Does Spending=Income?

I'm asking this question ONLY with respect to US dollars.

I'm not speaking of barter, or things of real wealth (intrinsic value), just with respect to the US dollar.

Is it possible, legally, to obtain an income without spending from somewhere else?

 

Wow, I didn't think this question would be so hard to answer.

 

question is too vague to have meaning and does not appear to be important subject. Issue on which all of history hangs is capitalism versus socialism. If you want to get to heaven stick to that.

 

You can accumulate wealth without spending, you cannot obtain income without spending.

 

You appear to be asking two questions.
1. "Does Spending = Income?"
I would have to answer that question with a 'yes', one persons spending of U.S. dollars results in producing an income in U.S. dollars for another/others.

2. "Is it possible, legally, to obtain an income without spending from somewhere else?"
If we are to view all money flowing from government as spending, then the answer to that question would have to be 'no'.

All income, in U.S. dollars, should be the result of an exchange of property or labour and that received without exchange of property or labour should be the result of a gift from private individuals/charities which might most rationally have strings attached.

 

Of course. The U.S. government could create a dollar and give it to the person and it would be his income. No spending involved at all.

 

I believe government sells a treasury security to acquire newly created money which would be the initial spending of the money,

 

But the government COULD simply print dollars, as it did under Lincoln.

 

Agreed.

This is an excellent point and one I had given some thought to, however, I would ask you, in an aside to the OP, what is the root of all wealth?

 

So like a Basic Guaranteed Income or even entitlements? Yes?

I see what you're saying, but that's still considered "spending" from the government's point of view, is it not? The government does not have a "charity" section in the budget.

 

Oh, James you killjoy. I have more to add, I just wanted to get some unvarnished thoughts on the topic before I continued, but as allways, thank you for your participating and adding your deep and thoughtful insights in the topic at hand.

 

The government could create money for any purpose it chose.

I suppose.

So your question seems to answer itself. One agent can't receive a dollar without some other agent giving him that dollar. It's similar to the idea that one agent can't receive a phone call without some other agent making a phone call. They are simply two ends of the same act.

 

Sure, you've identified the logical relationship between spending and income. Every dollar spent by someone (or an organization) is a dollar earned as income by someone (or by an organization).

This leads me to my next question, would it also be true to say that one cannot eliminate spending without eliminating income?

 

Yes, if agent A doesn't disburse the money, then agent B can't receive it.

 

I am not sure your basis. If my neighbor asks me to babysit and pays me $20, I have generated income without spending any money.

 

No, you earned income, $20 that you could not have earned unless you're neighbor spent $20. What it was spent on, in the context of this discussion, is irrelevant.

I think the point you are trying to make, and you are free to correct me, is, if you cut down a tree, you mill it, and you assemble it into a chair, you have created something of real wealth without anyone having to spend US dollars.

Now, you did spend something, your time, but you did not have to spend dollars.

Is that a fair assessment of what I think you might have been trying to say?

 

See now you are trying to reframe your op. You said and even bolded that you were asking with respect to US Dollars. Time is not US Dollars.

 

I'm not trying to reframe. I was just trying to expand on what you said without being confrontational.

If you want I could go back and re-evaluate what you said...

The OP does not say that the only way that you can make money is if you spend. The OP says:

Thus, in the context of what you said, you cannot earn money babysitting unless your neighbor spends $20.

Now, going one step further in my response to LS, if your neighbor decided to save $20, all other things being equal, you'd earn $20 less.

Thus spending=income

If someone chooses not to spend there is less income.

 

I am not sure what your point is. All it seems to me is that you want to invent a discussion without a point based on the circulation of currency.

 

Okay, and.......?

 

Are you asking if, in a fiat currency system where trade is barred, does someone have to spend money for you to make money, then the answer is yes. Somebody has to pay money for what you produce.

 

Would it be incorrect to say that decreasing government deficit spending decreases income?

If yes, does the effect of decreasing deficit spending actually exceed the amount not spent ad dollars are spent more than one time (velocity)?

If the velocity is 1.4 (each dollar is spent 1.4 times) then decreasing government deficit spending by $1 actually decreases GDP by $1.40.

 

Trading doesn't have to be barred...I was just asking for an accounting of dollar spending and income.

 

No, it would not be incorrect to say that if the government fails to spend a dollar then someone doesn't receive that dollar.

 

If velocity is (and historically is's pretty constant) constant, can GDP increase if government spending decreases?