4 ms·

> I'm sure there's plenty of honest-to-$deity pie growing, but can't think of a single example right now. You must be joking. The US produces a huge quantity o

by pdonis 3y ago

> I'm sure there's plenty of honest-to-$deity pie growing, but can't think of a single example right now. You must be joking. The US produces a huge quantity of genuine goods and services every year. You buy groceries, right? That's wealth creation. You have electricity in your home, right? (Otherwise how would you be able to post here?) That's wealth creation. You buy clothes, household goods, etc.? I could go on and on. And since we're here on HN, how about all of the software that is created and updated by US programmers? All of that is wealth creation too. Of course none of this vast amount of wealth creation makes the news, because it's all "dog bites man" so the media isn't interested in it. They'd rather talk about the crooks and the parasites because that's what captures eyeballs. But that doesn't mean wealth creation isn't happening.

ben_w 3y ago
Groceries definitely get counted in the same bucket as "natural resources" — the term "primary sector" is the usual term to encompass all extraction & production of raw materials, including farming, logging, fishing, forestry and mining. Electricity overall isn't much of a "growth" sector, as the total hasn't changed much in developed nations in recent decades, only the sources: * USA: https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electricity-net-generation-by-fuel/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electric... * Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_electricity_produ... * Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland-electricity-sources.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland-electricity-source... And even then: if the new stuff is PV imported from China, it's not really western nations doing the wealth creation. > You buy clothes, household goods, etc.? I think their point was these are increasingly outsourced… > how about all of the software that is created and updated by US programmers? …while these are accounting tricks. (I don't actually agree with this claim, but that is how I read the comment you are replying to).
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Groceries definitely get counted in the same bucket as "natural resources" Really? You can just go pick groceries out of the ground in your backyard without any processing whatsoever? Because that's what "natural resources" means. Groceries in your grocery store have gone through a huge supply chain to get there from the point where they are "natural resources". That supply chain is wealth creation. > isn't much of a "growth" sector Wealth creation is not the same thing as "growth"; it's much broader. For example, electricity that was produced and used yesterday is no good to you today. More of it needs to be produced because what was produced before got used up. That is wealth creation. Much wealth creation has to happen simply to make up for the wealth that gets used every day to support our lives. That doesn't mean it isn't wealth creation. > if the new stuff is PV imported from China, it's not really western nations doing the wealth creation Sure it is. Goods in China are no good to you in the US. Shipping goods across the world is wealth creation. If you want to argue that maybe we shouldn't trust goods from China, I have no problem with that. But that's a different discussion. > these are increasingly outsourced Or automated. That's true. It still doesn't mean these things aren't wealth creation. Trade is wealth creation. > these are accounting tricks No, they aren't. Producing software that meets people's needs is wealth creation. (You appear to agree with that.)
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Really? You can just go pick groceries out of the ground in your backyard without any processing whatsoever? Because that's what "natural resources" means. First: That's what a vegetable garden is, my parents had one. I also enjoy picking fruits off blackberry bushes, and those things are invasive weeds that grow basically everywhere in both city and countryside. Second: Your statement exceeds the requirement to be in the primary sector of the economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_the_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_the_economy Note also that TeMPOraL's comment said "primarily", and agriculture composed 0.7% of the UK economy, 1.12% of the US economy, and only 5.9% of the global economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto... > Goods in China are no good to you in the US. Shipping goods across the world is wealth creation. I'm not denying that shipping is on the service-goods continuum. It's also: (1) not much of developed economies (~5% of USA for all logistics combined, including local transport); (2) not necessarily supplied by the western economies that receive the goods (where does the line get drawn? It's not as clear-cut as, say, looking at who owns the logistics firm); (3) useless in the absence of things to ship; (4) historically speaking, when desirable goods exist but cannot be shipped, the customers move. > Or automated. That's true. It still doesn't mean these things aren't wealth creation. Trade is wealth creation. Then you agree with, or are overlooking, the specific caveat "in the West" that was in TeMPOraL's comment?
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > That's what a vegetable garden is, my parents had one. Did you get all your groceries that way? What about people who don't have vegetable gardens? You were claiming that all groceries are "natural resources". That claim is obviously false. If all you are saying now is that some groceries can be thought of as natural resources, since some people grow some of their own groceries, of course that's true, but it's a much, much weaker statement than the claim of yours that I objected to. > Your statement exceeds the requirement to be in the primary sector of the economy So what? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Not to mention that such definitions are arbitrary anyway. > I'm not denying that shipping is on the service-goods continuum. I'm talking about wealth creation. If you agree that shipping is wealth creation, good. > It's also: (1) not much of developed economies (~5% of USA for all logistics combined, including local transport); (2) not necessarily supplied by the western economies that receive the goods (where does the line get drawn? It's not as clear-cut as, say, looking at who owns the logistics firm); (3) useless in the absence of things to ship; (4) historically speaking, when desirable goods exist but cannot be shipped, the customers move. None of these contradict anything I was saying. (See further comment below about "western".) > Then you agree with, or are overlooking, the specific caveat "in the West" that was in TeMPOraL's comment? Neither. First, "Western" countries trading with "non-Western" countries gives wealth to both, not just to the "Western" countries. (For example, a "Western" firm paying a "non-Western" firm to ship goods to the "West" creates wealth for both.) Second, you do know that "Western" countries trade with other "Western" countries, right?

by pdonis 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

Groceries definitely get counted in the same bucket as "natural resources" — the term "primary sector" is the usual term to encompass all extraction & production of raw materials, including farming, logging, fishing, forestry and mining. Electricity overall isn't much of a "growth" sector, as the total hasn't changed much in developed nations in recent decades, only the sources: * USA: https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electricity-net-generation-by-fuel/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electric... * Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_electricity_production.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_electricity_produ... * Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland-electricity-sources.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland-electricity-source... And even then: if the new stuff is PV imported from China, it's not really western nations doing the wealth creation. > You buy clothes, household goods, etc.? I think their point was these are increasingly outsourced… > how about all of the software that is created and updated by US programmers? …while these are accounting tricks. (I don't actually agree with this claim, but that is how I read the comment you are replying to).

pdonis 3y ago
> Groceries definitely get counted in the same bucket as "natural resources" Really? You can just go pick groceries out of the ground in your backyard without any processing whatsoever? Because that's what "natural resources" means. Groceries in your grocery store have gone through a huge supply chain to get there from the point where they are "natural resources". That supply chain is wealth creation. > isn't much of a "growth" sector Wealth creation is not the same thing as "growth"; it's much broader. For example, electricity that was produced and used yesterday is no good to you today. More of it needs to be produced because what was produced before got used up. That is wealth creation. Much wealth creation has to happen simply to make up for the wealth that gets used every day to support our lives. That doesn't mean it isn't wealth creation. > if the new stuff is PV imported from China, it's not really western nations doing the wealth creation Sure it is. Goods in China are no good to you in the US. Shipping goods across the world is wealth creation. If you want to argue that maybe we shouldn't trust goods from China, I have no problem with that. But that's a different discussion. > these are increasingly outsourced Or automated. That's true. It still doesn't mean these things aren't wealth creation. Trade is wealth creation. > these are accounting tricks No, they aren't. Producing software that meets people's needs is wealth creation. (You appear to agree with that.)
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Really? You can just go pick groceries out of the ground in your backyard without any processing whatsoever? Because that's what "natural resources" means. First: That's what a vegetable garden is, my parents had one. I also enjoy picking fruits off blackberry bushes, and those things are invasive weeds that grow basically everywhere in both city and countryside. Second: Your statement exceeds the requirement to be in the primary sector of the economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_the_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_the_economy Note also that TeMPOraL's comment said "primarily", and agriculture composed 0.7% of the UK economy, 1.12% of the US economy, and only 5.9% of the global economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_sector_composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto... > Goods in China are no good to you in the US. Shipping goods across the world is wealth creation. I'm not denying that shipping is on the service-goods continuum. It's also: (1) not much of developed economies (~5% of USA for all logistics combined, including local transport); (2) not necessarily supplied by the western economies that receive the goods (where does the line get drawn? It's not as clear-cut as, say, looking at who owns the logistics firm); (3) useless in the absence of things to ship; (4) historically speaking, when desirable goods exist but cannot be shipped, the customers move. > Or automated. That's true. It still doesn't mean these things aren't wealth creation. Trade is wealth creation. Then you agree with, or are overlooking, the specific caveat "in the West" that was in TeMPOraL's comment?
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > That's what a vegetable garden is, my parents had one. Did you get all your groceries that way? What about people who don't have vegetable gardens? You were claiming that all groceries are "natural resources". That claim is obviously false. If all you are saying now is that some groceries can be thought of as natural resources, since some people grow some of their own groceries, of course that's true, but it's a much, much weaker statement than the claim of yours that I objected to. > Your statement exceeds the requirement to be in the primary sector of the economy So what? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Not to mention that such definitions are arbitrary anyway. > I'm not denying that shipping is on the service-goods continuum. I'm talking about wealth creation. If you agree that shipping is wealth creation, good. > It's also: (1) not much of developed economies (~5% of USA for all logistics combined, including local transport); (2) not necessarily supplied by the western economies that receive the goods (where does the line get drawn? It's not as clear-cut as, say, looking at who owns the logistics firm); (3) useless in the absence of things to ship; (4) historically speaking, when desirable goods exist but cannot be shipped, the customers move. None of these contradict anything I was saying. (See further comment below about "western".) > Then you agree with, or are overlooking, the specific caveat "in the West" that was in TeMPOraL's comment? Neither. First, "Western" countries trading with "non-Western" countries gives wealth to both, not just to the "Western" countries. (For example, a "Western" firm paying a "non-Western" firm to ship goods to the "West" creates wealth for both.) Second, you do know that "Western" countries trade with other "Western" countries, right?