Good grief, Droop. Do you just throw out a bunch of links and assume no one is going to look at them? Hell, one of them was even from October 2008, telling how McCain was hoping to pull out a Reagan-style comeback and win. But I notice none of them showed the secret internal polling data you claim to know about.
Welcome to my world. Droopy does this regularly, in fact. The funny thing is, with all the links he throws up, he actually doesn't expect anyone to check them. He just assumes people will take his word for it. But why? He has to know he has no credibility, right? Well, some things just don't sink in with this guy.
Joey,
I didn't disagree with you. I said, as you've said, that it is in the eye of the beholder.
You said I misunderstand the meaning of wealth and that my examples didn't represent valid examples of wealth. Now you agree that they do.
Unless their is a market for such "wealth", it remains a purely subjective and personal valuation.
All wealth is valued on a personal and subjective level.
We disagree. Whatever "wealth" you've created cannot be monetized on your island.
If accumulated within a society, it most certainly can be. But none of this changes the fact that we're still dealing with wealth. You seem to want to limit wealth in the form of currency, but you don't seem to appreciate the many ways in which natural resources, even from remote parts of the planet, can be marketed globally with very little capital. Acai berries from Brazil represents a perfect example. They have been used by the native people there for centuries and it turns out they are among the healthiest foods on earth. American and Japanese tourists came across this berry and a Japanese corporation had the audacity to try to patent it as their product, even though it doesn't grow in Japan!
Some scientists argue that it is absolutely the healthiest thing the human body can consume. Acai was extremely cheap in Brazil but it is becoming increasingly expensive because American corporations have plundered the market so they can convert acai extracts into pills and juices. So given this example, Brazil has wealth literally growing out of the earth and that wealth requires only the labor needed to extract the berries from the trees.
So in response to your original question, I'd ask you how initial "capital" was required before this wealth was created? Capital was required to further market this wealth, but it certainly wasn't required to obtain it. All that was required was manual labor.
Well now I think we are getting somewhere on your island! You have now demonstrated my point.
Your point amounted to a question, which suggested wealth could not be created without preexisting capital. My example proves exactly the opposite.
Your labor (and wealth) can now be monetized by your hypothetical creation of an instant economy and market!! It's all good now! Harmony on your island. An economy and society created with no capital!! Bravo, bravo! You have demonstrated your genius in macroeconomics. Now I am impressed!
Sarcasm noted.
But now who's moving the goal posts!! With enough hypothetical assumptions all examples and arguments are viable I suppose.
You moved the goal posts when you changed your requirement of wealth, to wealth that can be monetized within an economy. I simply altered my scenario to accomodate your shift. Either way the point is proved, and it seems you agree with it now. The creation of wealth doesn't necessarily require capital.
How did that cruise ship get built to bring you your instant economy and market? Damn - capital was required first wasn't it?!?
So? How does this bear on the point you already conceded? I never once said capital doesn't create wealth. Of course it does. I use capital to create wealth all the time. For example, I bought a home that tripled in value over time. That required money. But building contractors and architects cannot make capital without laborers who are willing to be paid less than what they're worth.
Someone had to put up the capital to provide the material and labor to build the ship that brought you your instant economy to monetize your wealth. But a good example if we ignore the realities of economics.
The question was "which came first"? Your initial question presupposed that capital always comes first. My hypothetical example served to refute that presupposition, but there are obviously other real world examples such as Acai in Brazil.
I would probably agree that there was a time labor was capital.
It still is. The fact that I mow my own lawn (to use your example) instead of paying the kid across the street to do it, is a perfect example. I have more capital because of my own physical labor.
Thousands of years ago or perhaps where 100 % barter economies still exist (don't know of any). But where there are currencies and markets, labor needs capital.
And likewise, capital needs labor in most cases. Think of the wealthiest ten people on the planet and explain to me how they accumulated their wealth without the labor of others. Capitalism only works by paying workers less than what they're worth, otherwise they'd never make a profit. Where capitalism is getting morally bankrupt is when regulations are limited. Just look at the way Walmart operates sweat shops in other countries, paying people pennies to knit a "Liz Claiborne" sweater which it turns around and sells for $70. Hyper capitalists like Droopy thinks this is fair simply because a wage was negotiated and the market should determine the wages. The market is always fair and just because no one "forces" them to do it. And this is why American corporations flock to poorer nations for their labor. It has nothing to do with being over taxed. It has everything to do with increased profits. Why would they settle for 400% profit margin by hiring American workers when they can get a 5000% profit margin from the same product made by the Chinese?
We have the most unemployed laborers in our economy today since the great depression. If labor can create wealth, or labor by itself can create commerce, why is unemployment so high today?
Because the cost of living is higher in America than it is in other third world countries. Thus, laborers in these other countires require a lower wage, and so American corporations will hire them instead.
Why do we give benefits to the unemployed? Unemployment should be zero by your logic and we should never have to provide govt benefits to this group
Apparently you've completely misunderstood what I've said if you think I believe unemployment could ever be at zero.
All the unemployed should simply, as you tried to demonstrate on your island, go out and create wealth!!! They don't need the backing of capital - right? They can create wealth without capital or gov't subsidies!
Now you're going off the rails. I never once said capital isn't needed for employment. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said it is in today's economy. Obviously workers aren't going to work unless they receive compensation. I don't even know where you're going with this. I already proved the point I wanted to prove and you appear to agree with it.
I never made that statement. CFR?
Then why ask the question you did? Was it rhetorical?
To increase tax rates will absolutely kill small businesses.
That's myth created by the Right Wing propaganda mill. The problem businesses have today is decreased consumer demand. Without demand, you have no business, and consumers cannot purchase unless they have money. Hence, the whole point behind the stimulus, which worked by the way.
Put money into the hands of those who are gong to dump it right back into the economy to serve as a "kick start." And Obama has cut taxes 18 times for small businesses and some corporations pay as little as zero taxes. And yet, they're still not hiring American workers. How do you explain that if taxes play any role in employment?
And how can anyone not lose respect for the current administration when we go and invest in Brazil's offshore oil drilling to be, as our current President exuberantly claimed, "your largest customer"!!! But he has no problem blocking federal offshore reserves in this country from being developed while giving jobs to Brazil.
You seem to have swallowed Glenn Beck's well refuted nonsense, even though this myth was dispelled more than a year ago by Forbes:
This admin politicized the BP disaster. Used it for all it could to bash offshore drilling.
That is nonsense. Obviously the BP disaster was a perfect example of what happens when regulations are lax, and pushing for increased regulations is the only responsible thing to do during such a crisis. I mean it would be idiotic for a President to say, "So we have millions of gallons of oil dumping into the ocean on a daily basis with no end in sight... I have an idea, let's drill and open more of these rigs down our coastlines!!" But you're just repeating another Right Wing talking point that is so well refuted that no one at FOX News or in any of the Right Wing outlets, has bothered to even mention it in quite some time.
Always want to learn from those with good ideas. Could you give me your top three ideas by industry or brand description in these CPI correlated businesses and what you believe the answer to the following questions might be:
1. Are you suggesting active or passive investments? (I think i may already have the passive side covered but that is not a job creator as you obviously well know.)
2. For your top three ideas could you give me your thoughts on what you see as the risk adjusted return ranges might be?
3. What do you believe to be the liquidity avenues for your top three picks and the required hold periods one should expect?
Love your thoughts just want to gain your insights and experiences for your suggestion. Thanks.
Like a good capitalist, Joey wants to steal your wealth.
In this case, your wealth would be your intellectual property, or your "ideas."I'd also like to add that there are pleasures in this life than are considered "wealth" in every sense of the word, and while they cannot be marketed they are not completely removed from a monetized system. Think of the tens of thousands of dollars a billionaire will spend for a time away from a hectic life, somewhere on a beach in some remote area of the world. My step father has been working his entire life at AT&T, and he just turned 70 and won't retire. He is hoping to be able to retire on a beach somewhere in Florida.
He and I differ on probably every political/religious subject that exists, and I get a hard time from my Mom for not doing what he did in life, which is to stick with one company that will provide your benefits, etc. But I point out that I'm half his age and can already do what he hopes to do at some future point, assuming he doesn't die first (he's had two heart attacks already). So why would I want to go the route he went and be subservient to a corporation that determines my income, my benefits, the amount of free time I have, etc? Is that the point of life? I thought the purpose of life was to be happy and provide for your family? As I was pondering these things in Brazil, I looked around me and noticed a number of people who would be considered "poor" by American standards. Yet, they live the life many rich Americans hope to have one day. They don't just visit an exotic beach one week out of the year, they actually live less than a kilometer from one. Rich Americans spend thousands just to experience their life for one week.
Of course, it is true that rich Americans also enjoy Rolex watches, private jets and Golf resorts. But these Brazilians I saw probably wouldn't value any of those things. Golf and cigars are essentially things bored rich people "enjoy" because they lack imagination for what it really means to enjoy life.
But my point is, their life of relaxation is considered wealth, and many Americans are willing to pay money just to experience a taste of it. And relaxed is probably the best word for it when compared to American life. In the USA people are stressed out to the max, constantly worrying about employment, needing multiple jobs just to make ends meet, spending less and less time with family, etc. It is one of the reasons why people in other countries live much longer than Americans. And come to think of it, more time on earth should be considered desired wealth as well.
