Economics ~ Wealth and Money

[Stryder50]

Consistent with the message of the OP (Opening Post) Title; a first start point would be that of WEALTH versus MONEY.

Two concepts often confused and mangled/mingled in dialogue and minds of some when dealing with "Economics".

NOTE: going to start here with some basic applications and uses of the terms, nuances and picks-of-nit left to any others whom care to join in/get involved.

Wealth - Wikipedia
WEALTH = Goods or Services of Market Value such that others are willing to exchange their goods/services for such. basically engage in Trade (originally Barter).

Wealth - Wikipedia

[Read More]

Money - Wikipedia
MONEY = A device used to achieve two goals in dealing with Wealth;
1) A means(device) for measuring Wealth
2) A means/device to facilitate the exchange/trade in Wealth that circumvents the cumbersome and often inequitable process of Barter.

Money - Wikipedia

[Read More]

A "formula" I came across a few decades ago might be useful for consideration here;

((Human Energy(HE) times(x) Tools (T) [Knowledge/Skills; "picks-n-shovels"; Steamships, train, planes and trucks; factories; Etc.] )) Plus (+) Resources(R) Equals(=) Wealth(W)

(HE x T) + R = W

Basically, humans doing something/stuff(working) will produce Wealth ...

... from crops to harvest, through to manufactured goods and consumables, etc.

The Value of those produced Goods and/or Services are Wealth and can be expressed and traded in Money.

 

[Stryder50]

Early History of human activity, culture and later civilizations, could in a thumbnail and broad description, be one of the "Chief and his thugs" have ownership and rights to all produced within their tribe/community; later evolving into "The King, and Royal Bloodlines/Families" holding similar exclusive Rights and Authority. ~ Millennia of "Rule by Oligarchy" can be debated and parsed to uhmpth degree here and please go for it. ...

... came a point some few thousands of years ago where private ownership of "citizens" gained enough traction to make more effective trade and relations among nations/peoples possible, and human cultures and civilizations began a more effective path of progress leading towards conditions we know today.

Enter the trader/merchant class and society and it's economic foundations began to see growth towards more common wealth, improved technology, and greater well-being for all. Along the way, this diversity of Wealth creation and Retention would pave the way for greater evolution in human governments, societies, and individual well-being.

The seemingly evident bottom-line being that the more those whom MAKE Wealth can Keep what they Produce, the better off society will be and the greater it can grow. Wealth retention is the foundation of capital for investment, and essential to growth and increased productivity, increased Wealth.

During the past few millennia we have seen this develop to point where average human can(should) enjoy a higher standard of living than ever in the past.

Unfortunately, in recent century~decades, we've found those whom would Regress back to the poverty and lower standards of the past that existed when "The State" controlled and dominated the economic efforts of it's citizens; humans in general.

This eternal conflict continues ....

 

[Stryder50]

In past couple of centuries, the economic issues for humankind have settled into two polar applications, adjusted by the onset of the Industrial Revolution = extensive development of machinery and mechanized transportation, etc.

On the one side there is the concept of Free Enterprise;
QUOTE:
Free enterprise, or the free market, refers to an economy where the market determines prices, products, and services rather than the government. Businesses and services are free of government control. Alternatively, free enterprise could refer to an ideological or legal system whereby commercial activities are primarily regulated through private measures.

In principle and in practice, free markets are defined by private property rights, voluntary contracts, and competitive bidding for goods and services in the marketplace. This framework is in contrast to public ownership of property, coercive activity, and fixed or controlled distribution of goods and services.

In Western countries, free enterprise is associated with laissez-faire capitalism and philosophical libertarianism. However, free enterprise is distinct from capitalism. Capitalism refers to a method by which scarce resources are produced and distributed. Free enterprise refers to a set of legal rules regarding commercial interaction.
...

Business Activities Are Unfettered in a Free Enterprise System
Free enterprise is an economic system where few restrictions are placed on business activities and ownership in terms of trade and government intervention.
[Read More]

OR ....
Capitalism
...
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.
...

Capitalism - Wikipedia

[Read More]

The counter-point; or polar opposite is Socialism~Communism;
Socialism
...
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises.[8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.
...

Socialism - Wikipedia

[Read More]

Communism
...
Communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state.
...

Communism - Wikipedia

[Read More]

Would seem the difference between Socialism and Communism is the amount of National State Control versus more Local government control. However, even that looks to be more nuance than substance and to many, both are 'red' apple, one a MacIntosh and the other a Fuji ~metaphorically speaking.

One useful comparison, or metaphor, can be found in fiction of the form of "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand, where a fictitious and near future USA has become divided into those whom produce wealth and those whom consume the redistributed wealth. In essence, there are the wealth "Makers" versus the wealth "Takers".
Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia

[Read More]

In many ways, these terms are applicable to the current divide in politics and economics (the two being closely tied), not just here in the USA, but across the globe. One could say there are two types of humans; 1) those whom want to be Makers and have as little guv'mint as possible, and those whom want to be Takers and use guv'mint as means to legalize their theft from the producers~Makers.

Considering how this divide/conflict can quickly delve into "life or death" matters, it is no small academic discussion/debate/argument.

Another engaging and informative fiction presentation come from "the Dean of American Science Fiction"; Robert A. Heinlein's novel;
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress - Wikipedia

[Read More]

 

[Stryder50]

"Poor" is a category in any economic demographic~breakout where income and/or wealth are stratified.

The classification for "poor" or "poverty line" are subjectively set by government agencies and vary from nation to nation.

In the USA, most of our "poor" have a roof over their head, electricity, running water, a TV, often a computer and most have a car/motor vehicle. In essence "poor" in the USA; or most of the Western, developed nations; tend to have lifestyles that would be considered middle to upper class in most other nations.

i.e. it's relative ...

No economic system is flawless. Capitalism/Free Enterprise provides incentive or less deired coercion, rewards in proportion to investment of knowledge, labor and capital - usually; but also includes an element of risk(chance) along with potential for varied success.

Socialism/Communism is basically a form of using the State/Government to legalize theft from the productive to "redistribute" to those less productive or non-productive. As practiced historically, and to date, it also shows as great a disparity in wealth "acquisition"~ more correctly re-distribution; and tends to share the poverty over a larger demographic and proportion of the population. See the movie; "Moscow on the Hudson" for an example of the nature of life in the USSR just prior to it's collapse;

Moscow on the Hudson - Wikipedia

[Read More]

Those few nation where there is the illusion of "socialism" "working", don't have as many satisfied citizens as claimed but more importantly, tend to provide via the National "credit card" of deficit funding and growing Debt, passing the costs off to future generations of citizens/taxpayers.
Debt to GDP Ratios;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
[Read More]

 

[Stryder50]

Your results don't need to be broadcast, this is mostly an FYI quiz. Personal honesty helps and note the answers allow a slide scale of points to work with as you graph them, (yes, this has a USA slant/perspective, should still apply to other nations) ...

Where do you fit?
Find your fit on the world's smallest political quiz.
...
More than left and right
Our world-famous quiz challenges the dominant "Left versus Right" political model, which is misleading and fatally flawed.
...
[Read More]

.........................................
See also;
Video: The American Form of Government
What is America's true form of government? Is the United States a democracy or a republic?
...
[Read More]

 

[Stryder50]

It might help to view this and then take the quiz;
Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody Parody (Political Opinions Rhapsody)



[Read More]

 

[Stryder50]

----------------------------------

 

[BULLDOG]

It can all get quite complicated, but it's easily summed up as "THEM THAT HAS ----GETS"

 

[The Irish Ram]

Take this statement made by Ottmar Edenhofer, the UN rep that hands all that climate change money out.
United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Is he talking about money, or resources, or money and resources?

 

[Stryder50]

It can all get quite complicated, but it's easily summed up as "THEM THAT HAS ----GETS"

Not always - since them "that has" isn't always a guaranteed that they will get~=~ "has".

Did you ever try to do a "for profit" business venture of your own and manage to succeed where there was no loss ??? !!!

Risk factor suggests about a 3/4 or 4/5 fail and lose ratio.

Free Enterprise carries no quarantee of success/profits and a higher level of loss ~ loose your investment and then some ...

Called "Real LIfe" versus psuedo-guv'mint back-up/support. Back to the wealth making/creating versus wealth redistributing concepts ... ;-)

 

[BULLDOG]

It can all get quite complicated, but it's easily summed up as "THEM THAT HAS ----GETS"

Not always - since them "that has" isn't always a guaranteed that they will get~=~ "has".

Did you ever try to do a "for profit" business venture of your own and manage to succeed where there was no loss ??? !!!

Risk factor suggests about a 3/4 or 4/5 fail and lose ratio.

Free Enterprise carries no quarantee of success/profits and a higher level of loss ~ loose your investment and then some ...

Called "Real LIfe" versus psuedo-guv'mint back-up/support. Back to the wealth making/creating versus wealth redistributing concepts ... ;-)

Most failed businesses fold because of lack of cash. They didn't has enough to start with. The big boys don't have to worry about that.

 

[Brain357]

It can all get quite complicated, but it's easily summed up as "THEM THAT HAS ----GETS"

Not always - since them "that has" isn't always a guaranteed that they will get~=~ "has".

Did you ever try to do a "for profit" business venture of your own and manage to succeed where there was no loss ??? !!!

Risk factor suggests about a 3/4 or 4/5 fail and lose ratio.

Free Enterprise carries no quarantee of success/profits and a higher level of loss ~ loose your investment and then some ...

Called "Real LIfe" versus psuedo-guv'mint back-up/support. Back to the wealth making/creating versus wealth redistributing concepts ... ;-)

Most failed businesses fold because of lack of cash. They didn't has enough to start with. The big boys don't have to worry about that.

The cost of healthcare is making it more unlikely people can afford to start up.