Greg G. wrote:
Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

It's all relative. "Creating" wealth is called counterfeiting. ;-)
Otherwise it's just the changing fortunes of time. Currency (and it's
paperwork equivalents) have no intrinsic value anyhow. It only
represents current perceived wealth. We have nothing of lasting value
to back the money supply in circulation. The (private) Federal Reserve
Banks and markets excel at smoke and mirrors. For instance, should the
system collapse, food, water, and ammunition will be worth far more
that valueless, baseless paper money.

Economics isn't your strong suit, is it?

Considering the value of the dollar these days, I'd say that is isn't
the CEO's of America's strong suit either. You missed the point.
Perhaps it's all in the semantics...

Of course businesses that produce things produce wealth (and that doesn't
mean printing money). In the case of the lowest tier of production, they
take raw material and grow food or produce oil, minerals, or other
material. Now, they do exchange that for money, but the money at that
point is a medium of exchange -- they have something that has been produced
that is of value and that did not previously exist. Those goods can be
exchanged for currency or for other goods. The bottom line is that what
was produced has more value than the sum of the inputs (if not, the
business will go out of business). Whether the money supply remains
constant or is allowed to grow is an economic policy issue, but the money
is only a medium of exchange. Real wealth is in the produce and output of a
company. That grows as production and output grow.

Only if someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore you are not
"creating" additional wealth, you are redistributing it from the
consumer to the producer. The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it. No degree of efficiency within a business can
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.
Even if by convenient mediums of exchange. I understand the economic
convention of what you are saying, yet I still say that in order to
accumulate wealth, you have to take it from someone else, or more
likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.

The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.

;-)



Greg G.

This certainly explains the misguided concept of class envy!