I still think it is useful to make a distinction between prices and wealth creation, even taking the government out of it. For example, the economics of much o

I still think it is useful to make a distinction between prices and wealth creation, even taking the government out of it. For example, the economics of much of human history are basically agricultural societies. The US was in a better position because of a virtually unlimited supply of capital (land), but in many other countries the model was the serfs work the land, and pay rent to the nobility who own it (and who in most cases inherit it from their parents). Such a system doesn't really require a violation of free markets. In this scenario, is it really correct to say that the nobility are the real "wealth creators"? They neither created the productive asset (land) or are working to produce the goods (food). If you accept that income = wealth creation, the nobility can simply create more wealth by raising the rent on the serfs (as long as they can survive). And they would be creating less wealth if they give the serfs a break. This is where I think a different definition of wealth creation makes more sense, that focuses on productivity (which determines the total size of the pie, for a given amount of labor). So different farming techniques that produce more from the same land would increase wealth. Or capital investments in farming equipment that raise productivity. And if the same amount of goods is being produced but only the rent changes, that is not producing or reducing wealth, simply changing the distribution.