|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Economics: How much is something worth? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You miss my spot on topic point. My response did not pertain to gold and silver, perse. It pertained to the stability of economic values and accumulated wealth: to what nations and investors ultimately gain or loose. Germany and China are two examples of who looses. The Germans swept it up in the streets. Whereas the dollar has not undergone a similar fate, because this does not invariably happen to fiat currency.
The Chinese decorative brass coins with the square holes in them made decorative woven baskets with Peking beads and coins sewn in the lids. I have a couple of them. "Brass" (actually, copper, look it up) didn't maintain its value? How come? It's made out of metal, like silver, it's shiny, like silver, and it possesses intrinsic value. To this day, people use it for practical purposes such as making electrical wiring, which makes it superior to, for example, silver. So what went wrong? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Buz, I have no idea why you think you're on topic, but you're not. Dr Adequate's reply to you is not on topic, either, so please do not reply to it.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: The legacy of national infrastructure is a key component of wealth creation. It isn't economically worthless in the way that your price=worth view dictates. Percy writes: It isn't economically worthless. It's just not part of the tally of GDP. If public investment (in an education programme for example) leads to increased productivity of course it contributes to GDP. GDP would be less without it. The fact you can't accurately quantify how much doesn't mean you ca ignore it's impact entirely in the way you are doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You seem determined to eliminate the publicly funded aspect of the scenario that is key to the question of who can claim responsibility for increased productivity. Why?
Straggler writes: SCENARIOSo we have this freely available software that is the result of publicly funded research. It's very clever software and soon becomes very widespread. Everyone agrees that despite being strictly unquantifiable it has had an immense effect on the productivity of the workforce. Yet when the data on incomes becomes available it becomes clear that whilst productivity has increased 100% since the release of this software the average worker has received barely any increase in income at all. Meanwhile the incomes of the top 1% have shot through the roof since the release of this software. Given this scenario I would conclude that the wealthiest have received more wealth than they can claim responsibility for having created and that wealth has therefore trickled up. What would you conclude? Percy writes: Question: To whom do these increased profits belong? Answer: The shareholders. If only the wealthiest are significantly benefiting from increases in productivity that are the result of public investment then they are receiving wealth that they are not creating. This is how "trickle up" occurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You cannot quantify how much publicly funded research projects or education programmes or investments in transport infrastructure etc. etc. etc. have contributed to increased productivity over the last 30 years. But it just is not reasonable to think that these thing have had a negligible effect is it?
We can see from the data that the results of increased productivity have almost all been received by the wealthiest. So I am simply saying that unless their contribution to productivity is greater than the share of it they receive wealth has trickled up rather than down. If the wealthy are receiving more wealth than they are creating what is it that is trickling down?
CS writes: So which definition would work and how do you measure and quantify it? Well you can start by not conflating price with worth in terms of how much something contributes to increased productivity. That would be a first step here.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Percy writes: There's nothing in that graph about accumulated wealth. I didn't say there was. I said that the proceeds of increased productivity have gone to the wealthiest. The graph definitely does show that. But to put it into simple numbers - In the UK the 0.1 wealthiest have received 14 pounds for every 100 pounds of increased national wealth over the last 30 years whilst the bottom 50% have received 12 pounds. The same trend is present in the US even if the numbers are slightly different.
Straggler writes: Have the wealthiest 5% of the population received more wealth than they have created over the last 30 years? Percy writes: It would make no sense to answer this question while you still do not understand how wealth is created. I just posted this information a message or three ago. Can you link to it or post it again please. You said you had the numbers. I don't see any numbers that answer this question. Where are they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You cannot quantify how much publicly funded research projects or education programmes or investments in transport infrastructure etc. etc. etc. have contributed to increased productivity over the last 30 years. But it just is not reasonable to think that these thing have had a negligible effect is it? Depends on what you're looking at. Is it reasonable to think that Columbus discovering the new world had a negligible effect?
We can see from the data that the results of increased productivity have almost all been received by the wealthiest. How so? Because their income rose so much? Are you sure that really shows what you think it does?
So I am simply saying that unless their contribution to productivity is greater than the share of it they receive wealth has trickled up rather than down. But we haven't determined how much they've contributed. How much did the guy who loaned you the money to get your idea realized contribute?
If the wealthy are receiving more wealth than they are creating what is it that is trickling down? The wealth they are not receiving. The median income did rise too.
Well you can start by not conflating price with worth in terms of how much something contributes to increased productivity. Well that doesn't answer the question, but regardless, I don't think I've done that anyways.
That would be a first step here..... Okay. Consider it done. What's the next step? I said that the proceeds of increased productivity have gone to the wealthiest. The graph definitely does show that. Is income the only procede of increased productivity? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But we haven't determined how much they've contributed. How much did the guy who loaned you the money to get your idea realized contribute? Nothing. He is an owner of capital. Owners of capital contribute nothing to wealth creation because they are and can only be blockades to the free access to resources for the people who actually use those resources to produce goods and services. Private ownership is always an obstacle to public wealth creation. Always. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And how would you have the weather be in your fantasy world?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Is that reply at all relevant?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Free access to resources is a fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Jon writes: Owners of capital contribute nothing to wealth creation... --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Free access to resources is a fantasy. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Many resources are freely accessible: oxygen, sunlight, friendship. Free access to water, an essential resource if you weren't aware, is considered by many to be a fundamental human right and there are many organizations the world over that help to ensure that everyone has such free access. Not every resource is owned and sold, ya know, nor should they be. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: Owners of capital contribute nothing to wealth creation... --Percy Ownership contributes nothing to wealth creation. The fact that valuable resources are owned does not increase their value nor the value of the things manufactured from those resourcesit only increases their price to the consumer. Unless, of course, you live in a world where the value of something is equal to its price, where the same water you get from the tap can become more valuable when sold for $10/gal. But nobody lives in that world except you. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Many resources are freely accessible: oxygen, sunlight, friendship. What does that have to do with this?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024