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...


Not sure how you think that CEO's have control of the value of US
currency.

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.

So, someone drilling a hole in the ground and extracting crude oil is not
producing wealth? .. or someone taking 100 bushel of corn seed and
producing 10000 bushels of corn from that seed is not creating wealth?
They both are producing something that goes into the economy that was not
there before. People are willing to trade either time, other products, or
currency for those new products.

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.

You are essentially saying that the economy is a zero-sum game. This can
be readily proven to be false. You must agree that there is more wealth in
the country than at the start of the 20'th century and that there was more
wealth in the 1950's than in the 1920's. In a growing economy, the money
supply is only one variable, the real measure of wealth is in products,
production, and the willingess of people to exchange time, other products,
or currency for goods.

This isn't rocket surgery, it's econ101.





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

;-)


By analogy, your banana would never grow past the flower stage because
wealth doesn't increase.



Greg G.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough