Wealth Creation?

[manu1959]

Scarcity. Now there's an interesting topic. If you are a modern-day liberal, there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world so you would believe that it can only be transferred. That's the reason they are so interested in wealth redistributed. Obviously, that's wrong. Wealth can most certainly be created. In my field, we do it all the time by creating computer chips out of silicon, metals and plastic. Want more wealth? Just create more chips. The same applies to just about everything else you can manufacture.

(Guess I should've read Mash's post above first! )

Another point. Redistribuition of wealth. An inventor invents a device. A manufacturer builds the factory to produce it. People labor to make it. Who makes the most off of it. None of the above. The person that makes the most money off of it is the capitalist that has the money to invest. While this person is a neccessary step in the process, that is a redistribution of wealth. Distributed from those who are actually creating to someone that has little to do with the creation.

Yup, that's often true.

Not that the capitalist isn't entitled to a serious share of the wealth, but right now our society seems to think (thanks to free trade I note) that their contribution is so much more important that anyone elses, that they really think its okay if the rest of us go broke while they become masters of the universe.

Nothing new about that attitude.

Kings and peers of the realms always had that arrogant attitude.

then save some money....invest in a company and become wealthy.....all it takes is sacrifice and risk.....

 

[xsited1]

Can wealth really be "created?" or can it really only be transferred?

That's complete bullshit.



No, they're interested in distributing the wealth that the workers make back into the pockets of the creators of wealth, you foolish person, you.

Obviously, that's wrong. Wealth can most certainly be created.

I'd go even further than that -- ALL wealth is created by the hand or mind of man.

Wealth is a CONCEPT, not a thing.

Again, it depends on your definition of Liberal.

The creation of wealth goes to all parties involved. Yes, not everyone gets the same amount, but everyone benefits.

Wealth is a concept and a thing.

 

[manu1959]

i say wealth is created but there is a finite total amount.....when all the resources of the world are used up that will be the end of wealth creation...

 

[xsited1]

i say wealth is created but there is a finite total amount.....when all the resources of the world are used up that will be the end of wealth creation...

That's true, of course by then we'll just start mining asteroids.

 

[manu1959]

i say wealth is created but there is a finite total amount.....when all the resources of the world are used up that will be the end of wealth creation...

That's true, of course by then we'll just start mining asteroids.

you assume infinte ability, resources and of course aninfinte universe to exploite....

 

[Agnapostate]

Wealth, above all, can be stolen. We need only examine the extraction of surplus value from the workforce facilitated by the utilization of wage labor to acknowledge that.

 

[mash107]

Can wealth really be "created?" or can it really only be transferred?

Wealth is created every time a person does work that creates a good or service.

Labor is the source of all human wealth.

A gold nugget is NOT wealth until somebody actually picks it up.

Not quite true.

If labor is spent doing something like digging a hole one day and refilling it the next, then no wealth is created. Wealth is actually lost severely, because this guy could be employed doing something that produces something of wealth.

 

[Paulie]

Can wealth really be "created?" or can it really only be transferred?

Scarcity. Now there's an interesting topic. If you are a modern-day liberal, there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world so you would believe that it can only be transferred. That's the reason they are so interested in wealth redistributed. Obviously, that's wrong. Wealth can most certainly be created. In my field, we do it all the time by creating computer chips out of silicon, metals and plastic. Want more wealth? Just create more chips. The same applies to just about everything else you can manufacture.

(Guess I should've read Mash's post above first! )

Yours and Mash's examples sum it up perfectly. If you are taking resources from the planet you inhabit, fashioning them into something of capital value, and selling that good for a net profit, you have created wealth.

Wealth isn't just money. Think of the factors of production - Land, labor, capital, knowledge. All of those have the ability to create wealth. If you cut a tree down, and make a piece of timber out of it, you have created wealth simply by virtue of that piece of timber having a specific market value. If you sell that piece of timber for more than it cost you in capital to produce it, you have made a profit and thereby created wealth.

 

[code1211]

Can wealth really be "created?" or can it really only be transferred?

Scarcity. Now there's an interesting topic. If you are a modern-day liberal, there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world so you would believe that it can only be transferred. That's the reason they are so interested in wealth redistributed. Obviously, that's wrong. Wealth can most certainly be created. In my field, we do it all the time by creating computer chips out of silicon, metals and plastic. Want more wealth? Just create more chips. The same applies to just about everything else you can manufacture.

(Guess I should've read Mash's post above first! )

Another point. Redistribuition of wealth. An inventor invents a device. A manufacturer builds the factory to produce it. People labor to make it. Who makes the most off of it. None of the above. The person that makes the most money off of it is the capitalist that has the money to invest. While this person is a neccessary step in the process, that is a redistribution of wealth. Distributed from those who are actually creating to someone that has little to do with the creation.

That's not true at all. Without the Capitalist, the man who built the factory had no capital to fund the building, the person who runs the factory has no capital to fund the purchase of the raw materials to reform and the workers have nowhere and nothing to work in and on. With no Capitalist, the rest of the people in this little play are just milling around without a building, tools or materials.

On the other hand, without the visionary, the organizer and the team of workers, the Capitalist is just some guy dressed well.

These are the various parts of the process. It's like any organization or organism. The various parts do various things and to varying degrees are essential to the outcome.

 

[code1211]

i say wealth is created but there is a finite total amount.....when all the resources of the world are used up that will be the end of wealth creation...

You're short changing creativity and resourcefulness. In 1600, crude oil was a curse on any land that had it. Now we make everything from fuel to hairbrushes out of the stuff. Using up all of the resources is a pretty tall order. When the raw materials we are familiar with are all gone, other resources will be found and exploited.

Recycling comes to mind.

It could be that today's landfill will be tomorrow's resource mine.

 

[Paulie]

Scarcity. Now there's an interesting topic. If you are a modern-day liberal, there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world so you would believe that it can only be transferred. That's the reason they are so interested in wealth redistributed. Obviously, that's wrong. Wealth can most certainly be created. In my field, we do it all the time by creating computer chips out of silicon, metals and plastic. Want more wealth? Just create more chips. The same applies to just about everything else you can manufacture.

(Guess I should've read Mash's post above first! )

Another point. Redistribuition of wealth. An inventor invents a device. A manufacturer builds the factory to produce it. People labor to make it. Who makes the most off of it. None of the above. The person that makes the most money off of it is the capitalist that has the money to invest. While this person is a neccessary step in the process, that is a redistribution of wealth. Distributed from those who are actually creating to someone that has little to do with the creation.

That's not true at all. Without the Capitalist, the man who built the factory had no capital to fund the building, the person who runs the factory has no capital to fund the purchase of the raw materials to reform and the workers have nowhere and nothing to work in and on. With no Capitalist, the rest of the people in this little play are just milling around without a building, tools or materials.

On the other hand, without the visionary, the organizer and the team of workers, the Capitalist is just some guy dressed well.

These are the various parts of the process. It's like any organization or organism. The various parts do various things and to varying degrees are essential to the outcome.

Right, the factors of production. When put together, they can and do create wealth.

 

[neurosport]

i say wealth is created but there is a finite total amount.....when all the resources of the world are used up that will be the end of wealth creation...

that's BS.

you can always melt a Chevy down and build a BMW from it that is worth 3 times as much.

 

[Toro]

Yes.

Wealth is created through technological improvements. Technology allows us to lower the cost of producing things, which allows us to consume and accumulate more stuff.

 

[Toro]

i say wealth is created but there is a finite total amount.....when all the resources of the world are used up that will be the end of wealth creation...

I would disagree with this statement. I believe that wealth is limitless and constrained only by the bounds of mankind's imagination and ingenuity.

 

[strollingbones]

wealth is created all the time..remember the land transfer scandals of the 70s and 80s....de beers controlled the market of diamonds creating "wealth"...in reality diamonds are worthless....there is no shortage of them at all and can be cultivated ....

 

[editec]

Scarcity. Now there's an interesting topic. If you are a modern-day liberal, there is only a finite amount of wealth in the world so you would believe that it can only be transferred. That's the reason they are so interested in wealth redistributed. Obviously, that's wrong. Wealth can most certainly be created. In my field, we do it all the time by creating computer chips out of silicon, metals and plastic. Want more wealth? Just create more chips. The same applies to just about everything else you can manufacture.

(Guess I should've read Mash's post above first! )

OK, can't resist knocking liberals? Did you ever bother to read what liberals really say concerning the creation of wealth?

Yes. But your definition of liberal and my definition may be two different things.

Yes, but that's because yours is entirely bullshit.

Liberals come here every day and say things that you refuse to acknowlege they've said.

Why?

Because you'd rather debate straw men that real men.

Why?

I don't know...you tell me.

 

[neurosport]

OK, can't resist knocking liberals? Did you ever bother to read what liberals really say concerning the creation of wealth?

Yes. But your definition of liberal and my definition may be two different things.

Yes, but that's because yours is entirely bullshit.

Liberals come here every day and say things that you refuse to acknowlege they've said.

Why?

Because you'd rather debate straw men that real men.

Why?

I don't know...you tell me.

You're all garbage - Liberals and Conservatives. You're products of the media - brainwashed lemmings all of you.

Only Libertarians are cool

 

[Agnapostate]

Libertarians are not libertarians, of course.

 

[editec]

Yes. But your definition of liberal and my definition may be two different things.

Yes, but that's because yours is entirely bullshit.

Liberals come here every day and say things that you refuse to acknowlege they've said.

Why?

Because you'd rather debate straw men that real men.

Why?

I don't know...you tell me.

You're all garbage - Liberals and Conservatives. You're products of the media - brainwashed lemmings all of you.

Only Libertarians are cool

Given some of the insane nonsense you recently spewed on another thread, your opinions regarding of any of us (or pretty much anything any of us ever talks about) seems not all that important.

Were I of the Libertarian persuasion I would denounce you on behalf of that philosophy, too because, sport -- you're not hardly in their camp, either.

Seek help, man.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Wealth cannot be created.

Economics is the distribution of resources.


That's it and that's all it will ever be.


Everything we have comes from the ground, a plant, or an animal. We currently don't have any other source for the things we own.


Wealth is having a lot of resources.