What Creates Wealth?

[Acala]

Bryan asserts: Owning property is key in production,


('wealth' is completely subjective..and property/land 'ownership' is a myth..we merely 'rent'/lease our land, etc., here in Republicrat America..hint: 'property taxation'....except for maybe some 'Indians' on 'land untaxed'..)

Acala asserts: Yup. It is the subjective evaluation of improved circumstances that BOTH partners to any free trade experience.

(apparently 'slaves' don't/can't create 'wealth?'..apparently there is no 'wealth' where there is no 'free trade???')

Government printing paper money creates wealth! Just kidding of course. Paper money is a scam no matter who prints it

But to answer your snark: while it is possible for one individual to benefit from a coerced transaction (for example armed robbery can benefit the robber), the other parties to the transaction, not having engaged in it freely, will be less well-off (otherwise they would not have needed to be coerced). It is not possible to compare how much better off the victimizer is compared to how much worse off the victim is, as value is subjective. But it is the case that only free trade produces a net gain in wealth.

So no, slaves don't increase aggregate wealth through their coerced production.

[helmuth_hubener]

Government printing paper money creates wealth! Just kidding of course. Paper money is a scam no matter who prints it

But to answer your snark: while it is possible for one individual to benefit from a coerced transaction (for example armed robbery can benefit the robber), the other parties to the transaction, not having engaged in it freely, will be less well-off (otherwise they would not have needed to be coerced). It is not possible to compare how much better off the victimizer is compared to how much worse off the victim is, as value is subjective. But it is the case that only free trade produces a net gain in wealth.

So no, slaves don't increase aggregate wealth through their coerced production.

Wow, nice! Absolutely true! You can only be sure that wealth has increased from an action or transaction if the actor(s) did it voluntarily. In the case of slavery:

Master: benefits; is better off.
Slave: anti-benefits; is worse off.

The master's wealth increases, but the slave's wealth decreases. Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible, and so no one knows if total wealth increased.

[Acala]

Wow, nice! Absolutely true! You can only be sure that wealth has increased from an action or transaction if the actor(s) did it voluntarily. In the case of slavery:

Master: benefits; is better off.
Slave: anti-benefits; is worse off.

The master's wealth increases, but the slave's wealth decreases. Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible, and so no one knows if total wealth increased.

Yay!

[H. E. Panqui]

So no, slaves don't increase aggregate wealth through their coerced production. (acala)


(..it seems to me a whole lot of what most people characterize as 'wealth' was facilitated by 'coerced production'..)


“We have stricken the shackles from four millions of human beings … by practically reducing the working population, white and black, to a state of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact, that by our iniquitous monetary system, we have practically nationalized a system of oppression, which, though more refined, is only less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”
Horace Greeley, 1872

[acptulsa]

Master: benefits; is better off.
Slave: anti-benefits; is worse off.

The master's wealth increases, but the slave's wealth decreases. Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible, and so no one knows if total wealth increased.

Oh, come on.

You don't need to make any interpersonal value comparisons to know that the 1859 Alabama cotton crop made somebody millions of dollars--real, un--devalued dollars.

Slaves created wealth and it was used to buy gray uniforms and guns. It isn't the slaves' fault that wealth was wasted in a concerted effort to make the South poor for the next hundred years. And it was real wealth--if you don't believe me, look at the bank accounts of the southern arms makers.

Oh, and as for you, Hanky Panky--you can tell Mr. Greeley that wealth is wealth, no matter how solid it is or how it's measured.

It's a liberal trick of meaningless sophistry to say that some morally reprehensible practice won't get you what you want. But the forces of evil know money when they smell it, and no amount of rhetoric will conceal the scent. So, why shouldn't we be honest with ourselves? Easier to hold an adult conversation that way.

[Occam's Banana]

Oh, come on.

You don't need to make any interpersonal value comparisons to know that the 1859 Alabama cotton crop made somebody millions of dollars--real, un--devalued dollars.

Slaves created wealth and it was used to buy gray uniforms and guns. It isn't the slaves' fault that wealth was wasted in a concerted effort to make the South poor for the next hundred years. And it was real wealth--if you don't believe me, look at the bank accounts of the southern arms makers.

Oh, and as for you, Hanky Panky--you can tell Mr. Greeley that wealth is wealth, no matter how solid it is or how it's measured.

It's a liberal trick of meaningless sophistry to say that some morally reprehensible practice won't get you what you want. But the forces of evil know money when they smell it, and no amount of rhetoric will conceal the scent. So, why shouldn't we be honest with ourselves? Easier to hold an adult conversation that way.

No one said that the 1859 Alabama cotton crop did not make somebody millions of dollars.
No one said that what slaves were forced to create was not worth anything to anyone.

Acala and HH were addressing the question of "aggregate" wealth - i.e., they were talking about what could be said of the total wealth of the system "overall" - NOT the wealth of particular actors (such as southern arms makers).

IOW, Acala and HH were just talking about what is called "Pareto optimality." An exchange is said to be "Pareto optimal" when it can be said with complete confidence that no one is worse off after the exchange than before. This is always the case in voluntary exchanges - when A trades X in voluntary exchange for B's Y, both A and B are better off afterwards (otherwise, neither would have participated in the exchange) - and "aggregate" or "total" wealth can therefore be said to have increased in this sense. This is NOT the case for forced, involuntary exchanges, since we cannot be certain that all the persons involved in the exhange would have participated if they had been free to decline. Thus, it cannot be said that such "Pareto suboptimal" exchanges increase "aggregate" or "total" wealth - even though they may quite clearly benefit someone.

[presence]

persistence creates wealth

[acptulsa]

Thus, it cannot be said that such "Pareto suboptimal" exchanges increase "aggregate" or "total" wealth - even though they quite clearly benefit someone.

The slaves work all spring and all summer, and then in the autumn there's millions of dollars' worth of cotton where before there was only soil with nutrients in it.

Wealth was created. You can't weave cloth from dirt. Did said wealth come from 'suboptimal exchanges'? Indubitably. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. But wealth was created.

[Occam's Banana]

The slaves work all spring and all summer, and then in the autumn there's millions of dollars' worth of cotton where before there was only soil with nutrients in it.

Wealth was created. You can't weave cloth from dirt. Did said wealth come from 'suboptimal exchanges'? Indubitably. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. But wealth was created.

And no one has denied this.

[helmuth_hubener]

The slave works all spring and all summer, and then in the autumn there's millions of dollars' worth of cotton where before there was only soil with nutrients in it.

And there's a slave with eight fewer months of life remaining in him. Or more than eight, if the tasks were particularly onerous or the slave particularly hated slavery, causing premature aging.

Wealth was created. You can't weave cloth from dirt.

And wealth was destroyed. You cannot conjure years of human life from the ether.

Wealth was created and destroyed.

[acptulsa]

And there's a slave with eight fewer months of life remaining in him. Or more than eight, if the tasks were particularly onerous or the slave particularly hated slavery, causing premature aging.

And wealth was destroyed. You cannot conjure years of human life from the ether.

Wealth was created and destroyed.

Ah, so someone says time is money and suddenly time is wealth--conveniently unquantifiable wealth.

The master forced the slave to labor and did things detrimental to his health. But the slave was going to get another year older regardless, and health--while unquestionably valuable--is not wealth. Wealth is what people give doctors hoping to gain health.

These modern academic games irritate me. The liberty of the slave is not something as crass as wealth. It is something far more important. For the master to argue he didn't get wealthy pounding his slaves' bones because it's a net loss to civilization to waste the slaves' lives away is a coverup. It's no coincidence at all that this coverup is being put forth by the oligarchy's schools.

[Occam's Banana]

For the master to argue he didn't get wealthy pounding his slaves' bones because it's a net loss to civilization to waste the slaves' lives away is a coverup.

No one is making any such argument. No one has said that the master didn't get wealthy on the backs of his slaves.

I honestly don't understand why you are objecting to the notion that human chattel slavery is not unequivocally a net boon to society.

[acptulsa]

I honestly don't understand why you are objecting to the notion that human chattel slavery is not unequivocally a net boon to society.

Oh, no, friend, don't even think about putting that pile of $#@! in my mouth.

I object to slavedrivers ancient and contemporary saying--if only through the academic proxies they own--that their kidnapping, extortion, forced labor, rape and murder are no more and no different than a little grand theft.

That pisses me off.

So, a person's very life is no different from their car? No. Let apples be apples and let oranges be oranges.

Even as the plantation owners laughed all the way to the bank, the cancer that was slavery ate the civilization out of Southern society and it was a century before those wounds even really began to heal. That was something more than a loss of wealth.

[Occam's Banana]

Oh, no, friend, don't even think about putting that pile of $#@! in my mouth.

What "pile of $#@!?" WTF are you talking about?

I object to slavedrivers ancient and contemporary saying--if only through the academic proxies they own--that their kidnapping, extortion, forced labor, rape and murder are no more and no different than a little grand theft.

That pisses me off.

So, a person's very life is no different from their car? No. Let apples be apples and let oranges be oranges.

Even as the plantation owners laughed all the way to the bank, the cancer that was slavery ate the civilization out of Southern society and it was a century before those wounds even really began to heal. That was something more than a loss of wealth.

I still have absolutely no idea what makes you think anyone has said anything that contradicts any of this.

I give up.

[acptulsa]

What "pile of $#@!?" WTF are you talking about?

'...objecting to the notion that human chattel slavery is not unequivocally a net boon to society.'

I still have absolutely no idea what makes you think anyone has said anything that contradicts any of this.

I give up.

Life and health are not wealth. They are more valuable than that.

Hundreds of years of tort law has us trying to put a dollar amount on everything. The result is people paying fines who should go to prisons--and paying that to the state, not the victims. The result is Ford Motor Company paying money to Pinto owners so the people in the corporation who decided that selling firebombs to the unsuspecting is a sound move, since the lawsuit payouts would add up to less than a redesign of the firebomb in question, didn't go to prison for it. Time is not money. Lives cannot wear a dollar amount.

We need to get back to a principled position that says apples are apples and oranges are oranges.

To say slaves don't create wealth because the slaves get their labor stolen is to say our health and our very lives are 'wealth'--are money--are quantifiable. That is, to no small degree, the Pandora's Box that we wish we had never opened. That is the very definition of gaining England but losing one's soul.

If you put any price tag on life, then you have made life cheap.

Kidnapping, extortion (the very definitions of 'slavery'), rape and murder (always methods of slave control since before recorded history) are something beyond 'theft of wealth'.

[PRB]

What creates wealth in the US? Food and entertainment. If you want to still cash in before the slow burns even more, then open a fast food joint or produce a tee vee program.

Actually, having known people who've done it and tried it, it's not true there either.

Yes, the successful ones make money, but that's true of anything.

You have a better shot producing a Youtube channel than pitching a TV show to be aired on any cable, local access or national channel, period.

Fast food joints don't make money because they're franchises and beholden to corporate, unless you start a chain yourself, in which case, again, you might as well start another business that's successful and it could be anything.

What creates wealth in the US? Hard work, good management, good customer service, willing to take risk. No successful company was built in a day or done by pure luck, the ones you hear about had to go through dozens if not hundreds of obstacles and loopholes. There's no easy way to become a millionaire, but to be well to do, there's several ways.

[Occam's Banana]

'...human chattel slavery is not unequivocally a net boon to society.'

So ... you think it's a "pile of $#@!" to say that human chattel slavery cannot be said to be a net boon to society. Seriously?

Life and health are not wealth. They are more valuable than that.

Hundreds of years of tort law has us trying to put a dollar amount on everything. The result is people paying fines who should go to prisons--and paying that to the state, not the victims. The result is Ford Motor Company paying money to Pinto owners so the people in the corporation who decided that selling firebombs to the unsuspecting is a sound move, since the lawsuit payouts would add up to less than a redesign of the firebomb in question, didn't go to prison for it. Time is not money. Lives cannot wear a dollar amount.

We need to get back to a principled position that says apples are apples and oranges are oranges.

*sigh* ...

I still have absolutely no idea what makes you think anyone has said anything that contradicts any of this.

To say slaves don't create wealth because the slaves get their labor stolen is to say our health and our very lives are 'wealth'--are money--are quantifiable. That is, to no small degree, the Pandora's Box that we wish we had never opened. That is the very definition of gaining England but losing one's soul.

If you put any price tag on life, then you have made life cheap.

NO ONE HAS SAID that "slaves don't create wealth because the slaves get their labor stolen."

NO ONE HAS SAID that "our health and our very lives" are quantifiable values. NO ONE has put a "price tag on life."

Such values as "our health and our very lives" are inherently and inescapably subjective and cannot be measured or quantified. This is precisely why ANY regime of forced or involuntary exchanges (such as those involved in human chattel slavery) CANNOT be said to be a net boon to society. ONLY voluntary exchanges can be said to be so. Why on earth are you disagreeing with this. let alone calling it a "pile of $#@!?"

[acptulsa]

So ... you think it's a "pile of $#@!" to say that human chattel slavery cannot be said to be a net boon to society. Seriously?

How did you get the abbreviated version when I figured out it was unclear and clarified it long before you posted?

You saw me say that slavery wounded, and even ripped the soul from, Southern society. Was that really unclear?

*sigh* ...

NO ONE HAS SAID that "slaves don't create wealth because the slaves get their labor stolen."

NO ONE HAS SAID that "our health and our very lives" are quantifiable values. NO ONE has put a "price tag on life."

Such values as "our health and our very lives" are inherently and inescapably subjective and cannot be measured or quantified. This is precisely why ANY regime of forced or involuntary exchanges (such as those involved in human chattel slavery) CANNOT be said to be a net boon to society. ONLY voluntary exchanges can be said to be so. Why on earth are you disagreeing with this. let alone calling it a "pile of $#@!?"

Is this thread no longer about 'wealth'? Then why is it still in the thread title? I could have sworn I was reacting to the very lives of humans being subtracted from the wealth creation to see if the society got materially wealthier. Who changed the subject to 'net boons', as if there is no such thing as a boon that doesn't involve material wealth?

What the $#@!, dude?

If you're going to yell at me for responding to what someone else said, then please do pay attention to what that someone else did say.

Wow, nice! Absolutely true! You can only be sure that wealth has increased from an action or transaction if the actor(s) did it voluntarily. In the case of slavery:

Master: benefits; is better off.
Slave: anti-benefits; is worse off.

The master's wealth increases, but the slave's wealth decreases. Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible, and so no one knows if total wealth increased.

Does the slave have wealth to decrease? Or is what is being stolen from the slave something more important than wealth--his liberty, his right to self-determination, the right to live his life and spend his life energies on things that benefit him and those he wishes to help?

Does no one really see what's at the bottom of this slippery slope? Really? Friends, as soon as these arrogant dwellers in Ivory Towers work that equation out--as soon as they put those dollar amounts on a man's sweat and his very life--then the powers that be will use it to determine exactly how many liberties we have to give up to fix the economy they trashed. And all over some academician's notions of what he can put on either side of an equals sign. I've seen similar things happen too often to doubt it.

This kind of evil thinking needs to be nipped in the bud.

[Occam's Banana]

You saw me say that slavery wounded, and even ripped the soul from, Southern society. Was that really unclear?

Yes, I saw you say that - and yes, it is perfectly clear.

What I have NOT seen is anyone saying anything that conflicts with or contradicts that in any way.

What is unclear is why you think someone has. And after all this, I still don't know ...

I could have sworn I was reacting to the very lives of humans being subtracted from the wealth creation to see if the society got materially wealthier.

And you are pushing against air again. NO ONE has tried to subtract "the very lives of humans ... from the wealth creation." If fact, HH specifically argued that doing such a thing is not possible ("Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible ...") - an econoimic argument that not only does not conflict with or contradict the moral assessment of human chattel slavery as a horrible, soul-crushing, liberty-destroying travesty in any way, but perfectly complements it.

Does the slave have wealth to decrease?

Yes. His labor and the value of its product are stolen from him.

Or is what is being stolen from the slave something more important than wealth--his liberty, his right to self-determination, the right to live his life and spend his life energies on things that benefit him and those he wishes to help?

Yes, that too. Your use of "or" constitutes a false dichotomy.

Does no one really see what's at the bottom of this slippery slope? Really? Friends, as soon as these arrogant dwellers in Ivory Towers work that equation out--as soon as they put those dollar amounts on a man's sweat and his very life--then the powers that be will use it to determine exactly how many liberties we have to give up to fix the economy they trashed. And all over some academician's notions of what he can put on either side of an equals sign. I've seen similar things happen too often to doubt it.

This kind of evil thinking needs to be nipped in the bud.

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE has advocated or defended any such thing as what you describe here - just the opposite. What HH said stands as a criticism of the very kind of thing you are talking about. As HH said, "Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible" - in other words, there are not and cannot be any equals signs or equations. Because of this (as HH also said), "You can only be sure that wealth has increased from an action or transaction if the actor(s) did it voluntarily" - in other words, as soon as involuntary exchanges (such as those involved in human chattel slavery) are introduced, there is NO way to determine whether society is "better off" in any meaningful sense, and therefore any such attempt is invalid and must be rejected. Not only is there no slippery slope in anything HH said, what he said forbids anyone from trying to construct one.

What HH said means that any claims to the effect that slavery could have made society wealthier are invalid. He said that slavery made the slaves worse off and made the masters better off - and he said that you CANNOT compare the two in order to say that there was any net benefit or that it made society "wealthier." I don't understand what you find so objectionable about that - it is perfectly compatible with your desire to "nip in the bud" the "kind of evil thinking" you described.

[Natural Citizen]

Not only is there no slippery slope in anything HH said, what he said forbids anyone from trying to construct one.

You're wrong about this. Do I feel like going 9 rounds with you? Don't have the time or give a damn at the moment. Maybe a bit later when I have some time.

[Occam's Banana]

You're wrong about this. Do I feel like going 9 rounds with you? Don't have the time or give a damn at the moment. Maybe a bit later when I have some time.

Yeah, yeah. As per usual, you've got lots to say, but you can't be bothered to actually say it.

Which is just as well, since even when you do, I can rarely make heads or tails of it.

[acptulsa]

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE has advocated or defended any such thing as what you describe here - just the opposite. What HH said stands as a criticism of the very kind of thing you are talking about. As HH said, "Valid interpersonal value comparisons are not possible" - in other words, there are not and cannot be any equals signs or equations. Because of this (as HH also said), "You can only be sure that wealth has increased from an action or transaction if the actor(s) did it voluntarily" - in other words, as soon as involuntary exchanges (such as those involved in human chattel slavery) are introduced, there is NO way to determine whether society is "better off" in any meaningful sense, and therefore any such attempt is invalid and must be rejected. Not only is there no slippery slope in anything HH said, what he said forbids anyone from trying to construct one.

I disagree. I think as soon as you put the whole discussion in terms of 'wealth' Pandora's Box is open, and the mud is on the hill. No matter how much the bean counters protest that they don't have the dollar amounts to plug into the blanks--yet.

That's just what I think.

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, yeah. As per usual, you've got lots to say, but you can't be bothered to actually say it.

Which is just as well, since even when you do, I can rarely make head or tails of it.

Excuse me? As per usual? I've got lots to say, but I can't be bothered to actually say it? You must have me confused with someone else, sparky.

[Occam's Banana]

Excuse me? As per usual? I've got lots to say, but I can't be bothered to actually say it? You must have me confused with someone else, sparky.

Maybe I am confused. Let's see ... "Natural Citizen" ... nope, I meant you. But I'll excuse you anyway. Sparky.

[helmuth_hubener]

But I'll excuse you anyway.

I'll excuse him, in scope. Only in scope.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ah, so someone says time is money and suddenly time is wealth--conveniently unquantifiable wealth.

health--while unquestionably valuable--is not wealth.

These modern academic games irritate me. The liberty of the slave is not something as crass as wealth. It is something far more important.

OK, I think I get what you're trying to say here. I am not trying to say that getting rich and having liberty are the same thing... or even similar! I am certainly not trying to downplay slavery by saying it's just like theft, no worse ("kidnapping, extortion, forced labor, rape and murder are no more and no different than a little grand theft.") I totally agree with you that slavery is different, and that it's much worse. I also totally agree with you that a man's liberty is far more important than his bank statement.

In this thread, I have defined the word "wealth" as meaning everything someone might value. In the sense I meant wealth, time is wealth, health is wealth, and liberty is wealth! ("Wealth could be a sunrise. Wealth could be a walk in the woods.") And so that's the confusion, I think. We're talking past each other, yes? I might say "Wealthy is the man who knows he had enough." (Tao Te Ching) and you might respond "What are you talking about? Being wealthy means having more!"

You are perhaps saying my definition of wealth is wrong. And hey, I'm game! How would you define wealth?

[acptulsa]

OK, I think I get what you're trying to say here. I am not trying to say that getting rich and having liberty are the same thing... or even similar! I am certainly not trying to downplay slavery by saying it's just like theft, no worse ("kidnapping, extortion, forced labor, rape and murder are no more and no different than a little grand theft.") I totally agree with you that slavery is different, and that it's much worse. I also totally agree with you that a man's liberty is far more important than his bank statement.

In this thread, I have defined the word "wealth" as meaning everything someone might value. In the sense I meant wealth, time is wealth, health is wealth, and liberty is wealth! ("Wealth could be a sunrise. Wealth could be a walk in the woods.") And so that's the confusion, I think. We're talking past each other, yes? I might say "Wealthy is the man who knows he had enough." (Tao Te Ching) and you might respond "What are you talking about? Being wealthy means having more!"

You are perhaps saying my definition of wealth is wrong. And hey, I'm game! How would you define wealth?

I'm saying that money should be held completely separate from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because if that doesn't happen, these socialist 'a good citizen owes the Central Soviet x amount for feeding him and should give up y liberties on demand if Comrade Stalin can prove it will help the Collective' types will use it to pervert things.

In short, I don't want to talk about how many apples and oranges it takes to be wealthy, and how many apples you can change for oranges and still be wealthy. I think money is money and right is right and that is that.

I'm not saying that this line of inquiry is a deliberate attempt to set us on the slippery slope of trying to put a dollar value on liberty, and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying if we love our grandchildren, we'll do them a favor and flat refuse to go there.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm saying that money should be held completely separate from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because if that doesn't happen, these socialist 'a good citizen owes the Central Soviet x amount for feeding him and should give up y liberties on demand if Comrade Stalin can prove it will help the Collective' types will use it to pervert things.

In short, I don't want to talk about how many apples and oranges it takes to be wealthy, and how many apples you can change for oranges and still be wealthy. I think money is money and right is right and that is that.

So you are saying it's important to you to keep money and the intangibles of life very separated -- very strictly, and very far. Is that right?

I can agree with you that we don't want to have to pay money for our liberty, and we also don't want our liberty to be taken away because someone supposedly saved us some money. Liberty is sacred. And liberty is for all, rich and poor.

[Working Poor]

Glad to see the way you all turned it around back to the nice discussion I was hoping for.

[Natural Citizen]

I'll excuse him, in scope. Only in scope.

I'd be willing to debate you on it, Helmuth. I put the other one on ignore. He seems like a young punk with a smart mouth and in a hurry to go no place.