Do you agree with the following statement? Only "work" can create wealth.

[Stryder50]

Here I am using the work as understood by "physics". A plant growing using solar energy represents work by the plant, an animal pulling a cart is also work, so is regular labor and machines using any source of energy to operate.

I suggest trying this formula;
(HE x T) + R = W

HE = Human Energy. We could consider this what you want to call "work". But it also includes vision, planning, organizing as well as Labor in various forms.

T = Tools. This can include a large range of items and concepts. Knowledge and Skills to start with, and the schools and institutions for learning such. Basic implements such as saws and hammers, picks and shovels, etc. Then "power" from animal strength/labor to water/wind mills, to coal plants, smelters, dams with hydro-electric generators, etc. Transportation systems such animal drawn plows and wagons to motor vehicles to steamships to airplanes, trucks, trains, etc. Along with smelters, refineries, there are factories, markets and even financial systems such as banks and stock exchanges (investment systems for 'capital').

R = Resources. Mostly natural mineral and metal-ores. Also includes the soil for agriculture and the Foods it produces, and seas and oceans for marine fisheries. Trees for lumber and other wood products, oil wells for petroleum, mines for mineral and metal ores. Basically the materials needed to be crafted into "Goods", physical items.

W = Wealth. Goods and/or Services with Market Value. The end result of Production Efforts.

(Human Energy times(x) Tools) plus(+) Resources equals(=) Wealth
(HE x T) + R = W

 

[Stryder50]

So, by confirming the post you called "fake news" you make your own comment "fake".

I don't use "fake news" in that literal a sense, always. The 'negative' options are only two, "disagree" or "fake news". "disagree" is rather soft and generic, so "fake news" has to apply also as "wrong", "error", "dumb", "incorrect", "stupid", Etc.

Would help if the Board Owners/Mods could add a couple other better choices.

In the case of your post #16, "Capital" would be the "T = Tools" in my #21 above. Labor alone doesn't do it. Labor needs Tools(Capital) to produce something useful ~ of value. Labor and Capital are the two sides of one coin so to speak.

 

[Stryder50]

One good idea can create more wealth than ten men with brute force.

Only if someone(s) does something with that "good idea".
"good ideas" are not self-activating.
This is where some of those "ten men with brute force" might be useful, if properly directed and applied.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Only if someone(s) does something with that "good idea".
"good ideas" are not self-activating.
This is where some of those "ten men with brute force" might be useful, if properly directed and applied.

But it is not the men creating the wealth. It is the seminal concept.

 

[Stryder50]

But it is not the men creating the wealth. It is the seminal concept.

Your "seminal concept" is one form of the "T" in;
(HE x T) + R = W.
Unless you can prove how "seminal concept" is self-actuating and can create on it's own without other factors working with it.

It is the men using the seminal concept in a process of labor with other tools and resources that makes the wealth.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Your "seminal concept" is one form of the "T" in;
(HE x T) + R = W.
Unless you can prove how "seminal concept" is self-actuating and can create on it's own without other factors working with it.

It is the men using the seminal concept in a process of labor with other tools and resources that makes the wealth.

A seminal concept is the foundation of wealth creation. It might take effort but without the beginning idea, it's a bunch of chimpanzees beating the ground with sticks wondering why they haven't made a car.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I put it in the OP "A plant growing using solar energy represents work by the plant".
Spanish didn't find "loads of gold" they stole it. Regardless someone had to "work" to get that gold.
Only work creates wealth that doesn't mean you have to be the one doing the work. Planation owners got rich because slaves did the work.

A plant "working" is nonsensical.
The Spanish found it, then stole it. Doesn't really matter for THE POINT I WAS MAKING.

To make my point.

Say I put in 1 hour's work and I come out of it with $5

My work created "wealth"

Say someone else puts in 1 hour's work and comes out with $1 million dollars.

Is the work creating the wealth? Clearly not, as two people have put in the same amount of work and come out with different amounts of wealth.

Stealing is doing work, but you can steal a pencil or you can steal a billion dollars.

Food may, or may not, require that much work on your part. If I make bread, I need more work than if I pluck an apple off the tree.

 

[Stryder50]

A seminal concept is the foundation of wealth creation. It might take effort but without the beginning idea, it's a bunch of chimpanzees beating the ground with sticks wondering why they haven't made a car.

Your CYA aside, "concepts" are just blue sky pie dreams unless something concrete is done with them.
But if you want to quibble semantics, go for it; but I won't play that game with you.

 

[Mexicano]

Takes a lot more than "work", even using your vague definition in the OP title.

Lets start with a basic definition of wealth.

Wealth equals goods and/or services that have a market value. Means others are willing to exchange the goods and/or services they produce for what you produce. This assumes that you produce something others will want in the first place. Produce something few others will not want, and you haven't produced much of "wealth". You might even have produced something of negative value if you can't even give it away. So big hint here is "Wealth" is an aspect of Supply and Demand.

Supply something that has no Demand, you wasted your efforts and resources.

That basic established, let's move on to next post on "Wealth Creation".

Not all work produces wealth. But I am not making that claim.

I am simply stating that no wealth can be created without work.

 

[Mexicano]

A plant "working" is nonsensical.
The Spanish found it, then stole it. Doesn't really matter for THE POINT I WAS MAKING.

No it is not. They capture co2 and use sunlight to transform it into proteins and carbohidrates.
It is precisely for this reason we can eat. Nature is part of the wealth we have available.
Try moving to any peak of the Himalayas where no plant grow or the middle of Sahara and let me know how wealthy you feel without access to any plant.

To make my point.

Say I put in 1 hour's work and I come out of it with $5

My work created "wealth"

You got money in exchange for your work . Money is not wealth. You need either land and ( labor or machine time) to create wealth.
How good are your $5 in a dessert island?

Say someone else puts in 1 hour's work and comes out with $1 million dollars.

Again, that's money and that is not wealth. How good is that million in a dessert island?
Money is just an IOU to get goods and services.

Is the work creating the wealth? Clearly not, as two people have put in the same amount of work and come out with different amounts of wealth.

On the aggregate level someone , somewhere has to work in order to create goods and services money by itself isn't wealth.

Stealing is doing work, but you can steal a pencil or you can steal a billion dollars.

Food may, or may not, require that much work on your part. If I make bread, I need more work than if I pluck an apple off the tree.

Most of the work was put by the plant. Adam Smith wrot that production require three factors : land, labour and capital. Trees and plants enter in the "land" category.

 

[there4eyeM]

Labor existed and created wealth for thousands of years before capital was invented.

 

[Blues Man]

Here I am using the work as understood by "physics". A plant growing using solar energy represents work by the plant, an animal pulling a cart is also work, so is regular labor and machines using any source of energy to operate.

Wealth is net worth.

You can work your entire life and never be wealthy.

Over time a person with a modest income who works less hours can have more net worth than a person with a high income who works more hours

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I am simply stating that no wealth can be created without work.

"without the work of 'someone'"?

 

[JGalt]

Depends on your definition of "create". It's certainly creating it for the lottery winner.

You could say that. Wealth is also created by investing in the stock market, which is just as much a gamble as buying a $2.00 lottery ticket.

 

[there4eyeM]

Clearly, many who speak do not understand.
Creating money is not creating "wealth". Creating wealth means building structures, producing goods, providing services, educating in order to learn how to create goods, products and services. Investment can lead to wealth creation. When it simply results in accumulating money, no "wealth" has been created. Money alone is good for nothing. There must be an interest on the part of others for money to be able to do anything.
Confusion arises when possessing money and things and being "wealthy" is conflated with the true sense of wealth creation.

 

[Vrenn]

There are ways to create wealth with no work involved. Buying a winning lottery ticket for example.

Hedge Funds.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No it is not. They capture co2 and use sunlight to transform it into proteins and carbohidrates.
It is precisely for this reason we can eat. Nature is part of the wealth we have available.
Try moving to any peak of the Himalayas where no plant grow or the middle of Sahara and let me know how wealthy you feel without access to any plant.


You got money in exchange for your work . Money is not wealth. You need either land and ( labor or machine time) to create wealth.
How good are your $5 in a dessert island?


Again, that's money and that is not wealth. How good is that million in a dessert island?
Money is just an IOU to get goods and services.


On the aggregate level someone , somewhere has to work in order to create goods and services money by itself isn't wealth.



Most of the work was put by the plant. Adam Smith wrot that production require three factors : land, labour and capital. Trees and plants enter in the "land" category.

Well, if we go at it, then the Sun has to work, and without the Sun there's no life....

A pretty pointless argument, but some people like pointless arguments. I don't. So I'm out.

 

[1srelluc]

There are ways to create wealth with no work involved. Buying a winning lottery ticket for example.

But you had to work to get the dollar for the ticket.....I don't think that the lottery takes EBT....Yet.

But even if the dollar was given to you by grandma on your B-Day or the taxpayer someone had to work for it.

 

[Blues Man]

Clearly, many who speak do not understand.
Creating money is not creating "wealth". Creating wealth means building structures, producing goods, providing services, educating in order to learn how to create goods, products and services. Investment can lead to wealth creation. When it simply results in accumulating money, no "wealth" has been created. Money alone is good for nothing. There must be an interest on the part of others for money to be able to do anything.
Confusion arises when possessing money and things and being "wealthy" is conflated with the true sense of wealth creation.

Wealth is net worth.

That is all it has ever been.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Here I am using the work as understood by "physics". A plant growing using solar energy represents work by the plant, an animal pulling a cart is also work, so is regular labor and machines using any source of energy to operate.

It seems we cannot even define what "wealth" is.