The Miracle of Wealth Creation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Oct 22, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    Good video. Bill Whittle gives a clear and concise explanation of the creation of wealth, and how conservatives and liberals/progressives see it differently. Which group are you in? Is wealth unlimited as conservatives see it, or is it limited and stagnant creating classes of oppressors and victims. Winners and losers? Which side are you on?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Wealth is obviously limited to some extent as there are a limited number of resources.
     
  3. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    Um, kinda.

    Also, you're assuming that wealth creation requires a never ending supply of new resources, instead of more creative free-market uses of available resources in new and improved ways, for new and improved uses, etc.
     
  4. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #5
    Human effort and creativity is also a finite resource.
     
  5. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #6
    Not relative to the population or demand for such effort/creativity. Clearly the complete potential for wealth creation per individual will never be met.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Wealth is unlimited.

    We can just leave the printing presses running 24/7 and hand money out like candy mints.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Well if you convert your money into Vietnamese dong, you'll be an instant millionaire if not a billionaire.

    It doesn't mean you can buy that much stuff with that money.
     
  8. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    Congrats. Clearly you've grasped the finer points of the argument flawlessly! :rolleyes: OMG.
    We can always count on you guys for substantive conversation! Haha!
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    pot-kettle.jpg
     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    "Check out this youtube on the differences between conservatives and liberals."
     
  11. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #12
    I think the problem might be that conservatives think they know how liberals feel but they are wrong. I fall on the liberal side when it comes to things like taxes. But I understand how it works. I don't for one minute think that just because one person has more, then that is the reason why another has less. BW said that this is how liberals think. Not true. I don't want to take all the money from the rich and redistribute it among the poor. If we did that, there would be no rich, no reason to try and get rich and our economy would completely tank. However, I think that tax cuts for the rich are b.s. Don't soak em just cause they have more, but don't let em off the hook, either.
     
  12. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #13
    It simply shows he did not watch the video.

    I thought it was pretty good.

    That could (and should) be said about both sides.
     
  13. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #14
    Agreed!
     
  14. fcortese macrumors demi-god

    fcortese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Big Sky country
    #15
    +1 on both comments.
     
  15. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #16
    Instantaneous wealth, that is wealth at any one moment of time, is limited. Future wealth is infinite but bounded by the potential growth rate of the nation which appears to be about 3-4% per annum for the US.
     
  16. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #17
    This, too, is mathematically impossible. Infinite growth is basic innumeracy.
     
  17. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #18
    As long as you have infinite time, anything is possible.
     
  18. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #19
    What's really funny here is that you think YouTube Videos are called "YouTubes". Do you watch them on your iTouch? ;)



    Yes, very true, people do this too much. It often lowers the quality of the debate. However, we also should consider that small minorities in a certain group shouldn't stand in the way of making efficient simplifications/generalizations in order to speed and simplify complex conversations. If you say for example that "conservatives are anti-abortion" I'm not going to correct you and say "most conservatives are anti-abortion" because I know what you're saying. I know that reasonable people realize that there are minorities in every group and you can't look at a group consisting of millions upon millions of people and say ANYTHING which would apply to each and everyone of them.

    This video clearly and accurately draws a contrast between conservative and progressive/liberal perspective on economics which is provable based on Democrat positions on tax policy, welfare, wealth redistribution, government spending, etc. as well as advocasy groups and media such as "The Story of Stuff." The President himself has taken many positions which imply belief in this notion, suggesting he believes wealth should be spread around, and that at a 'certain point I think you've made enough.' Clearly this is a logical generalization of both sides of the issue.

    BTW, I applaud your personal position on the issue. Thank you.


    Exactly. ;)
     
  19. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #20
    Well, that's true too..... ok eff it.... I'm deleting my entire post.....
     
  20. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #21
    Nonsense. Wealth creation is dependent on physical labor done on resources extracted from the earth. That 'giant, but limited, pot of money' is Earth. Wealth cannot 'be created from thin air', and the 'rich man with the car, houses and the learjet' is in fact wealthy through a process of using the labor of others and resources from the Earth.

    His example of Los Angeles is comical: where did all of that stuff come from? Laborers removed it from the soil and made objects out of it. We have a limited number of man-hours to extract resources and make things, and a limited amount of resources to be extracted.

    Conservatives wish that wealth were able to be made from thin air, so that they could feel better about cutting social programs and blaming the poor for not working hard enough.
     
  21. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #22
    Okay, for one thing, as a matter of physical reality you don't have infinite time (although arguably right now we have a comfortable enough margin to work with).

    But the non-nitpicky problem is that any time you start expecting infinite growth expressed as a constant year-on-year percentage, then you really don't have infinite time, because the curve you've created is an asymptote, and infinite utilization is far, far closer than the death of the universe. At 3-4% annual growth, you double the amount of "wealth" every 17-24 years, and also, the resource utilization of your civilization in every 17-24 year period is equal to all resource utilization previously in all of history, and that's from what most people consider a very small percentage.

    It looks easy, and the curve looks almost linear, when utilization is low, but it's still an asymptotic curve, and you will eventually pass the knee of the curve where getting that return is a steep climb rather than a gentle rise.

    Keep in mind that at all times that 3-4% growth is inclusive of all invention, optimization, population growth, and anything else you might appeal to. As long as you demand constant growth, the day is coming, and always sooner than you think, where every possible ounce of human effort at maximum possible efficiency and all the resources it is remotely possible to exploit cannot meet the expected doubling rate.

    The failure can be disguised for a time with inflation, but that's playing games with money, and of course the original premise insists on "wealth" as independent of the units of measure, so we are obliged to maintain "wealth" as defined as the sum total of human efforts applied to available resources.

    It isn't infinite. That is impossible.
     
  22. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #23
    Well, literally, no not infinite but certainly very much more growth is possible in the future and so much so that it looks fairly infinite from our viewpoint currently. I see it as possible because I believe that within a certain period of time we will begin exploiting the resources of other planets and no longer be limited to those that exist on Earth. If, however, we have reached an asymptote, then the bounded growth rate will begin to shrink and may even turn negative so that wealth begins to contract. I expect we will figure a way out of this before it happens. You could argue that past performance is not indicative of future performance but humans have overcome limits they have reached in the past and I see few limits on our capacity to invent. In this regard I remain optimistic.
     
  23. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #24
    I'm no economist, so I'll put forward no comment on this topic - I can't contribute intelligently.

    For this point, how do you see software/digital commodities? Yes, they require labor: someone has to program them. They require certain material resources: a computer to write, run, and sell them on. But once a digital commodity is finished it can be replicated almost instantaneously at no cost other than the electricity used to power the computer. I guess I'm thinking about this as a resource you have to build, but then it recreates itself. F---, now I'm thinking about wind and solar energy . . .

    This is why I shouldn't post in economics threads :(
     
  24. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #25
    again with the false binary choices? :p
     

Share This Page