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...
Or .. perhaps ... the mooching middle class has so indebted this
nation with its cradle-to-grave fantasies, that the only way to
survive is to maintain an economic policy that keeps paying back
our creditors with a devalued dollar. The Chinese, Japanese,
and Europeans that lent us money, are now getting back a fraction
of what they lent in real terms primarily because the smelly hippies
of the 1960s who want healthcare in their old age (and have saved
nothing for it themselves) have made us a nation of international
borrowers. Don't blame the rich. Blame your neighbors.
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
This is bluntly nonsense. There is both a variable amount of
currency and "wealth" floating around at any moment in time
in the economy. If this were not true, you'd still live in
a log cabin without heat, lights, cell phones, and CAT scan
machines at the hospital in your area.
alter these factors. Wealth is garnered by transfer, not creation.
Whether you know it or not, you are of the same mind as the
economic Marxists ... they've been thoroughly discredited and
are generally bad company.
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
I do not steal from anyone. I create value by applying my time
and abilities to take low value goods and make them higher value.
This creates wealth (for me and others). No involuntary transfer
of other people's wealth is involved.
likely, a whole lot of someone elses. Which explains the banking and
insurance industry, telecos, and Wal-Mart.
No. It illustrates profound ignorance of what wealth is, how it
is created, and who makes it happen.
The banana doesn't get any bigger because you stroked it just right.
Maybe. But growing more bananas than the guy down the street makes
you wealthier (without stealing from him) in a banana economy.
;-)
Greg G.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/