A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs

What does that have to do with anything? So now going shopping is a form of production, since we have to drive to the store, and the shop owner doesn't carry the cloths to us and personally place them on our bodies?


And as far as making a sweater four ourselves, please find me a single legitimate source that considers such activities as part of the productive capacities of a country. Don't worry, I will wait.

 

Actually, it is a form of production, as it can be replaced by an employee who can do it for you.

I'll grant that it is not an extremely critical form of production, but no form is exactly equal regardless.

The inability to accurately measure doesn't make it any less a form of production.

 

It isn't a form of production. Getting the thing is all part of the consumption process. That includes driving there, picking it out, and then using it in whatever way that item is used(or in some other way if that fits your fancy).


The point is of course, that personal consumption predates mass production. Production is a response to consumption, not the other way around. Which was what my early man scenario was meant to illustrate.

 

I think you can categorize it any way you wish, but I would define it this way:

If you can pay someone to do it for you, it is production. You cannot pay someone to eat something for you, nor wear something for you.

But you can pay someone to drive somewhere for you.

There is a line there, and I believe it can be fairly well defined.

I still say that there are varying degrees of production, however. This is a very faint degree.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, as I haven't been following the thread much, but production is not a 'response to consumption', because it is impossible to consume something that hasn't first been produced.

And it doesn't matter what the source of production was - natural, or artificial.

 

Not quite pointdexter.

getting off your butt, braving the dangers of nature, gathering and hunting provides the labor that produces your dinner. Don't get off your butt, starve to death.

can the sweater not be traded for for an axe handle ?

it has been produced, thereby creating value from the raw materials, and can be traded for goods or services. What part of billions of distinct production and consumption activities, making up an economy eludes you ?

 

How does the destruction of wealth help the country prosper? It's never worked in the past, why do you think that redistribution will work now?

And what do you mean by "small business"? Do you know what qualifies as a small business?

"Sitting on piles of cash" would help consumers because it would increase the purchasing power of all the existing money out there. By taking it, you would decrease the value of rest of the money and hurt consumers.

The bankster/corporatist president of yours (he's not mine, I didn't vote for him or anyone else)? Sure, you join him. While you are at it, you can come to California and help him destroy more jobs as his injustice departments shuts down medical marijuana clinics and puts thousands out of work and thousands into cages.

 

I'm saying that you don't have a clear understanding of what that means. You seem to think that printed pieces of paper actually equate to wealth and that people want them because they happen to exist. It isn't magical fairy dust that magically generates stuff when people have it.

I usually get that from the terminally confused. It's difficult when you've been told for a long time that government can magically generate wealth through the means of the printing press.

First, I challenge you to show that there is "no money." Hyperbole is a fallacy.

In order for people to consume, they must first produce. Only real savings can lead to the increase of wealth. For the government to obtain money, it must either steal it from those who have earned it, or it must print more which has the same effect. It destroys savings in favor of a short term "stimulus" which may seem to create growth, but actually harms us in the long term as investment in the means of creating more consumer wealth is siphoned off to make you feel good.

That's because real savings have been destroyed by malinvestment, driven by the policies of the two organizations, working hand in hand, that you now demand save you: the government and it's central bank.

I don't have any internal problems.

It's difficult to see the logic of your attempted argument, as you point out an example of an assertion you never get around to actually making.