Pilot's Political Orientation

"Judah" wrote in message
...

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?


By creating wealth.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?


By creating wealth.



Ex Nihilo?

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?

By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?

Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

1) I don't seek approval from Marx. Heck! I don't even know the guy!

2) I made no claim whatsoever. My question was, how does one create
wealth out of nothing? Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it
also does not create wealth. If it did, the manual laborers would be the
wealthy ones.

Most significant assets in the US exist in the form of Real Property
and/or Market Holdings. Since these are relatively fixed assets, the only
way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets in such a way as you are left with the most money at the
end.

Doug Carter wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?

By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?

Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

Judah wrote:
Labor is not nothing, but I would contend that it also does not create wealth.
If it did, the manual laborers would be the wealthy ones.

Labor is not limited to *manual* labor. Try thinking of
labor as action by people. These actions includes
invention and organization as well as digging ditches.

Invention is what increases productivity and efficiency.
Without these increases we would still be dragging deer we
killed with rocks back to the cave by hand, digging
ditches with a stick and waiting for the invention of fire.

...the only way to create wealth in either of these two endeavors is to redistribute
these assets...

Increases in productivity and efficiency are what increase
wealth. If this were not true then we would have five
billion people trying to live in the same cave eating the
same deer.

Redistribution has nothing, by definition, with the
creation anything. No food, no shelter, nothing is made
by redistribution. It should only be used to provide for
those who are actually unable to provide for themselves.
It is a form of charity, not production.

Doug Carter wrote:
Judah wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?


By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?


Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.


What did Groucho know about economics anyway? :-)

Matt

That's the $64,000 question!

Judah wrote:
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?

By making the entire pie larger.


Matt

"Judah" wrote in message
...
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?


Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.

The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

Actually, CJ, you should go back and follow the thread a little more
closely, and maybe read it without your blinders on.

The conservative view presented was that liberals want to take other
people's assets and redistribute them. I responded that conservatives
want to take other people's assets and keep them for themselves. The
response was that conservatives don't want other people's assets, and I
disagree with that completely.

You read my statement as a bitter one of resentment. Actually, I it was a
simple plain fact of the Free Market economy.

I made no mention of stealing. The Free Market in the US requires that
people redistribute assets in order to get rich. Most people don't get
rich based solely on their hourly rate. They get rich by buying low and
selling high - real estate, stocks, antiques on a road show, or whatever.

In the free market economy, someone wins, and someone loses.



"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?


Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.

The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been
stolen from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to
be intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.