The thing being discussed is that wealth can be created, not merely stolen.

The existence of housing is an example of something vlauable being created. The price of housing is not relevant to the example.

▲

hnav 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But it's extractive, i.e. the housing costs what you can pay if you sacrifice. Those who got housing first need to get paid by latecomers. If the cost of building magically went to 0, the soft costs would inflate.

	▲	margalabargala 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure. The extractiveness of housing costs can exist alongside the fact that constructing a building on land creates value.

▲

oh_my_goodness 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Always the same straw man argument. Nobody here is arguing that wealth can't be created.

▲

margalabargala 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Did you not read the comment chain above? That's precisely the point that was being discussed, then misunderstood.

▲

oh_my_goodness 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I read the comment chain above. I just went back and read it again. I question whether you've done the same.

▲

margalabargala 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I can't understand the writing for you. But I can present it.

TheTayTay said "wealth can be created". Avicebron asked for an example of wealth creation. cm2012 provided one, housing. saghm misunderstood the intent of the example. I pointed out the error, and then you came in and have apparently repeatedly failed to understand again multiple comments, both the people who literally are saying that some quantity of wealth cannot be created, and myself.

If you didn't get that after a reread, all I can suggest is that you seek out a literacy class at a local community college. It will improve your life, because this certainly won't be the first or only time you misunderstand written words.

▲

oh_my_goodness an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry to say that you don't seem to have read either the thread or my comment.

What you bring to the discussion is the straw-man argument that "wealth can be created, not only stolen." Nobody was disputing that. Nobody is disputing it now. It's common ground.

Saghm tried to return to the actual topic, but you don't seem to have understood (or you aren't willing to acknowledge) what that topic actually was. People were talking about how to fairly divide wealth, not about whether it can be created or not.

▲

margalabargala an hour ago | parent [-]

No, I don't believe that you are sorry. And discussions can diverge; making a comment that follows only the original discussion but is a non-sequiter to the comment it actually replies to, makes the comment nonsensical, not "a return to the original discussion".

The thing you say was not claimed, was claimed by multiple commenters.

Considering you are neither truthful nor literate, I won't be replying again. Feel free to get the last word in if you like.

	▲	oh_my_goodness an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If anyone else is unlucky enough to be reading this, please just scroll up to see what everyone actually said.