The philosophy of wealth creation

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wealth increases as production and efficiency in production increase. Creating things that people want or need creates wealth, and doing so in a cheap and efficient manner frees up capital and other resources to be put towards other goods which also increases wealth.

 

[uscitizen]

I have to agree that the anology is bad.

Wealth can be created out of thin air in a capitolistic system.

The pet rock is an example.

Humans fill more than just basic needs with their purchasing.

energy cant be distroyed but the fruits of our labor can be distroyed , Bush and team proved it.

In the instance of pet rocks it was not thin air that provided the wealth it was convincing fools to give you money for the stupit pet rocks.

And where di most of that wealth come from? Wages that the fools earned.
A fool and his money are soon parted.

 

[manifold]

In a transaction nobody is losing wealth. If I buy a book I haven't lost any wealth, I've actually gained and so has the person who sold me the book. I value the book more than I valued the money, and they valued the money more than they valued the book.

All this suggests is that wealth is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with either side of the question concerning it's creation. I do hope you're not a Randian Objectivist, or this could really undermine your lofty ideals.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In a transaction nobody is losing wealth. If I buy a book I haven't lost any wealth, I've actually gained and so has the person who sold me the book. I value the book more than I valued the money, and they valued the money more than they valued the book.

All this suggests is that wealth is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with either side of the question concerning it's creation. I do hope you're not a Randian Objectivist, or this could really undermine your lofty ideals.

I am not a Randian Objectivist, but I do understand the subjective theory of value as put forth by Carl Menger.

 

[Truthmatters]

I have to agree that the anology is bad.

Wealth can be created out of thin air in a capitolistic system.

The pet rock is an example.

Humans fill more than just basic needs with their purchasing.

energy cant be distroyed but the fruits of our labor can be distroyed , Bush and team proved it.

In the instance of pet rocks it was not thin air that provided the wealth it was convincing fools to give you money for the stupit pet rocks.

And where di most of that wealth come from? Wages that the fools earned.
A fool and his money are soon parted.

I never bought one but I could realy se the use for it.

My hubby and his brother had a gift competition where they agreed to try adn get each other the most USELESS thing they could find fr christmas. That baby would have worked perfectly. I can see I would have paid the guy who thought of it as a reward for the idea when It came to jsut the right gift for just the right person. It was a good joke on society and its values at the time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The OP is a rather poor attempt to basically say that for one to acquire wealth someone else must lose wealth. I suppose one can argue that from a simple transaction perspective, but it doesn't hold true over time. I'm not sure it's even true from an anologous perspective. After all the theory is that energy is finite and the subject is equating energy to the money supply... ... I have a lot of theories on how wealth is accumulated, but I also know the notion that we are all simply exchanging a finite money supply simply is not true.

If I were so narrow-minded as to equate wealth with printed currency, I might be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately I'm not, and your argument is decidedly non-compelling.

There is a reason that this is a philosophical discussion...in many ways, it comes down to what one truly believes wealth to be a measure of.

You qre so narrow-minded as to equate wealth with energy. Fortunately I'm not, and your argument is decidedly non-compelling. Confusing the worth of things with theirpercieved or real existence is an error of Randian proportions. A bar of gold has no inherent worth.

Magus: ''It is my philosophical understanding that wealth cannot be created. I contend that wealth adheres to a law similar to the law of conservation of energy...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
The law of conservation of wealth, as it were, would state that the total amount of wealth worldwide (an isolated system) remains constant over time. The only thing that can happen to wealth in a closed system is that it can change form…and ownership.''
.
..and here is where MP exposes his achilles heel: ''Once one acknowledges and accepts this, a thing I believe to be an obvious truth, one then begins to understand the true ...''

MP is stating things as truths even as he says IT can't be proven one way or another.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is a reason that this is a philosophical discussion...there is no way to prove the matter one way or the other.

And in many ways, it comes down to what one truly believes wealth to be a measure of.

Mani quote: ''..there is no way to prove the matter one way or the other.''

So much for his belief in truths, eh?

Now how one measures wealth is N-O-T the quest-ion. The question(s) is...What is wealth and what is it attached to?

In some cultures in history wealth was gained by owning salt. In native American cultures wealth was attached to corn and horses and trinkets given by white devils intent on stealing land, which white devils attached wealth to.

What is the value of wealth is determined by how fleetingly the human mind covets something..

 

[Paulie]

Mani's yearly "Wealth creation" thread.

Is this like Bones' yearly "it's time to move on from 9/11" thread?

Why not just resurrect the one or two you've already made and reignite the discussion?

 

[Paulie]

In a transaction nobody is losing wealth. If I buy a book I haven't lost any wealth, I've actually gained and so has the person who sold me the book. I value the book more than I valued the money, and they valued the money more than they valued the book.

All this suggests is that wealth is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with either side of the question concerning it's creation. I do hope you're not a Randian Objectivist, or this could really undermine your lofty ideals.

Wealth is perceived, Mani.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Would you like to know more?

 

[xotoxi]

I wonder which narrow-minded, nitwit moderator thinks this is a discussion about economics?

del is N-O-T a nitwit.

and It's a good thing that bitch xotoxi is not here to remind you, as she has a habit of doing, that you are creeping close to a disciplinary status when you criticize the maude squad in a derogatory fashion

Crazy little boy! Mani did not come close to violating any rules!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shouldn't this be in the humor section?

Compelling rebuttal indeed.

As a Physicist, I can certainly relate to the (Incorrect) Physics analogy that Prego is trying to use, but of course it's wrong. To even suggest that it's a zero-sum game is hilarious! This has been done year after year and has always been proven to be false. Has he not read "The Wealth of Nations" or done a simple google search to study this simple concept? There is so much available online, you'd have to be living under a rock not to see this. Okay, so you want a rebuttal? There are so many, where to start? Again, do a google search. Here's one that popped up:

Coyote Blog » Blog Archive » Wealth Creation and the Zero-Sum Fallacy

There are hundreds of thousands more. Have fun!

I tried to add a rep, but was rebuffed.

 

[Paulie]

How can wealth not be created if I can use trees, which are virtually infinite and certainly renewable considering I can use their seeds to grow more, to build a house?

I can plant the seeds of an apple, and years down the road, I can have apples to eat and to sell.

In both of those cases, I have created wealth without destroying wealth because of the infinite nature of the sources to begin with.

It's not even worthwhile to try and use "money" as any kind of example here. Money can literally be ANYTHING. Let's not dumb down the discussion by trying to add in the whole "paper currency supply" issue.

 

[manifold]

The OP is a rather poor attempt to basically say that for one to acquire wealth someone else must lose wealth. I suppose one can argue that from a simple transaction perspective, but it doesn't hold true over time. I'm not sure it's even true from an anologous perspective. After all the theory is that energy is finite and the subject is equating energy to the money supply... ... I have a lot of theories on how wealth is accumulated, but I also know the notion that we are all simply exchanging a finite money supply simply is not true.

If I were so narrow-minded as to equate wealth with printed currency, I might be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately I'm not, and your argument is decidedly non-compelling.

There is a reason that this is a philosophical discussion...in many ways, it comes down to what one truly believes wealth to be a measure of.

You qre so narrow-minded as to equate wealth with energy. Fortunately I'm not, and your argument is decidedly non-compelling. Confusing the worth of things with theirpercieved or real existence is an error of Randian proportions. A bar of gold has no inherent worth.

Magus: ''It is my philosophical understanding that wealth cannot be created. I contend that wealth adheres to a law similar to the law of conservation of energy...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
The law of conservation of wealth, as it were, would state that the total amount of wealth worldwide (an isolated system) remains constant over time. The only thing that can happen to wealth in a closed system is that it can change form…and ownership.''
.
..and here is where MP exposes his achilles heel: ''Once one acknowledges and accepts this, a thing I believe to be an obvious truth, one then begins to understand the true ...''

MP is stating things as truths even as he says IT can't be proven one way or another.

MP considers it an obvious truth. I do not believe it is provable either way.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

 

[manifold]

How can wealth not be created if I can use trees, which are virtually infinite and certainly renewable considering I can use their seeds to grow more, to build a house?

I can plant the seeds of an apple, and years down the road, I can have apples to eat and to sell.

In both of those cases, I have created wealth without destroying wealth because of the infinite nature of the sources to begin with.

I don't see why you think either of these are examples of creating wealth. These are examples of exploiting nature to improve your standard of living. I don't see why that would in any way be connected to worldwide wealth. That is, unless you think that wealth is synonymous with standard of living (like the dimwit blogger xsited1 linked). I do not. Correlated yes, but not remotely synonymous.

 

[Paulie]

How can wealth not be created if I can use trees, which are virtually infinite and certainly renewable considering I can use their seeds to grow more, to build a house?

I can plant the seeds of an apple, and years down the road, I can have apples to eat and to sell.

In both of those cases, I have created wealth without destroying wealth because of the infinite nature of the sources to begin with.

I don't see why you think either of these are examples of creating wealth. These are examples of exploiting nature to improve your standard of living. I don't see why that would in any way be connected to worldwide wealth. That is, unless you think that wealth is synonymous with standard of living (like the dimwit blogger xsited1 linked). I do not. Correlated yes, but not remotely synonymous.

Exploiting nature???

Human beings have to eat and drink to survive. That REQUIRES nature to be used. Is drinking water that falls from the sky "exploiting nature" any less so than eating an apple?

Are we going to invoke darwinism in this discussion? Because I'm fully ready to do so

 

[Paulie]

Why don't you think an improved standard of living is at the very least ONE EXAMPLE of increasing wealth?

Wealth to me, is anything you can gain from. Kevin's book, for example. Or a 5 dollar bill in your pocket. Or a tree outside that you can cut down and burn for heat, or built a hut.

Or an apple. A car. ANYTHING, almost. I have something that someone else wants, therefore I have wealth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In a transaction nobody is losing wealth. If I buy a book I haven't lost any wealth, I've actually gained and so has the person who sold me the book. I value the book more than I valued the money, and they valued the money more than they valued the book.

All this suggests is that wealth is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with either side of the question concerning it's creation. I do hope you're not a Randian Objectivist, or this could really undermine your lofty ideals.

but wasn't MP if not a Randian Objectivist Nitwit, at least a Randian once removed?

Isn't it the an occupational danger that once one becomes a programmer, strict logic takes on a life of it's own even in the face variable nuances and devnelled input?

 

[uscitizen]

In a transaction nobody is losing wealth. If I buy a book I haven't lost any wealth, I've actually gained and so has the person who sold me the book. I value the book more than I valued the money, and they valued the money more than they valued the book.

All this suggests is that wealth is subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute. Which is not necessarily inconsistent with either side of the question concerning it's creation. I do hope you're not a Randian Objectivist, or this could really undermine your lofty ideals.

Wealth is perceived, Mani.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Would you like to know more?

OK throw me all that dirty broken unwanted gold you have lying around.

Thing is we are all well programmed to want pretty much the same stuff.

 

[Paulie]

My gold is anything but 'unwanted'

 

[uscitizen]

Yep, that has to be the dumbest commercials....