What is "the wealth"?

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
I often here claims that the top 1% of Americans posses 90% of the wealth. The numbers vary but this raises the question of what is wealth and where does it come from.

It seems that many view wealth as if it were a natural resource that certain people hoard and keep from others. But, if you look at what wealth really is, wealth is something that people produce. It is not a resource that belongs to the masses, it is the product of ones actions and ones labor. Wealth is therefore not finite but infinite to a large extent. Even if one literally had all the money in the world he would have to spend it in exchange for the goods and services produced by others. Every able bodied man has the ability to create wealth with little more than enough food to fuel his muscles and brain.

Looking at wealth as a product and not as a resource, many popular arguments fall flat on their face. Specifically the argument that Capitalism is unfair because group X has Y amount of "the wealth." There is no such thing as "the wealth" only wealth. So, while it may be true that group X possesses much more wealth, there is no percentage that can be ascribed because in order to have a percentage you need a base number which in this case is irrational.

Arguments of oppression of minorities also fall on their face. Yes it is true that if you refuse to hire minorities they will have a harder time building wealth than others. But this does not stop them from creating their own wealth. The largest employer in the US is the small business and many of these business' are built from the ground up so building one's own wealth is not insurmountable.

So the next time you hear an argument that points to control of "the wealth" as proof of anything, remind the person that the term "the wealth" is a misnomer and there is actually no such thing. People create wealth, it is not a limited resource.
 

cbtwohundread

Well-Known Member
im the richest man in the world.,.,i have all the love in the world.,.,and i have no money.,.,said they wont take my love in the bank.,.,
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Replace the word " Wealth" with the word Capital and it makes more sense that way.
No it doesn't. Capital like wealth comes in many forms. Aside from the obvious there is human capital which is an awesome force for wealth building. I trust you have heard the phrase "it's not what you know but who you know." There is intelligence, skill, talent, etc. A highly skilled tattoo artist makes a fortune these days and he can do it with little cash.

I think when people refer to "the wealth" they are referring to the aggregate of everyone's net worth vs the individual. But this is just a measure of what one has produced, not of how much of the hypothetical pie one has.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
people need a base certain amount of "wealth" to live. period. and the statistics that are important are the distribution of wealth over time. the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class and the poor are becoming less wealthy. there is a breaking point where society will collapse to some degree. believe it.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
people need a base certain amount of "wealth" to live. period. and the statistics that are important are the distribution of wealth over time. the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class and the poor are becoming less wealthy. there is a breaking point where society will collapse to some degree. believe it.
You mean people need to produce a certain amount of wealth to live. This is true but the amount varies as does the means.

You have to be careful with terms like "distribution of wealth." Distribution can suggest a distributor and there is no distributor in a free market. People create wealth in different amounts, that is not wealth being distributed but merely a snapshot of wealth being created at any given time.

Again, it is a mistake to look at wealth as a big pie with some getting a bigger slice than others. It is more correct to look at wealth as a continuously expanding pie shop with each person paid according to how many pies he produces.
 

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
people need a base certain amount of "wealth" to live. period. and the statistics that are important are the distribution of wealth over time. the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class and the poor are becoming less wealthy. there is a breaking point where society will collapse to some degree. believe it.
But the wealth of the rich is tied to the activities of the poor - middle class.

It is like a slave owner with sick / injured slaves. They can't make money if their workforce isn't working.

Just like a worker not only supplies production, but they also support consumption. Nobody becomes rich when people aren't producing, and don't have money to buy anything.

It is like an economic price-specie flow
 

DubsFan

Well-Known Member
But the wealth of the rich is tied to the activities of the poor - middle class.

It is like a slave owner with sick / injured slaves. They can't make money if their workforce isn't working.

Just like a worker not only supplies production, but they also support consumption. Nobody becomes rich when people aren't producing, and don't have money to buy anything.

It is like an economic price-specie flow
Wealthy people write Rich peoples checks.

How long you can live without earning money through working is a great way to define wealth.

I'm in real estate. Have been for 15 years...right out of high school. I'm in commercial/multi family. Most of my clients own large apartment buildings or nice stip malls. Some newer Class A self storage.

We all agree that equity in real estate should not be on your Personal Financial Statement as an asset. Your cash flow should. Equity is terribly over rated and many people add this to their net worth...giving them this inflated figure and confindence about their financial stability. The fact is that most with "equity" have zero return on this equity. Most who claim "cash flow" don't calculate it right. So what good is it. Even in hot markets it takes months to access this equity.

Real estate is a liability. Even when it's paid off it's still at risk to be taken from you.

Your pursuit of equity should never trump your pursuit of income. Many have lost their ass with equity but are still earning income. This is good real estate. Values down but income is stable. This is one way to create wealth regardless of value.

I have no college degree. No fancy education. But since the age of 18 a lot of money has passed through my office. I see where people go wrong with a lot of things. Not just real estate.

Your ability to passively earn income and live a prosperous life is wealth. Equity is not wealth.

I could go on...
 

DubsFan

Well-Known Member
Ah geez. I just read some posts here. Is this a discussion about wealth and it's definition or a discussion about politics, socialism, racism etc. C'mon guys. Sometimes it's just good to talk about making money without politics.

Really...
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
But the wealth of the rich is tied to the activities of the poor - middle class.

It is like a slave owner with sick / injured slaves. They can't make money if their workforce isn't working.

Just like a worker not only supplies production, but they also support consumption. Nobody becomes rich when people aren't producing, and don't have money to buy anything.

It is like an economic price-specie flow
i had never heard of that before; had to look it up. it seems to be a simplistic economic model, in the sense that it could never occur in practice, but sounds logical in theory. i used to enjoy economics in college.

You mean people need to produce a certain amount of wealth to live. This is true but the amount varies as does the means.

You have to be careful with terms like "distribution of wealth." Distribution can suggest a distributor and there is no distributor in a free market. People create wealth in different amounts, that is not wealth being distributed but merely a snapshot of wealth being created at any given time.

Again, it is a mistake to look at wealth as a big pie with some getting a bigger slice than others. It is more correct to look at wealth as a continuously expanding pie shop with each person paid according to how many pies he produces.
for sure, capitalism has worked thU.S. far, but i really believe it is failing. well it sure as shit has failed lately. but i mean in respect to it's total lack of morality and resulting decline a societal dignity.

and i wasn't referring to distribution of wealth as an advocate for changing it, but as a statistic. you know like, 1% of the people have "earned" 95% of the wealth.

IMO, that is an inherently bad signal. if not bad, certainly unknown in this country in history.
 

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Why do people keep saying "Capitalism has failed?"
Capitalism hasn't failed at all.
Capitalism isn't being practiced.

Corpratism has failed.
If you know your history Mussolini said:
"Fascism should more properly be called Corpratism,
a merger of state and corprate power." (Or something to that effect)
What we are seeing is the collapse of Fascism.

Government minimizing risk cause corparations to make bad desisions.
These bad desisions are not free market.
In a free market this mess would never have happened.
In a free market the government doesn't get involved.
They don't provide money or regulation to prop up an industry or corperation.

Governments role in this mess should be investigating instances of fraud.
Not creating more debt, we've got plenty already.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Why do people keep saying "Capitalism has failed?"
Capitalism hasn't failed at all.
Capitalism isn't being practiced.

Corpratism has failed.
If you know your history Mussolini said:
"Fascism should more properly be called Corpratism,
a merger of state and corprate power." (Or something to that effect)
What we are seeing is the collapse of Fascism.

Government minimizing risk cause corparations to make bad desisions.
These bad desisions are not free market.
In a free market this mess would never have happened.
In a free market the government doesn't get involved.
They don't provide money or regulation to prop up an industry or corperation.

Governments role in this mess should be investigating instances of fraud.
Not creating more debt, we've got plenty already.
i agree except for the collapse of Fascism. i don't really think its collapsing. it's still the dominant influence on fiscal policy.
 

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
i had never heard of that before; had to look it up. it seems to be a simplistic economic model, in the sense that it could never occur in practice, but sounds logical in theory. i used to enjoy economics in college.
It did occur in practice when countries used gold as their medium of exchange. Basically there is no advantage for one country to hoard gold. By having excess gold in your economy you made the value to decrease because the price level would increase. This would cause you to buy exports as they are "cheaper" and the gold flows back out. What is important to an economy is the flow of money, not the excess of it.

for sure, capitalism has worked thU.S. far, but i really believe it is failing. well it sure as shit has failed lately. but i mean in respect to it's total lack of morality and resulting decline a societal dignity.
The problem is not the system - it is it's administration that is the downfall. In real capitalism there are no rules. You get burned by Madoff or Wall Street - too bad - it is not an FDIC insured investment and you should have done more research into what you were investing in. That is the "risk premium." There is no "too big to fail" because investors will purchase viable distressed companies at a discount. We have so many regulations and rules that capitalism is stifled in the name of consumer protection and government with its hand in the the honey pot.

Try to open a LEGITIMATE business tomorrow (one you hold no prior certificates in). Let me know when you are legally allowed to open that establishment and how much you have to dole out in permits / fees / insurance. Then there is the cost of compliance and employees that are determined by the government.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
Why do people keep saying "Capitalism has failed?"
Capitalism hasn't failed at all.
Capitalism isn't being practiced.

Corpratism has failed.
If you know your history Mussolini said:
"Fascism should more properly be called Corpratism,
a merger of state and corprate power." (Or something to that effect)
What we are seeing is the collapse of Fascism.

Government minimizing risk cause corparations to make bad desisions.
These bad desisions are not free market.
In a free market this mess would never have happened.
In a free market the government doesn't get involved.
They don't provide money or regulation to prop up an industry or corperation.

Governments role in this mess should be investigating instances of fraud.
Not creating more debt, we've got plenty already.
We do have a capitalist economic and social system, but our political system is undeniably corporatist.

We don't have a free market economy, we have a mixed market economy. In a free market, this mess would have still happened - but the banks would have been "allowed" to fail, and we'd be in a much worse state than we're in now (at least as outward appearances go). As it stands, the government is "propping up" it's corporate interests, at the expense of the working class in order to create some kind of illusion that everything is going to be okay.

Hopefully we are seeing the collapse of fascism in the US. I'm not totally convinced of that, yet. I think it could go either way...

In a free market, the government's role would be to investigate fraud. Shouldn't paying your executives millions of dollars in bonuses after begging the government for a "bail out", because you're on the verge of bankruptcy constitute fraud?
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
for sure, capitalism has worked thU.S. far, but i really believe it is failing. well it sure as shit has failed lately. but i mean in respect to it's total lack of morality and resulting decline a societal dignity.
Actually most of the world is moving toward Capitalism. Right now the US is in a crisis because the Left meddled with the free market. This however shall pass. And Capitalism is by light years the most moral system of Government. Communism and Socialism are nearly always tied to hideous human rights abuses. Just look at Russia or China. The same is true with societal dignity. Again, look at the complete lack of basic human dignity in Communist Countries.

Anyway, I don't want to saddle a tangent and ride it into the sunset with this. The point is, there is no such thing as a fixed quantity of wealth of which people hold pieces of differing sizes. Wealth is created by our actions and our abilities. Growing weed is an example of producing wealth. You start with a seed and nurture it and the result is a valuable product. The product wasn't there floating in the cosmos waiting to be distributed, it was produced from lesser materials. Get the picture?
 

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
We do have a capitalist economic and social system, but our political system is undeniably corporatist.

We don't have a free market economy, we have a mixed market economy. In a free market, this mess would have still happened - but the banks would have been "allowed" to fail, and we'd be in a much worse state than we're in now (at least as outward appearances go). As it stands, the government is "propping up" it's corporate interests, at the expense of the working class in order to create some kind of illusion that everything is going to be okay.

Hopefully we are seeing the collapse of fascism in the US. I'm not totally convinced of that, yet. I think it could go either way...

In a free market, the government's role would be to investigate fraud. Shouldn't paying your executives millions of dollars in bonuses after begging the government for a "bail out", because you're on the verge of bankruptcy constitute fraud?
Right on.

I think the failure of banks (which is happening at record numbers - but being bailed out by the FDIC) is what is needed. The strong disciplined banks stay in business - it is their reward for diligence.
 

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
Right on.

I think the failure of banks (which is happening at record numbers - but being bailed out by the FDIC) is what is needed. The strong disciplined banks stay in business - it is their reward for diligence.

Unfortunately the banks that are failing now are generally smaller, local banks - rather than the HUGE "too big to fail" banks that really deserve to take the ride into oblivion for causing this mess in the first place.

The only thing I would worry about if the big banks failed, would be the chance for some super-monopoly to emerge from the ashes.
 

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the banks that are failing now are generally smaller, local banks - rather than the HUGE "too big to fail" banks that really deserve to take the ride into oblivion for causing this mess in the first place.

The only thing I would worry about if the big banks failed, would be the chance for some super-monopoly to emerge from the ashes.
That is what is happening now. The FDIC auctions off failed banks and the ones with higher capitalization creating bigger banks - more "to big to fail" banks.

Banks are legal Ponzi Schemes.
 

DubsFan

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the banks that are failing now are generally smaller, local banks - rather than the HUGE "too big to fail" banks that really deserve to take the ride into oblivion for causing this mess in the first place.

The only thing I would worry about if the big banks failed, would be the chance for some super-monopoly to emerge from the ashes.
Consolidation was seen as a necessity in 2006. There were and still are far far too many banks. Banks are like fleas...for every one you see that are many more that you don't.

I do tremendous amount of business with banks that aren't even retail banks. For example, to deposit money with them you need to go to their main office or to Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo along with many other banks and the Credit Union Co-Op system allow these smaller more efficient banks to operate without all the staffing.

Banks are not Ponzi schemes. Some are mismanaged and many have failed but they are not Ponzi schemes. Many banks that have failed were promising unrealistic returns to people who also were looking for unrealistic returns. If you want to make 10% be prepared to lose 20. But of course those that think 10% is truly realistic are blind to what is a standard return. So they wind up being blind to risks associated with such high returns.

Banks don't have much to do with wealth. They are nice to have but aren't mandatory.
 
Top