3 ms·
Not really. For example there’s a pretty noticeable difference in the amount of wealth a society will have if they choose to build 890,721 intricate snowmen on
by CPLX 3y ago
Not really. For example there’s a pretty noticeable difference in the amount of wealth a society will have if they choose to build 890,721 intricate snowmen on the island of Manhattan instead of housing, power plants, and infrastructure.
- tourmalinetaco 3y agoI don’t know, I’d say those snow sculptors are pretty wealthy there!
- CPLX 3y agoIn the absence of some sort of external means of support they are dead.
- uoaei 3y agoYou seem to be consistently conflating potential value with real value, but potential value is and always will be a red herring, so it's important to distinguish them and treat them each separately.
- CPLX 3y agoReal value can be destroyed. Dollars can be printed, planes can crash. Crops can grow, or rot. The effort of humans can be deployed wastefuliy, like making snowmen, or not, like planting crops and building shelter. Wealth represents an assessment of the value to humans of existing resources and it can go up and down based on the decisions of how to allocate that wealth. There’s absolutely no controversy whatsoever about this concept despite your desire to not acknowledge it.
- uoaei 3y agoYour response confuses me given my comment. What is your definition of "conflate"?
- shuntress 3y agoPotential future wealth is not "destroyed" when we take actions which do not achieve that potential.
- CPLX 3y agoYes but present wealth is destroyed when resources are deployed unproductively. This concept isn’t particularly subtle or arguable. If you have a lot of food and you are wealthy and then you let it spoil you’re less wealthy. Nobody else got that wealth (assuming you don’t count the microbes) and absent another source of resources then you are also dead.
- bluepizza 3y agoOpportunity cost is a very interesting concept. As you mention, if the wealth doesn't exist, it cannot possibly be destroyed. Why would anyone "leave money on the table" though? Glutting the wealth creation is not fundamentally destructive - what if a specific location cannot actually sustain high production levels because their housing supply, energy supply, or talent supply is insufficient? What if unfettered growth will lead to a collapse that destroys a lot more value than the potential future wealth destroyed? What if a company heavily invests in business and retail construction and a global pandemic happens? Wealth creation is impossible to separate from public policy. For Manhattan to exist, a large amount of money had to be poured into its fundamental blocks.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]