5 ms·

Isn't it also important to note that wealth acquisition activities and wealth creation activities are not the same thing?

by ska 7y ago

lmilcin 7y ago
This is excellent point. If it is too easy to gather wealth so you can gather wealth without actually having to create any value (through corruption, extortion, monopoly, theft, deception, enslavement, etc.) then you will have the bad kind of inequality where most people are not compelled to put hard work to create value for others in order to create wealth for themselves. Again, GINI does not differentiate between the good and the bad kind of inequality, so two countries with same GDP and same GINI might be very different. One may be on the rise, with a number of enterpreneurs creating huge progress and value and the other might have couple of oligarchs who were able to amass their wealth with corruption.
- amelius 7y ago
  > (through corruption, extortion, monopoly, theft, deception, enslavement, etc.) rent-seeking should be there too
  - ndarwincorn 7y ago
    In the financialized world we live in rent seeking should be the top of the list.
wuliwong 7y ago
There's also a number of activities that neither create, destroy or exchange wealth. This is why Mises sought to expand the study to praxeology and not simply economics.
cryptonector 7y ago
It's difficult to acquire wealth without creating it. The most obvious way is inheritance / gifts, or else crime (fraud, theft). Most wealth is created though, not inherited. E.g., most notable American billionaires (Gates, Buffet, Bezos, ...) of today created most of their wealth. Down the ranks from billionaires we might find more inheritance / less wealth creation, but I suspect that in general you'll find that in mature, open, liberal market economies, wealth is mostly created, not "acquired". EDIT: Ah yes, rent-seeking is a problem. That was identified by Adam Smith, and it's a problem that's as yet unsolved.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  I think that's terribly, terribly naïve. Most wealth was skimmed from other's work through manipulation of stock, bonuses, grants and other executive-suite routines. There's no longer any amount of skimming that's considered egregious. Its ramping up and up without limit.
  - La1n 7y ago
    >Most wealth was skimmed from other's work Or you know, just by taking the surplus value of someones labor.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Again, naïve. The executive suite takes huge bonuses, while there's been no raise for the rank-and-file for a decade. Bonuses even when there's little profit. All rationality has left the equation. Lets stop living in the 1960's. Don't take our impression of American business from history. Today its very, very different and very, very predatory.

Isn't it also important to note that wealth acquisition activities and wealth creation activities are not the same thing?

by ska 7y ago

Isn't it also important to note that wealth acquisition activities and wealth creation activities are not the same thing?

lmilcin 7y ago

This is excellent point. If it is too easy to gather wealth so you can gather wealth without actually having to create any value (through corruption, extortion, monopoly, theft, deception, enslavement, etc.) then you will have the bad kind of inequality where most people are not compelled to put hard work to create value for others in order to create wealth for themselves. Again, GINI does not differentiate between the good and the bad kind of inequality, so two countries with same GDP and same GINI might be very different. One may be on the rise, with a number of enterpreneurs creating huge progress and value and the other might have couple of oligarchs who were able to amass their wealth with corruption.

amelius 7y ago
> (through corruption, extortion, monopoly, theft, deception, enslavement, etc.) rent-seeking should be there too
- ndarwincorn 7y ago
  In the financialized world we live in rent seeking should be the top of the list.

wuliwong 7y ago

There's also a number of activities that neither create, destroy or exchange wealth. This is why Mises sought to expand the study to praxeology and not simply economics.

cryptonector 7y ago

It's difficult to acquire wealth without creating it. The most obvious way is inheritance / gifts, or else crime (fraud, theft). Most wealth is created though, not inherited. E.g., most notable American billionaires (Gates, Buffet, Bezos, ...) of today created most of their wealth. Down the ranks from billionaires we might find more inheritance / less wealth creation, but I suspect that in general you'll find that in mature, open, liberal market economies, wealth is mostly created, not "acquired". EDIT: Ah yes, rent-seeking is a problem. That was identified by Adam Smith, and it's a problem that's as yet unsolved.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
I think that's terribly, terribly naïve. Most wealth was skimmed from other's work through manipulation of stock, bonuses, grants and other executive-suite routines. There's no longer any amount of skimming that's considered egregious. Its ramping up and up without limit.
- La1n 7y ago
  >Most wealth was skimmed from other's work Or you know, just by taking the surplus value of someones labor.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Again, naïve. The executive suite takes huge bonuses, while there's been no raise for the rank-and-file for a decade. Bonuses even when there's little profit. All rationality has left the equation. Lets stop living in the 1960's. Don't take our impression of American business from history. Today its very, very different and very, very predatory.