Posted by Robert* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 7:23 AM:
Over the years I have had reason to consider our economy, its cycles, and the causes of those cycles. This forum has its share of disagreement on the state of our economy and what should be done about it.
It seems to me there are two major perspectives (perhaps more but I will focus on these two). One perspective, and it is mine, considers business as an organization which creates value and thus powers the economy. Another perspective seems to be that there is a finite value in the economy and it is a dog-eat-dog fight out there for every person/organization to obtain that which they need or desire. People with this perspective seem to see business as greedy organizations willing to rape the land and steamroll the underprivileged in order to become rich and powerful.
I am sure there are other perspectives and shades between the two but I would be interested in understanding how you see the economy. Perhaps I could then begin to understand why we have some of the disagreements on this forum.
Replies (17)
People were created to be loved. Things were created to be used. The reason the world is in chaos and the economy is in turmoil is that things are being loved and people are being used.
That's my assessment anyway.
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 7:54 AM
I had a discussion on wealth creation online recently. Apparently, there are two lines of thought about that. The one with which I agree (the Adam Smith view) says that wealth is created by industry and enterprise. The other says that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world, and industry and enterprise only move it around. This view consideres wealth creation to be a myth.
I was stumped. I thought even Marx recognized that wealth could be created (though I admit it has been a long time since I read Marx, and he made little sense to me at the time). The idea that it is mythical and that generations of Americans, as well as generations of their ancestors, have laboured in the vain pursuit of mythical wealth creation struck me as so foreign as to be unbelievable. And yet, many online seemed to agree with that view.
The idea seems incomprehensible to me. It's apparently a variation on the Law of Conservation of Energy: Wealth can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. This view holds that there is no more wealth today than there was in the time of Adam Smith, the time of Julius Caesar, even to the time of the Xia Dynasty.
I simply cannot fathom the 'finite economy' theory.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:33 AM
There are two perspectives as you say; producers and moochers. People know the difference and which they are. Hint: liberals are moochers, conservatives are producers. Yes, it really is that simple.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:56 AM
wealth , is it money and material things or is it a perception of inter strenght ?
MHO , if wealth in the money and material things context were 'finite economy' theory , there would be no growth in technology .
some people are lazy , some are not . to say all liberals are lazy and all conservatives are not would be wrong . it's an individual's decision , not an ideology decision .
-- Posted by Rick* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:34 AM
Rick,
Money is only a scorecard. Money is not wealth, but it the guage by which we usually measure it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:38 AM
I measure wealth by how much leisure time I have!
Seems Im not that wealthy..!
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:41 AM
Money is only important if you do not have it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:49 AM
Everything in the way of physical wealth is alreay here on this planet. Until we figure out a way to practically get to other planets and "steal" what is there, this is all we have to work with.
It is up to us to mine, drill, hammer into different forms, grow and harvest it in a variety of responsibly ways for our use while we are here.
Those folks who have the foresight to see a need and rise to the occasion are the producers of the world those who do not and could care less are the takers.
I don' think I answered your question Stnmns8.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:05 AM
Minerals have value, but they are not wealth, in and of themselves.
The basis of Adam Smith's theory on wealth creation centers around the idea that minerals in the earth have a certain value. When someone mines them and extracts them from the ore, they have more value. Thus, the miner and the refiner have created wealth by virtue of increasing the value of the components. More people, for instance, are desirous of refined oil and than crude oil, and more are desirous of crude oil than in owning the extraction rights thereof. Thus, refined oil is more valuable than crude, and crude more valuable then oil in the ground.
In short, if a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, even though they be the same bird, the person catching the bird-in-hand has created wealth.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:18 AM
The farmer more directly creates wealth: he takes a single seed and produces from it leaves for food, seeds for oil and for continuing the cycle, and stalks for fodder. Granted, the seed will do this sans the farmer, but farmer prepares the ground, sows the seed and harvests the bounty, prepares the produce for sale, and continues the cycle in a manner which makes his efforts valuable to the populace. He is, most assuredly, creating wealth by utilizing the natural cycles and products of and nature and turning them into that which is of value to the people who depend on him.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:24 AM
Read ATLAS SHRUGGED. It will validate your first perspective and explain the consequences of the second.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:26 AM
If for the sake of this discussion, wealth is defined as money, I think we can draw a distinction between creating and amassing.
There is naturally created wealth abound waiting to be "harvested" to say. The riches of the sea, the fish to be caught and converted to money; the riches of the land waiting to be harvested and converted to money to be amassed. In this case it is evident that there is an entity of wealth to which some people take a larger share than others.
Considering money can be printed voids the idea that there is a defined amount to be divided fairly or unfairly to establish a concept of being wealthy.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:46 AM
Old John,
Money is worthless unless it is backed by something of value.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM
Shapley, Thanks, you added a point to my ramble.
One can create stocks and bonds to sell and amass a lot of money, but money is worthless in itself if not backed by wealth already created.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:56 AM
Read ATLAS SHRUGGED. It will validate your first perspective and explain the consequences of the second.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:26 AM
i did then i threw it in the waste can .
America gives each individual an oppertunity to achieve their full potential . This is wealth , IMHO ...
-- Posted by Rick* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 12:17 PM
Grazie!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 12:32 PM
I appreciate the replies made to this post; I am only disappointed that there was no one willing to post an explanation of their perspective. Shapley has made some good points concerning Adam Smith and his theory. And Nil is correct concerning the average amount of wealth created per year since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
I was hoping to gain an insight into the thought process of those who feel business is merely an attempt to amass as much money as possible. But, I suppose some thought this thread was merely an attempt to find an excuse for name calling.
There is a definite lack of personal ethics among leadership in both business and government in this country. Those who see life as a struggle to gain their fair share of a finite value see Enron and the latest economic hardship as evidence that our free market economy does not work. Those of us who believe in capitalism realize that as long as businessmen work to produce a product or service of value and pay a fair wage to their employees the result is a win for all involved. It is the greed that causes some to attempt to get something for nothing that causes failures in the economic system. We would do better to rebuild the moral and ethical foundations of our society than to destroy the economic engine which has made this country great!
Those who would destroy this imperfect system should first realize the damage they do to the world if they have no better system to replace that which they destroy!
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 10:05 PM
Menu
Over the years I have had reason to consider our economy, its cycles, and the causes of those cycles. This forum has its share of disagreement on the state of our economy and what should be done about it.
It seems to me there are two major perspectives (perhaps more but I will focus on these two). One perspective, and it is mine, considers business as an organization which creates value and thus powers the economy. Another perspective seems to be that there is a finite value in the economy and it is a dog-eat-dog fight out there for every person/organization to obtain that which they need or desire. People with this perspective seem to see business as greedy organizations willing to rape the land and steamroll the underprivileged in order to become rich and powerful.
I am sure there are other perspectives and shades between the two but I would be interested in understanding how you see the economy. Perhaps I could then begin to understand why we have some of the disagreements on this forum.
Replies (17)