"Northwind - you are making the basic mistake of confusing money with wealth. Wealth is material things - the house you refer to above is wealth no matter if it is sold or not.
Bankz can create the conditions for people to create wealth but that do not create any of their own."
I'm really not. Money is not the same as wealth but if you're producing a product exclusively for sale then the sale must take place in order for the product to realise its worth. (obviously production for resale is only one way to create wealth, but currently it's the only way the builder creates any wealth for himself, and so it's the only one which we need consider) The unsold empty house is not an asset unless there's a buyer, in fact it's a liability.
Your logical flaw is in failing to take into account that all the conditions for a situation to occur have to be fulfilled in order for it to give the results. Factory without funding = no wealth created, bank without factory = no wealth created. Factory + bank funding = wealth created. It's clearly incorrect to state that the factory is the only part in that process which is creating wealth, since if you take away the other ingredients it produces nothing.
This reminds me of an old business joke... Nike's directors get together one day and say "What business are we in?"
"Well, we make and sell shoes"
"But how do we sell those shoes?"
"We make people want to buy our shoes more than the competition"
"But how do we do that?"
"Through advertising and sports sponsorship"
At the end of the meeting, Nike stops making shoes and goes exclusively into making adverts, because it's the advertising that makes them money.
But if TJ's argument is correct, it would go something like this:
"Well, we make and sell shoes"
"But how do we sell those shoes?"
"We make people want to buy our shoes more than the competition"
"But how do we do that?"
"Well, mainly because of advertising and sports sponsorship"
"Ah, but our advertising men make no shoes, therefore they create no wealth... And wealth is created when we make a shoe whether or not anyone buys it, because wealth isn't the same as money. So lets sack them all"
"Great!"
"While we're at it, sack the people who put the shoes in boxes, and the truck drivers, and close down the shops, they don't create wealth either"
"Fantastic, we're going to save a fortune and create the exact same amount of wealth!"
I'm not touching Ernie's ridiculous and prejudiced straw man with a 10 foot pole.
I'm not touching Ernie's ridiculous and prejudiced straw man with a 10 foot pole.
Ignoring my posts is almost certainly your best strategy. Specially if the Nike joke represents the best you can come up with.
But of course just by commenting on my post, you have [i]touched[/i] it, so here's a tip : for maximum effect just make no comment at all.
I have no problem paying tax because I am comfortably off, for now. But the way it is spent is frustrating.
Benefits seem based on a low total income. If your total income varies, it's recalculated. I you make an effort to work a bit more, the benefit goes down.
What if benefit level was based on hourly-rate? It's less variable than total income. The recipient is encourage to work and earn more without losing the benefit. I wont be paying any more tax, but the country is gaining a more productive worker.
Errrmmm - that does not reduce the amount of money in the economy - it just moves it around a bit
Surely if more people are claiming benefits then paying taxes then we are just generating debt?
If a stock, say, is worth £1 when I buy it, and £1.50 when I sell it, is that not created wealth?
If you think benefits would be better jack your job in and do it and stop moaning on here... Anyway they real problem is labour hasnt had the stones to go after the rich, whilst trying to help the poor which has squeezed those in the middle. I would expect the original poster my find his retirement will be better than those on low incomes.
