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...

You're hung up on that green paper stuff being "wealth".

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.

No, you're creating additional wealth. Giving money to the producer
doesn't "redistribute it" except to the extent that the value of the
goods is greater than the cost.

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.

You were complaining a bit earlier that its value is _not_ constant.

No degree of efficiency within a business can
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.

No. Money is garnered by transfer. Money is not wealth. Money is
something that can be exchanged for goods. The goods are the wealth.

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.

So who did Bill Gates take it from?

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

If you believe that perhaps you should transfer some currency to the
makers of Viagra in exchange for some of the wealth that they have
produced.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)