The philosophy of wealth creation

[manifold]

A friend and former co-worker of mine periodically sends me thread starting material (I confess, he comes up with the good stuff, not me. ). He is actually the person that got me into messageboards in the first place, but now he only likes to lurk and help out with a thread topic now and again. Until now, he has always requested that I take credit for whatever he sends me, and since it's usually pretty good, I do. But this time he's asked me to credit him. I didn't ask why, but I'm happy to oblige.

Note to mods: If this violates the rules in any way at all, I have no compunction whatsoever with going on record to state that Magus Perde is just a pseudonym I sometimes write under.

The Philosophy of Wealth Creation
by Magus Perde

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:

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

A perfect example is Saudi Arabia. Their wealth was not created by oil. They used an abundant and valuable natural resource to extract wealth from the rest of the world. Add to this the fact that the term wealth was once synonymous with welfare and the point becomes all the more salient.

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

 

[uscitizen]

Wealth is not a pure closed system, but closer than most realize.

 

[xsited1]

Shouldn't this be in the humor section?

 

[uscitizen]

No more so than the right wing concept that if it is good for the market or corporations it is good for America.

 

[manifold]

Shouldn't this be in the humor section?

Compelling rebuttal indeed.

 

[Ravi]

That Perde boy is sometimes wicked smart.

 

[xsited1]

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!

 

[kwc57]

Mani, just curious why you chose the religion forum for this thread?

 

[manifold]

Mani, just curious why you chose the religion forum for this thread?

I didn't.

I chose the philosophy forum, which happens to piggy back on the religion forum.

 

[manifold]

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!

Your first one was better. At least you didn't pretend to have a rebuttal and fail.

 

[manifold]

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

 

[Bern80]

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. The money supply is not finite because we can print it. Not without consequence off course, but we indeed can make more of the stuff.

It would seem to me for the analogy to apply everyone would have to start life with a pre-set amount of money. For the theory to continue to apply through various transactions some would end up with all of the supply while some have none. Except that isn't how it works in reality. We all start life at zero money wise (someone go ahead and yell out trust fund baby, that's the exception, not the rule). And for the most part we all end up with more than zero. Some fluctuate and some just keep going up and up. 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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That Perde boy is sometimes wicked smart.

nope. That would be wicked smaht...and the Dante Files can prove IT.

And MP was so much smahtah and bettah than little boy mani.

 

[xsited1]

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!

Your first one was better. At least you didn't pretend to have a rebuttal and fail.

As usual, your troll posts are somewhat amusing, but alas I didn't fall for it mainly because this is a very serious subject. Nice try, though. Sorry I rained on your parade.

 

[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. The money supply is not finite because we can print it. Not without consequence off course, but we indeed can make more of the stuff.

It would seem to me for the analogy to apply everyone would have to start life with a pre-set amount of money. For the theory to continue to apply through various transactions some would end up with all of the supply while some have none. Except that isn't how it works in reality. We all start life at zero money wise (someone go ahead and yell out trust fund baby, that's the exception, not the rule). And for the most part we all end up with more than zero. Some fluctuate and some just keep going up and up. 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. Because, despite xsited1's failed attempts at ridicule, 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.

 

[xsited1]

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. The money supply is not finite because we can print it. Not without consequence off course, but we indeed can make more of the stuff.

It would seem to me for the analogy to apply everyone would have to start life with a pre-set amount of money. For the theory to continue to apply through various transactions some would end up with all of the supply while some have none. Except that isn't how it works in reality. We all start life at zero money wise (someone go ahead and yell out trust fund baby, that's the exception, not the rule). And for the most part we all end up with more than zero. Some fluctuate and some just keep going up and up. 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. Because, despite xsited1's failed attempts at ridicule, 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.

No way to prove the matter one way or the other?

Your trolliness knows no bounds.

I bow to your awesome trollness!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

 

[manifold]

That Perde boy is sometimes wicked smart.

nope. That would be wicked smaht...and the Dante Files can prove IT.

And MP was so much smahtah and bettah than little boy mani.

and then some.


btw: MP says hello.

 

[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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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. The money supply is not finite because we can print it. Not without consequence off course, but we indeed can make more of the stuff.

It would seem to me for the analogy to apply everyone would have to start life with a pre-set amount of money. For the theory to continue to apply through various transactions some would end up with all of the supply while some have none. Except that isn't how it works in reality. We all start life at zero money wise (someone go ahead and yell out trust fund baby, that's the exception, not the rule). And for the most part we all end up with more than zero. Some fluctuate and some just keep going up and up. 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.

That argument can't even be made in regards to a transaction. 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.