Dad2three
Gold Member
and yet you're not acknowledging my obvious and correct point.
Since you are the one who decided to reply to me, your point is irrelevant to the incorrect assertion that wealth is a zero-sum game.
You LIE. Shocking. The premises, as I've outlined to you, was
Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".
JUST like my link, and my posting showed.
Lying right winger? I'm shocked
You are a fool because you don't have the sense to know what you don't know. Perhaps you should have read further down your Wikipedia link.
In economics, wealth in a commonly applied accounting sense is the net worth of a person, household, or nation, that is, the value of all assets owned net of all liabilities owed at a point in time. For national wealth as measured in the national accounts, the net liabilities are those owed to the rest of the world.
economic definition of wealth - Google Search
You learn this in the first week of Introductory Economics 101. You should get an education. Then, you wouldn't display your ignorance online for all the world to see.
It's ironic that you quote Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations was the first teatise demonstrating that wealth wasn't a zero-sum game.
Of course, you wouldn't know that.
So NO, you will not take Adam Smith's AND MY definition of wealth as the posit was, instead you'll change it and argue from a different posit? Typical right winger!
Sorry, s0n. You don't rate.
Come back when you have a basic understanding of economics rather than parroting blog posts.
Got it, you don't value the original posit OR Adam Smith definition!