|
| ▲ | m4nu3l 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| In economics, you aren't necessarily creating wealth just because your final output has value. The value of the final good or service has to be higher than the inputs for you to be creating wealth. I could take a functioning boat and scrap it, sell the scrap metal that has value. However, I destroyed wealth because the boat was worth more.
Even if you are creating wealth, but the inputs have better uses and can create more wealth for the same cost, you're still paying in opportunity cost. So things are more complicated than that. |
| |
| ▲ | azemetre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This isn't related to what I was commenting on where the other poster came across as not seeing government by the governed as having economic worth. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Synthesizing between you two’s thoughts, extrapolating somewhat: - human individuals create wealths - groups of humans can create kinds of wealth that isn’t possible for a single indovidual. This can be a wide variety of associations: companies, project teams, governments, etc. - governments (formal or less formal) create the playing field for individuals and groups of individuals to create wealth | | |
| ▲ | azemetre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for this comment. You definitely crystalized the two thoughts well and succinctly. Definitely a skill I wish I had. :D |
| |
| ▲ | kortilla 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, I said it was a requisite to generate wealth, but it does not generate it directly. | | |
| ▲ | azemetre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Gotcha. Definitely felt like I made that comment a little too rush, especially in the context of all the others as well. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | m4nu3l 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >governments generate wealth all the time. Public education, public healthcare, public research, public housing.
> These are all programs that generate an enormous amount of wealth and allow citizens to flourish. I thought you meant that governments generate wealth because the things you listed have value. If so, that doesn't prove they generate wealth by my argument, unless you can prove those things are more valuable than alternative ways to use the resources the government used to produce them and that the government is more efficient in producing those. You can argue that those are good because you think redistribution is good. But you can have redistribution without the government directly providing goods and services. |
| |
| ▲ | azemetre 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I think I'm more confused. Was trying to convey the idea that wealth doesn't have to limited to the idea of money and value. Many intangible things can provide wealth too. I should probably read more books before commenting on things I half understand, my bad. |
|
|
| ▲ | kortilla 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those programs consume a bunch of money and they don’t generate wealth directly. They are critical to let people flourish and go out to generate wealth. A bunch of well educated citizens living on government housing who don’t go out and become productive members of society will quickly lead to collapse. |
|
| ▲ | AlexandrB 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| None of these are unique to the government and can also be created privately. The fact that government can create wealth =/= the government is the source of all wealth. |
