The “total and ultimate failure of her philosophic system” a consequence of her poor understanding of humans and human nature? Do you really mean to attribute a failure of, not just her ethics, but her ontology, to her failure in understanding people?

I do not know whether you are an idiot or a troll.

Cordially,
Largo.

Redman: I think the current sorry state of the US economy should stand as an answer to the old question of which is more important, capital or labor?While both are needed to sustain an economy, capital, if it exists, will attract labor.But labor cannot create capital.Our economic woes are not a result of no labor, but of no capital.

Actually, our current mess is a function of listening to the Randians of the world. Credit Default Swaps are a Randian dream, a fool’s numbers game by highly intelligent financing people,
and our nightmare. Rand never had a good understanding of humans or human nature, hence her horrible personal relationships, her fictional characters being wooden cardboard cutouts and the total and ultimate failure of her philosophical system.

I do not dispute the substance of what you say. However:

(1) Ipse dixits are of very limited polemic value, regardless of how true the may be, or of how objectively they may be established. (And the two of you have been trading them for a while).

(2) Trading insults along with ipse dixits is the mark of a troll, which I believe you are not.

But do read the most important third point:

(3) If I thought you were a troll, indeed if I did not value your presence, I would not have written (1) and (2). :-)

I put this to you all as an intuition pump. (I admit it is an extreme boundary case and not in any way typical of wealth increase.)

Stranded on a desert, hungry and thirsty, a marooned sailor sits beneath a coconut tree and things, I will climb that tree for coconuts, but first a little nap. The sailor is awakened by a coconut from the coconut tree falling on his head. (No injuries, ok?). The sailor is pleased to see this coconut, which was in the tree, now at hand.

Claim: The sailor’s wealth has increased during the nap!

:-p

Thanks for taking a stab at it, but that’s not what I’m askng. I’m already very familiar with comparative advantage. I’m asking how wealth is created in the first place.

And implicit in that question, I’m asking for a definition of “wealth”.

@Twirlip (and perhaps @SG?):
Your welcome, and I am sorry I missed the mark. I am willing to take a stab at a definition of “wealth” in another comment, if you wish. I won’t do that here for two reasons. First, it is a very difficult question, and I will touch on it again at the end. Second, I believe that “how is wealth created?” can be answered, to an extent, independently from, and more easily than, the question “what is wealth”. I propose a method of doing so, and will use this method to provide a very partial answer which I hope, nonetheless, will serve a first step.

I assume that we each already have an idea of wealth , and that these ideas coincide to a significant degree, even if we lack a common definition (or even any definition) of the term “wealth”. (If not, we would not be even able to reach this point of discussion.) I assume that there are scenarios involving wealth in which we would agree that the amount of wealth in some particular scenario is the same as (or is greater/less than) the wealth in some other particular scenario. Assume we are in scenario A. If we agree that doing X would lead to scenario B, and that doing Y would lead to scenario C, and that the wealth in scenario B is less than the wealth in scenario C, then we might learn something about the creation of wealth by comparing X and Y, even if we lack a definition of “wealth”.

Now lets specify the variables. Let A be the scenario of you and me, a wheat field, and an apple orchard, with me being an experienced apple farmer, and you being an experienced wheat farmer. Let X be you and I each farming one half of the apple orchard and one half of the wheat field, and our each making apple pies following our harvest. Let Y be you farming the entire wheat field, and me farming the entire apple orchard, and you and I swapping with each other half of our produce after harvest, followed by our each making apple pies from what we have following the trade. X and Y lead, respectively, to scenarios B and C.

Since I am more skilled than you in farming apples, we can expect to each have more apples in scenario C than in scenario B. Simmilarly, we can each expect to have more wheat than in scenario A. Hence we can expect each to have a greater number of apple pies in scenario C than in scenario B. All other things being equal, I assume we would agree that scenario C is the scenario with the greater wealth.

But not all things are equal. The labor involved was different. Perhaps farming apples is more laborious than farming wheat. But lets assume for the moment (1) that given our different skills, it is easier for me (you) to farm a full orchard (full wheat field) than half of each. The only obvious difference between scenarios B and C, other than the greater number of pies, is a lessening of the costs of production. I.e., factoring in labor leads us to conclude even greater wealth disparity across scenarios. Furthermore, even if assumption (1) is false, the law of comparative advantage will point to some trading scenario C’ which results in greater net wealth than scenario B.

Now we have to get into what we are all arguing about. Would the wealth of apple pies in scenarios B and C be possible without labor? No. Crops must be harvested, flour must be milled, pies must be baked. But if we compare the difference in wealth between scenarios B and C, is the difference a result of labor? No. It is the result of trade. It is reasonable to speak here of wealth being created by trade, though perhaps not of wealth being created ex nihilo by trade. But that is obvious–to do any trade requires some wealth prior to the trade, i.e. the substance being traded. A different question is whether any wealth can exist absent of labor. I don’t think that SG would deny that farming results in a degree of wealth, even in the absence of trade. I suspect that to think otherwise would be to misread her. But it is so easy to misread one another–especially of fine distinctions are missed (creation, vs creation ex nihilo). I don’t mind others quibbling with my terms (and SG might reserve the term ‘wealth’ for something involving trade alone, as in ‘trade value’ vs ‘intrinsic value’, but the labels matter less than the distinctions that are made.)

So we come back to your last comment to me, Twirlip, where you say “I’m asking how wealth is created in the first place“, and I confess that my very partial answer may still miss the mark, for it address only the simpler question: “how is wealth created?” When you say “in the first place”, your question is ambiguous to me. Perhaps you mean the creation of wealth, as I say, “ex nihilo”; perhaps by your question you meant “how is wealth created at all?” I think I gave some answer to the second, but not to the first. In any case it comes back to “what is it we are trying to arguing about?” — or explore, or discuss, or persuade, or polemicise, or whatever? All great stuff. Me, I like to explore. But I am often not sure what other folk are trying to do…

If you are interested, Twirlip, (or anyone else), in trying to define wealth itself, (or are interested in why I treat the two questions so differently), I am game. It seems to me that ‘what is wealth’ is a question of philosophy of economics, rather than economics itself. I suspect the idea of wealth in economics is much like the idea of number in mathematics. (Many texts on math contain definitions of ‘integer’, ‘real number’, ‘complex number’, etc., but only texts on the philosophy grapple with the idea of number as such. The parallel with economics is not exact, but I suspect a deep correlation. And if this interests you — or anyone — do let me know!)

In any case Twirlip, I hope what I’ve offered her is in some sense a step forward. I’d like to hear what you think.

[BTW, ignore my 8:40 post if it is still there. I submitted it by mistake when trying to edit it. Also, please do not read anything personal into my remarks on comparative advantage, and its being 'counter-intuitive'. These remarks are for the benefit of any who may be following our conversation, and who might be unaware of these topics and their pertinence. Thanks.]

He asked a series of baiting questions (which I knew to be baiting)

Your paranoia aside, my question was not in any way “baiting”. I was curious to know what sort of literary characters you considered to be cartoonish.

I answered them straight

And I responded “straight” to your inane Rand worshipping answer.

I’m sure there are unin­ten­tion­ally shal­low and one-dimensional char­ac­ters in lit­er­a­ture, but I don’t read such lit­er­a­ture, so I can’t think of any.

Back to Ayn Rand. Any char­ac­ter in her novel that is shal­low and one-dimensional was inten­tion­ally writ­ten that way.

This is the comment of a dishonest buffoon.

Twirp: [...]

Cheap shot, Peter, (if not a typo), notwithstanding the value of what I elided.

The only cult here is the anti-Ayn Rand cult that refuses to make an argument or take ideas seriously and who can only repeat what they read in their anti-Rand seminar book.

If you were alone on a desert island with a huge gold mine and beaches strewn with dia­monds, but no food or water, you’re poor. Unlike water and salt, gold and dia­monds have no intrin­sic value but only have value through exchange.

Great, I agree with this. It still does not answer my question however.

Raw labor has no value

Then it is very mysterious that people pay money for it.

Again, labor is nec­es­sary, but not suf­fi­cient for wealth cre­ation.

You just said it had no value? But this is a waste of time, you’re intent on saying the things you want to say regardless of whether they have any bearing on my point. I’m not asking for some silly lecture on the utility of capital. I’m asking how wealth (capital if you like) is created.

I’m sure there are unin­ten­tion­ally shal­low and one-dimensional char­ac­ters in lit­er­a­ture, but I don’t read such lit­er­a­ture, so I can’t think of any.

Back to Ayn Rand. Any char­ac­ter in her novel that is shal­low and one-dimensional was inten­tion­ally writ­ten that way.

The classic Rand cultist.

The hypo­thet­i­cal is insuf­fi­cient to yield a defin­i­tive answer. One needs infor­ma­tion about the cost of the farm­ing (or of the dig­ging) to both par­ties. If you are a more skilled than me in farm­ing apples (or min­ing gold) and I am more skilled than you in farm­ing wheat (or min­ing dia­monds), then the total cost of our bak­ing our apple pies (or mak­ing the dia­mond rings) will be less in the case of trade than in the case of no trade. Which is to say, the non-trading sce­nario will leave us poorer, in a sense that should be clear from the analysis.

Thanks for taking a stab at it, but that’s not what I’m askng. I’m already very familiar with comparative advantage. I’m asking how wealth is created in the first place.

And implicit in that question, I’m asking for a definition of “wealth”.

If there were no other par­ties who wanted gold or dia­monds, then yes we would be poorer in the very real sense that we spent great effort dig­ging up shiny rocks and min­er­als instead of get­ting food, water and shel­ter.

You are evading the question, SG. The question was, how do we create wealth? And what is wealth anyway?

According to you it is created by the process of exchange. It may even BE the process of exchange. This begs the question of where the stuff to be exchanged comes from. You seem to take it for granted as existing already.

“First of all, I’m speak­ing of labor as verb, not labor as a noun.”

I’m talking about laborers and entrepreneurs in the real world.
You’re speaking at a level of abstraction that is divorced from reality.

That’s true of a lot of people in this thread. My guess is that it’s a by-product of not having done a great deal of hard labor.

“Sec­ondly, I’ve all I’ve said is that while labor (work­ing) is nec­es­sary to cre­ate wealth, it is not suf­fi­cient. Work­ing very hard in poor man­ner will not cre­ate wealth — it is more likely to destroy it.”

So what? In the real world entrepreneurs need laborers just as much as laborers need entrepreneurs. Furthermore, laborers don’t go around digging holes at random. They usually have a pretty good idea where to dig them without being told. (When I I was digging sewer and water lines, you’d just find the point of on the side of the house, and dig towards the street for the most part.)

And furthermore, when they do need to be told where to dig, there’s a really good chance the guy telling them where to dig is also a wage slave, like my boss was.

Actually, economics does. If Carl, Doug, Edward and Frank were all capable of performing Bob’s contribution to the effort but not Adam’s, then Adam’s contribution was more valuable and warrants a greater share of the resulting wealth.

None of which is to denigrate Bob’s absolutely necessary contribution to the endeavor. I’m not arguing against the importance of laboring, which is absolutely necessary for wealth creation.

BTW, suppose George knew how to run a excavator. His effort (labor) would be much less that Bob’s in an absolute sense, yet he would make the company orders of magnitude more productive. It’s not the effort that matters, it’s the productivity and productivity can be greatly enhanced through intelligence.

Now, suppose George was the only one who knew how to run the excavator. Adam would be obliged to cut George a greater share than he would Bob, but even though Adam’s relative cut is reduced, he is still wealthier that he would be partnering with Bob. If George was a good negotiator, he should ask for (and should rationally receive) more than half the proceeds because this split would still leave Adam wealthier than the alternative. This is because even though his contribution (extraction) is replacable (5 other people know how to dig), but his productivity is so great that it effectively is.

Mostly, I’m arguing against what I perceive to be a poorly articulated labor theory of value. All other things being equal, working harder is better than being lazy, but all other things are rarely equal.

You’re reading a lot of things into my comments that just aren’t there. First of all, I’m speaking of labor as verb, not labor as a noun. Secondly, I’ve all I’ve said is that while labor (working) is necessary to create wealth, it is not sufficient. Working very hard in poor manner will not create wealth – it is more likely to destroy it.

BTW, it’s been my experience that the people who create the most wealth are those that work the hardest, and decidedly not those who were the smartest. You can’t be dumb, but you don’t need to be brilliant either (although it certainly doesn’t hurt).

***

Now further to my last comment:

First, Rand would admire be people in the first team, from the ‘highest planner’ to the ‘lowliest laborer’ — and the former would not be micromanaging (planning) the swing-work of the latter. The competence of the latter’s work in the latter’s sphere would be respected and valued.

Second, if lightning had to strike any particular individual on the first team, the effect on the outcome of the project would probably be greater in the case of the surveyor being struck than by any particular pick swinger. As a corollary to this: the surveyor, while perhaps not be the entrepreneur of the project, would certainly receive a greater portion of the wealth created by the joint work of the team, than would any particular pick-swinger on the team. In any case, the entrepreneur is the person on the team who selects the surveyor, and the pick-swing crew (or delegates such decisions as his thought directs). Thoughtfulness in this aspect of the project might matter more than the thought of any other of the team. (Notwithstanding this, if the non-entrepreneurial geological surveyor is highly critical to the project’s success, this person may will receive a greater portion of the wealth than the entrepreneur.)

Third, if you read The Fountainhead, you will find Roark (the geological surveyor, so to speak) teaching some of the tradesmen (the pick-swingers, shovellers, etc) how to do their job. But he certainly did not conduct classes, and he certainly did not micromanage them. In most real life situations he would likely have less competence than the tradesmen in the latter’s particular skill. For the sake of the novel, Rand was positing the ideal man, one which might never be found, but which one could strive to emulate. His showing a welder how to weld (the situation in the novel) was an incident of the occasion, serving the character purpose of presenting an ideal to the reader, as well as a plot purpose in bringing together Roark with his competent and devoted crew, who follow him to work on his buildings (Roark being an architect) whenever possible.

Finally, a comment on ‘dirty work’. Cleaning toilets has been raised as work that no one in Galt’s Gultch would do. The hero of The Fountainhead, did break-breaking quarry work with a jackhammer. You might consider him to have been a pick-swinger at that time. He did it out of choice, preferring such labor to even a foreman’s supervisory position. I submit to you that he would have no problem cleaning toilets. I doubt of Reardon or Galt would have a problem with cleaning toilets either. If everyone in the Gultch had the same productive capacity as Reardon or Galt, they might have cleaned their own… they might have had a roster… who knows? But there were people of varying levels of productive capacity. Galt was not a supervisor in his profession. Circumstances forced him to lead a strike, but he would end up working for Tagny (an entrepreneur) as an engineer, which was his previous work. Others would surely do ‘dirty’ work, happily, if their competence at such work was respected.

‘Cleaning toilets’ is a phrase that carried a social stigma. It is a stigma I am sure Rand would have despised. Perhaps the better objection to the success of the Gultch is not in the need for ‘dirty work’, but for ‘mindless work’. I suspect Rand would object to the very idea that there could be ‘mindless work’ (productivity without thought), but lets say that certain factory line work than cannot yet be automated could (and would) be done without rational reflection. If the product of such work was needed , for some reason, by Galt, then if he were unable to obtain it by trade, he would do it himself. If one really does needs to do a certain amount of ‘mindless labor’ to achieve one’s rational purpose, then one will do so.

If one can be a productive factory worker (labor requiring no thought, even if it required thought at the beginning to learn the productive skill), and there was a need somewhere for the product, then while such work could not (in Rand’s view) be one’s rational purpose in life, it could still serve one’s rational purpose in life. This is disputed by some, but to me it seems clear that although Rand insisting that one is obligated (to oneself) to produce value through the application of rational thought, she did not insist that the value be tradeable, i.e. that it be of value to any other person. Tradeable value is norm, for one’s productivity in anything will depend on some things that are impractical to produce on one’s own. But with a rationally (reasonably) safe retirement plan, one could devote oneself to the study of bridge, or chess, or music, even if the value produced is not likely to be ‘bankable’ (eg, a career in music is unlikely). It may still be of value to oneself, in one’s own hierarchy of values.

Rand would not then not despise the factory worker who worked mindlessly (by assumption) five days a week, but who saved, and invested their savings, and who spent their weekends thinking (or their time on the job thinking, if the job allowed) about chess, who pursued this avocation rationally, and who retired to a life of chess. This person may even delight in teaching chess without pay to brilliant students, or in running a local chess club. This person would not be living for another, but living for what one values most highly to oneself.

My conclusion here is that even in the Gultch, mindless work (if such a thing really exists, and if the product is required by any in the Gultch), there would be persons whose rational self interest would be served by doing this work. But this would, indeed, be work of the lowest kind, perhaps even despised. But this would not translate to despising those who do such work.

My real last conclusion is this: that there is honor in scrubbing toilets, if you do it honestly and well. ‘Dirty work’ and ‘mindless work’ are very different things. Those who despise ‘dirty work’ (and who, by implication, would assume that such work would be despised in the Gultch) are those who Rand would despise — and rightly so (even apart from the correctness of objectivism.)

I would like to follow that up, elaborate as follows, which may or may not match SG’s intent. Suppose two mining teams set out to mine. One was lead by a geological surveyor, the rest being experienced pick and shovel men who knew how to swing a pick with the best force, and at the best angle, given a particular aspect of rock-face. The other was led by someone less thoughtful, the rest being men of considerable brawn, much of it developed my excessive (because inefficient) pick swinging: inefficient, not because the men had any less native powers of intellect, but because they did not choose to cultivate and focus that intellect in their work. Compare the teams’ outputs.

But go out and start dig­ging ran­domly. Tell me how much gold and dia­monds you find. Com­pare your out­put to some­one who’s done geo­log­i­cal surveys.

I suspect SG meant something that might be put more precisely as “go out and start digging with a greater labor/thought ratio compared to another with a lesser labor/thought ratio (eg as someone with no training in geological surveys compared to someone who’s done geological surveys). By ‘thought’ I mean rational thought aimed at being a productive minor (which could include training in geological surveys, which might include gut sensitivity that comes from years of experience, but which in any case is to be distinguished from physical labor). Who would have the greater output?”

SG can point out if I am mis-characterizing her intent here. In any case, I would say it is a matter of degree of competence, and once decision to develop and apply that competence, which Rand presents to us–not the question of ‘labor class’ vs ‘managerial class’. In any productive role, whether or not it carried the label of a ‘labor’ role (whatever that means), one’s productivity correlates positively with one’s commitment to rational thought in the role — even if it is cleaning toilets.

Sup­pose we each dig both gold and dia­monds. Now each of us has the exact same amount of gold and dia­monds as in the pre­vi­ous sce­nario, but no exchange has taken place. Are we “poorer” than oth­er­wise? In what sense?

SG says:

If there were no other par­ties who wanted gold or dia­monds, then yes we would be poorer in the very real sense that we spent great effort dig­ging up shiny rocks and min­er­als instead of get­ting food, water and shel­ter.

Contrary to SG, I suggest that that gold and diamonds may be of some intrinsic (non-trading) value to a rational person whose central purpose in life is creating jewelry, which I suspect SG would grant. In any case, consider the parallel with one who farms wheat with another who farms apples. Apples and wheat together are more valuable than apples and wheat separately: apple pie! More ingredients are needed of course, but are not relevant to the point. Labor is needed to turn the wheat and apples into apple pie, but assume for now that such labor is insignificant compared to the labor of farming.

I will recast Twirlip’s hypothetical as follows:

Sup­pose we each farm both wheat and apples. Now each of us has the exact same amount of wheat and apples as in the pre­vi­ous sce­nario, but no exchange has taken place. Are the farmers “poorer” than oth­er­wise? In what sense?

[I trust that twirlip will advise me if my recasting of his hypothetical makes for any material change to his question.]

The hypothetical is insufficient to yield a definitive answer. One needs information about the cost of the farming (or of the digging) to both parties. If you are a more skilled than me in farming apples (or mining gold) and I am more skilled than you in farming wheat (or mining diamonds), then the total cost of our baking our apple pies (or making the diamond rings) will be less in the case of trade than in the case of no trade. Which is to say, the non-trading scenario will leave us poorer, in a sense that should be clear from the analysis.

Now if I am more skilled than you in all respects (a better farmer of both apples and wheat; a better miner of gold and diamonds), we may still both be poorer in the non-trading scenario. This is counter-intuitive, but so it is with a great deal of economics–along with probability theory, physics, and a bunch of other fields. (No snark intended, I find myself continually surprised by the stuff that gets turns up.)

If I were given a gun, 100 bullets, a spacetime machine w/ finite fuel, and perverse orders to shoot genius types with a goal of minimizing the world 2009 GDP else the universe would be destroyed, I’d reluctantly target more physicists and mathematicians than entrepreneurs (I’d include at least one lawyer btw – Leibnitz:-)

SG: Again, labor is nec­es­sary, but not suf­fi­cient for wealth cre­ation.Undi­rected labor doesn’t cre­ate wealth; it needs to be pur­pose­fully applied in order to pro­duce wealth.

I don’t think this is in dispute. The dispute is about whether (to quote the OP) “the working class, as such, makes almost no con­tri­bu­tion to wealth.” By contrast, I contend that both the working class and people who generate useful ideas* contribute to wealth. Scientists may develop a new fertilizer, but it’s worthless unless somebody goes out into the fields and applies it.; nor could scientists even develop them unless the working class was out there working on farms, collecting the trash, installing and repairing water pipes, etc.

*Note that these categories are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually exhaustive.

Your question was easy to misunderstand given the context of the thread which is Ayn Rand and her novels. I’m sure there are unintentionally shallow and one-dimensional characters in literature, but I don’t read such literature, so I can’t think of any.

Back to Ayn Rand. Any character in her novel that is shallow and one-dimensional was intentionally written that way.

Raw labor has no value. Labor is mov­ing the shovel. The value is in know­ing where to dig and how to iden­tify and process what you dig in order to extract things that oth­ers will value.

And as we all know, laborers are so stupid that if there weren’t intelligent, entrepreneurial types to guide them, they’d go around digging holes at random.

Look dude, I don’t know if you’ve ever had to dig ditches for a living, but I have, and I can tell you that there is more to labor than “moving a shovel”. Believe it or not, the laborer usually has some degree of intelligence, and often knows more about how and where to dig ditches than the guy who owns the company (unless they’re in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average person is retarded, apparently.)

Ever tried to run a backhoe? I’m guessing not…

I beg to dif­fer. A gravel pit is a envi­able asset.

Only if you think of using it properly.

SG: Again, labor is nec­es­sary, but not suf­fi­cient for wealth cre­ation. Undi­rected labor doesn’t cre­ate wealth; it needs to be pur­pose­fully applied in order to pro­duce wealth.

Fine. Randian Entrepreneurial Heroes aren’t sufficient to create wealth either, indeed, they are probably not sufficient to haul their own garbage away.

If there were no other parties who wanted gold or diamonds, then yes we would be poorer in the very real sense that we spent great effort digging up shiny rocks and minerals instead of getting food, water and shelter. The gold and diamonds only have value because they can be easily exchanged for other things we want and need.

If you were alone on a desert island with a huge gold mine and beaches strewn with diamonds, but no food or water, you’re poor. Unlike water and salt, gold and diamonds have no intrinsic value but only have value through exchange.

I don’t see how “dig­ging ran­domly” enters into it, and your need to throw out silly straw­men like this does not sug­gest a great deal of self-confidence in your ablity to argue the actual point.

It’s not a strawman – you simply missed the point. Raw labor has no value. Labor is moving the shovel. The value is in knowing where to dig and how to identify and process what you dig in order to extract things that others will value.

Again, labor is necessary, but not sufficient for wealth creation. Undirected labor doesn’t create wealth; it needs to be purposefully applied in order to produce wealth.

The guys who had put in 30 years at Eastern Airlines?

The people in Sioux Falls who used to have scheduled air service?

Some people here are struggling to define ‘wealth’ and/or ‘capitalism’ and using holes as a point of reference. I don’t think pouring wealth into a bottomless hole is it, though.

She was a good story-teller. Her sto­ries were good yarns by any stan­dard.

Oh, come on!

Capitalism is a consequence of political freedom (i.e., freedom from physical agression by another person or persons) and objective law that protects private property.

Rand’s genius was her ability to make that case in popular literature. Others may have had the idea first. Others may have written in ways that appeal to the academic mind more forcefully that her chosen vehicles. Fiction is certainaly a novel way of explaining a philosophy. But story-telling transcends art when it has intrinsic and utilitarian value. She was a good story-teller. Her stories were good yarns by any standard. That they are still relevant today (artistically, politically and socially) is a testiment to a good mind.

I predict that she will maintain her status as a catalyst for good, thoughtful discussions, such as these postings on this blog, for at least another century.

I’ll talk about how wealth is cre­ated. Wealth is cre­ated when peo­ple will­ing exchange goods/services and both feel they’ve gained by the exchange.

So, if I give you my gold, and you give me your diamonds, wealth has been created?

But you and I have to actually do the work of digging the gold and diamonds first, don’t we? And does not that take a lot more effort than the mere exchange?

Suppose we each dig both gold and diamonds. Now each of us has the exact same amount of gold and diamonds as in the previous scenario, but no exchange has taken place. Are we “poorer” than otherwise? In what sense?

But go out and start dig­ging ran­domly. Tell me how much gold and dia­monds you find. Com­pare your out­put to some­one who’s done geo­log­i­cal sur­veys.

I don’t see how “digging randomly” enters into it, and your need to throw out silly strawmen like this does not suggest a great deal of self-confidence in your ablity to argue the actual point.

I would likely dish out a fair bit to mar­ket reg­u­la­tors as well as mar­ket players

Including TSO for not effectively regulating AIG?

@Break ing rocks with a pick-axe doesn’t require much intellect.

&It also doesn’t cre ate wealth.

I beg to differ. A gravel pit is a enviable asset.

I’m not sure I can think of a human artifact which would not properly be described as a form of wealth.