A Few Questions
A Few Questions
- What constitutes the wealth of a nation?
- What is the source of all wealth and revenue?
- Does the method by which one receives income — whether wage, rent, profit or interest — indicate the ultimate source of the value represented by it?
- Do stores of money, machinery, manufactured goods or produce represent reserved surplus labour?
Great questions Sandwichman.
1. What constitutes the wealth of a nation? Adding value to citizens’ lives.
2. What is the source of all wealth and revenue? There is no single source.
3. Does the method by which one receives income — whether wage, rent, profit or interest — indicate the ultimate source of the value represented by it? Probably not, at least as the question is worded.
4. Do stores of money, machinery, manufactured goods or produce represent reserved surplus labour? Sure, and reserve surplus capital, and reserve corporate inventory …
“What constitutes the wealth of a nation?”
wealth = f(people, ability to captilize on inventions)
What constitutes the wealth of a nation?
Their accounting accuracy.
What is the source of all wealth and revenue?
Transactions that count as accurately as possibly..
Does the method by which one receives income — whether wage, rent, profit or interest — indicate the ultimate source of the value represented by it?
yes, causes a spectral mis match in congestion and markets cycle.
Do stores of money, machinery, manufactured goods or produce represent reserved surplus labour?
sores are the inventory at each point in a value chain. All points in the chain must have equal probability of being short or long. For labor, it means you are quick to the checkout counter. For customers it means you are a bit congested at the counter.
The single rule of economics that determines all is simple, no one wants to be third in line.
Sandwichman:
I could be wrong. I could be . . .
Adam Smith was the first to realize that the Wealth of a Nation was not in the accumulation of commodities nor in the resource reserves that a nation may happen to possess. But rather wealth exists in the productive knowledge of its people. The ability to efficiently transform resources (factor inputs) into desired goods and services represents the true source of a nation’s wealth.
Physical and human capital represents the true embodiment of wealth.
unh oh,
not a single mention of the earth.
Houston, we have a problem.
Taking a shot @ #1: What constitutes the wealth of a nation?
Seems to me that a people begin to accumulate wealth once they have means of producing more that the necessities. Early, this wealth belonged to the family, then the tribe, …
A nation’s wealth no doubt includes its productive capacity. Capacity is but another way of saying capital, as is capital but another way of saying wealth. Capacity/capital includes knowledge, … The ownership question comes to bear when the monetized wealth of a nation falls into the hands of private citizens; bastards beenknown to abscond, you know.
Couple forms of wealth are too often left.
1. First one that comes to mind, in this the time of Brexit and Boris, is the great Universities of the U.K. (of the world for that matter); may well be their greatest asset, given the future of the pound and their economy.
2. Art in all its forms is far more lasting than even gold. Art, as in culture as in art, is the greatest achievement of humans.
as the rest of us can merely generate the right answers, the great advantage that 5andwichman has over the rest of us is that he can also generate the right questions.
1 What constitutes the wealth of a nation?
2 What is the source of all wealth and revenue?
3 Does the method by which one receives income — whether wage, rent, profit or interest — indicate the ultimate source of the value represented by it?
4 Do stores of money, machinery, manufactured goods or produce represent reserved surplus labour?
1. the aggregate liability of a Nation x minus one
2. vasectomy
3. it depends
4. reserved Surplus automation
HAPPY PERIHELION
!
Damnit, Justin, I was trying to be serious.
reminds me ofthe time someone on this site stated that the United States was “naturally” poorer than Mexico because we had less gold.
this is cosmic stupidity.
money is not wealth, it is certainly not the SOURCE of wealth. and while “capital” and the skills and industry of the people can certainly be “part” of the accumulation of wealth, both can disappear in a breath of time, and neither would exist without the earth
which we forget at our peril,,,, our certain destruction.
amber waves of grain
Houston, we still have a problem.
Well, I noted back in 2007 that the World Bank had reported on this question. Their answer: The rest of the story is intangible capital. That encompasses raw labor; human capital, which includes the sum of a population’s knowledge and skills; and the level of trust in a society and the quality of its formal and informal institutions. Worldwide, the study finds, “natural capital accounts for 5 percent of total wealth, produced capital for 18 percent, and intangible capital 77 percent.”
And: Rich countries are largely rich because of the skills of their populations and the quality of the institutions supporting economic activity,” the study concludes. According to Hamilton’s figures, the rule of law explains 57 percent of countries’ intangible capital. Education accounts for 36 percent.
Considering how our politics has gone over the last 20 years, and especially today, we are doing our damnedest to destroy our capital generator.
Becker
true. but that is part of what i was trying to say: intangible capital as you describe them can vanish in a breath. almost as fast as financial capital. about as fast as produced capital. and what you call natural capital (resources) take a little longer to destroy, but developing them is part of the process of destruction.
anyway, the question was what is the SOURCE of wealth. that answer is the EARTH. it is hardly surprising that the world bank does not know that, or admit it.
by the way, those percentages are meaningless. the factors are multiplicative, not additive.
Colberly, those percentages are the World Bank’s. Those are quotes from their report.
The earth on it’s own without an intelligence that has an intent toward accumulation (for what ever purpose) has no value. It just exists.
Becker
of course the percentages are the Banks. doesn’t change the fact that they are meaningless.
but i assume the remark about the earth having no value without your intent to make a buck off of it…is your opinion. scary, but widely shared. it IS the problem.
run
can i edit a comment (for typos) after it is posted?
anyway “act” above was supposed to be “fact”… though i suppose in some ways “act” could be the deeper meaning.
Coberly, I was not suggesting raping the earth. Just pointing out that the concept of wealth is a human idea. I don’t believe my dogs or my cats ever thought of the earth in this way.
With that, wealth does not by its self denote rape. Selfishness does. Or the need to survive may lead to such as one finds they can do more than survive.
Lets first ask ourselves a question of comparison using history as our guide. When Captain Cook came upon the islands of Tahiti and Hawaii, was he more wealthy then the inhabitants of those islands or did they have all they needed and more? In my mind, those islanders had everything money could buy and more….