP, that wealth is not the thing that is owned but the processes by which it became useful.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Wealth is the fruit of someone's labor. A tree is not wealth for humans until is is converted to paper or houses or toys. A puddle of oil is not wealth until it is converted into its different useful components.

So I would argue exactly opposite the OP, that wealth is not the thing that is owned but the processes by which it became useful.

I agree. Good post!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wealth is the fruit of someone's labor. A tree is not wealth for humans until is is converted to paper or houses or toys. A puddle of oil is not wealth until it is converted into its different useful components.

So I would argue exactly opposite the OP, that wealth is not the thing that is owned but the processes by which it became useful.

I agree. Good post!

To continue the analysis, also to the labor by which a thing becomes processed for usefulness.

 

[manifold]

The Philosophy of the Expansion of Power*
by Magus Perde

It is my philosophical understanding that power cannot be expanded. I contend that power adheres to a law similar to the law of conservation of energy:

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become thermal energy.

The law of conservation of power, as it were, would state that the total amount of power worldwide (an isolated system) remains constant over time. A consequence of this law is that power cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to power in a closed system is that it can change form…and ownership.

A perfect example is Saudi Arabia. Their power was not created by oil. They used an abundant and valuable natural resource to extract power from the rest of the world.

Once one acknowledges and accepts this, a thing I believe to be an obvious truth, one then begins to understand the true nature of human competition.

Happy New Year,

Magus Perde

*Power: as defined in Merriam Webster's dictionary possession of control, authority, or influence over others

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't believe in zero sum.
By conceding authority to the community, I gain more than I loose in terms options. Conceding authority to a community means that we can trade and interact and gain

Of course, like every other thing, there reaches a point of negative returns. The life of a solitary ape in a cave, and a peasant starving in North Korea for the glory of the Kims are both unrewarding.

Right now, I think ceding the power over my health care is a negative return. But granting the sheriff the authority to stop drunks from driving makes for a huge positive. It is not always flat either or kind of deal.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wealth is the fruit of someone's labor..

Sounds like a variation on the Labout Theory of Value


If I stumble across a cave in winter or a hamburger falls from the sky, my wealth still increases. It is the value other and I place upon a thing that is wealth, not the labour.

Wealth falls into two overlapping categories.

Marketable wealth: the value of a thing as determined by others; thje market value of a resource or thing

Nonmarket wealth: wealth no longer in the market, like a TV I don't plan to sell as well as nonmarketable sources of personal satisfaction, such as family

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I have yet to have a hamburger fall from the sky. Let me know when it is raining where you are.

Onion rings and cokes would be acceptable as well.

Values are based on needs. Wealth is based on production.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Values are based on needs.

Desire, which is in turn affected by need

Wealth is based on production.

Wealth is perceived value. You, like Marx are stuck on the ludicrous concept of the labour-theory of value. Labour-production does not generate wealth. It simply has the potential to change the form of things in a manner that causes us to percieve them as more desirable and/or less common. When we then value or desire the thing more (either for our own ends or as something others want which we can trade other things for), we have increased our wealth. If labour-production created wealth (if the value of a product was equal to the resources and labour put into it), then I could spend all day making smaller pieces of broken glass and keep increasing my wealth, since I am continuing to labout and manufacture from my available resources smaller splinters of glass.

 

[Paulie]

No worries Paulie, I was certain you wouldn't be up for the challenge anyway.

Well as long as you say so, Mani...

How naive of me to think I could tackle a Manifold topic

 

[manifold]

No worries Paulie, I was certain you wouldn't be up for the challenge anyway.

Well as long as you say so, Mani...

How naive of me to think I could tackle a Manifold topic

It would only be naive if you thought such a thing. Since you threw in the towel like a puking Donovan McNabb, I'd call that something else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the by, to steal a thread for the moment, I told you, Paulie, I would remind you of your nonsense about the Eagles. The beaks got busted today by a vastly superior team. You do, however, get one more chance next week, loser.