3 ms·
Why do you want to narrow the definition? What about it isn't working for you? I'm going to guess that you intuitively feel that there is "good" wealth, like a
by neilk 16y ago
Why do you want to narrow the definition? What about it isn't working for you?
I'm going to guess that you intuitively feel that there is "good" wealth, like a bicycle repair shop, and "bad", like speculating on housing prices.
The problem is that, at any given moment, you can't tell between the two -- they're both useful, and both have their places, and in some circumstances both are useless and counterproductive to have around.
I think the difference happens when you consider how useful they are over time. The bicycle shop is more useful in the set of all possible futures. Is there a word for that?
- hasenj 16y agoIn my book, "bad" wealth (so to speak) would be any scheme for getting "money" (the paper thing, or the number in your bank account) without actually doing anything useful to anyone. For example, selling your shares in a bubble/ponzi company at a high price. Sure, these shares might have been something that someone wanted, but it's a form of fraud. What you earned is what someone else ends up losing, for nothing. I also consider most financial endeavours under a debt-money system to fall somewhere under the "fraud" category. This includes things like speculating on currency and house prices, or anything where your primary activity is hacking the monetary system.
- neilk 16y agoI think we can all agree that fraud does not increase the general amount of wealth. That's why it's illegal. As for your last paragraph, it sounds like you are in the grip of that "money as debt" video, or worse, the labor theory of value. You should also look at some more mainstream economics before you decide that the whole thing is fraud. I'm sympathetic to your argument that some financial products are just "hacks", and don't generate value, but just like real hacking, there's another side. Such "hacks" expose weaknesses, inefficiencies, and irrationality. Now, there are some who believe in the efficient market theory, and thus believe that ANY self-interested economic action leads to an increase of information (and thus wealth) for everybody else. That's actually been pretty much empirically disproven, so it's true that there are certain financial "hacks" that are never socially beneficial. However, I would caution you not to conclude that the whole thing is just a drain on society.
- hasenj 16y ago> it sounds like you are in the grip of that "money as debt" video I wouldn't word it that way. The movie, whether you like it or not, raises some valid points, and I think calling the whole system a debt-money system is a good thing, at least it raises awareness about it's nature. Most people don't have the slightest clue how money is made. Not only that; but I think it's more accurate, factual, and honest to call it debt-money rather than "fractional reserve banking". Fractional reserve can have a different meaning: it could mean you lend out most of what people entrust you with. That would still be a fractional reserve, because you're only keeping a fraction of what's in your trust. > but just like real hacking, there's another side. Such "hacks" expose weaknesses, inefficiencies, and irrationality. These hacks are legalized and institutionalized, it's basically a whole industry. It's very main stream stuff.
- RobGR 16y ago"or worse, the labor theory of value" What do you mean by that ? Adam Smith would say wealth is stored labor, and that seems to me as good a definition as any.
- richardw 16y agoPutting a sell order in at a given price is an indicator that you would prefer to have the cash than the item you're selling. In my book that doesn't constitute fraud since there's no deception involved. http://www.google.co.za/search?q=define%3Afraud http://www.google.co.za/search?q=define%3Afraud