Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was thinking about this and I was curious. Wealth represents resources, (in whatever form, land oil, food, gold, water) correct?
How can we have wealth creation (like McCain touted)? We've mapped the whole world, we've found most of the resources we can get at. Isn't any system or proposal a form of wealth redistribution?
The only way we can create wealth I think is through inflation.
So how is wealth created, or is this an inaccurate phrase.
An even better question is how do you want wealth redistributed? Let the rich do what they want? Pass more out to the poor? Kepp tings as they are?
I don't want to invite an ideological argument. I just want people to think about the fact that we pretty much have a finite amount of resources, we really have no Midas touch, or the ability to make bread fall from the sky. So isn't any system however you look at it, a form of wealth redistribution in some way?
Think in terms of finite resources the basics, the materials not all the new toys we have, not our purchasing power (which one could argue is due to our imperialistic economic policies and currency rates in our favor). Isn't there a limit. Isn't our growth taking away from others?
No, you assume that you can't create new or substitute products. Take water as an example. You have a fixed amount on the planet, however you can build desalination plants and/or canals to create more water where needed. This can allow for crop or industrial expansion.
It may have expanded since 1959, but at the same time the purchasing power of Americans has declined drastically.
That is a bit of a different topic, but my response would be "it depends upon what you measure and what date you establish as your measurement baseline".
That is a bit of a different topic, but my response would be "it depends upon what you measure and what date you establish as your measurement baseline".
I don't think it is different topic, if the topic is wealth. In 1959 we were wealthier than we are now, so the so called expansion of wealth is not as significant as you may think.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-05-2009 at 10:01 AM..
Think in terms of finite resources the basics, the materials not all the new toys we have, not our purchasing power (which one could argue is due to our imperialistic economic policies and currency rates in our favor). Isn't there a limit. Isn't our growth taking away from others?
I think, largely, wealth cannot be created. The lone defiant would be recycled raw materials. In affect, this is much like cloning money, as you are selling that plastic twice, instead of once, and the original producer of the oil that made the original plastic, no longer has control of it when it is remade.
However, in most cases, I completely agree with you. There is no wealth creation, just wealth transfer. Goverments can print all the money they want in "good faith systems", but what would that be worth if the world went back to a barter system?
Traditional economists like Adam Smith maintained the wealth, as opposed to money, was created by mining, agricultural and manufacturing.
Mining creates wealth by removing materials from the ground which makes them available to be processed (manufactured) into things useful to man. Agriculture creates food out of soil, water, air and work. People eat the food so they are available to grow more food to mine more resources. Manufacturing uses capital to build facilities to convert raw ore or grains into things valuable to people. This wealth is measured in money.
Finances are a service that arranges for capital (monetary equivalent to wealth) to be available to the mining, agricultural and manufacturing industries. It does not create wealth but redistributes it for a fee. Government is a service that protects the owners of the wealth from pirates and thieves. It charges a fee to provide the service. It also does not create wealth but protects it. Unfortunately both finances and government can be suborned by the financiers to create and defend monopolists that distort the market for their own profit. This raises the price of goods over their fair market value and acts as a fee by transferring a disproportionate amount of wealth into the usurpers.
All the other factors of an economy such as transport, insurance, sales forces, storage buildings, management etc are a cost and do not create but reduce wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
