jln wrote:
>
> > Zero-sum fallacy. Wealth in America has not been created by
> >extracting resources from other countries. Most of the international trade
> >conducted by American firms is with firms from Eurpoean, developing and
> >advanced Asian countries, and our neighbors to the north and the south.
> >The poverty of the "South" is not explainable by the wealth of the "North,"
> >and vice versa.
>
> Which does not deny the possibility that they with whom we trade
> ultimately import their wealth from other developing countries that we then
> extract from them. In any case, it does not matter.
The developed countries I mentioned trade more with America, and vice
versa, than they or we do with any others.
> I don't think the United States has sixty percent of the world's resources
> in its borders, and so it must be getting the wealth from somewhere else,
> who isn't getting as much back.
No doubt, America doesn't have more than half the world's *natural*
resources, but its technology (meaning recipies for production) is very
advanced, so firms within its borders are able to *produce* more efficiently.
The "undeveloped" countries are so poor in relation to the West because they
are not as *productive*.
> My whole thought is that everything should be split evenly
> across populations throughout the world.
> > Clearly, if you think that the onlly explanation for America's relative
> >opulence is that it is stolen, then you do not have much of an idea of how
> >wealth is created in the first place. I will post more on this later. Gotta
> >go.
> >
> > Nicholas
>
> I'm sure that this is not the only explanation, but it is a good and
> important one. In any case, I am not concerned with ho0w "wealth" is
> created since wealth is only a form of domination (see, once again, Locke,
> and Rousseau, who I really like on this subject). Wealth is just a
> justification for controlling an inordinate amount of the world's
> resources, and thus controlling a certain amount of power (sorry to be
> getting away from F's notion of power). But I am interested to hear how
> you think wealth is created.
>
> Jeff
Wealth is created legitimately either by saving or by
exchanging goods or services for pecuniary gain (read: profit). Without
savings there can be no investment. *One* of the reasons the economies
of the "Dragons of Asia" are growing so rapidly is that those countries
on the whole have relatively high national savings rates. (This is
significant since most savings are invested domestically, not
internationally. The Dragons, even those that permit foreign *direct*
investment, have to rely mainly on intra-national funds for growth.)
Other developing countries also need either *saved* intra-national
funds or foreign direct investment to grow. In the absence of foreign
funds, countries that are not accustomed to the practice of the "protestant
ethic" have a difficult time "starting up."
The other means of growth, profit, can only result after an
initial investment of funds. People who own stock in a company put
off consumption one day for compensation in the future by the
corporation for the use of those funds. Or, say, a family saves across
generations to start a business, which is profitable enough to justify
the family keeping it running, and some of those funds are reinvested into
the business.
None of this is to deny that capitalism produces (informal)
inequalities. Nor is it to deny that some state actions to adjust those
inequalities are beneficial to a society. However, only those societies will be
prosperous that maintain *a* system of private property and profit, whether that
system is purely free market (an idealization) or salt-water capitalism
(market socialism).
Nicholas
>
> > Zero-sum fallacy. Wealth in America has not been created by
> >extracting resources from other countries. Most of the international trade
> >conducted by American firms is with firms from Eurpoean, developing and
> >advanced Asian countries, and our neighbors to the north and the south.
> >The poverty of the "South" is not explainable by the wealth of the "North,"
> >and vice versa.
>
> Which does not deny the possibility that they with whom we trade
> ultimately import their wealth from other developing countries that we then
> extract from them. In any case, it does not matter.
The developed countries I mentioned trade more with America, and vice
versa, than they or we do with any others.
> I don't think the United States has sixty percent of the world's resources
> in its borders, and so it must be getting the wealth from somewhere else,
> who isn't getting as much back.
No doubt, America doesn't have more than half the world's *natural*
resources, but its technology (meaning recipies for production) is very
advanced, so firms within its borders are able to *produce* more efficiently.
The "undeveloped" countries are so poor in relation to the West because they
are not as *productive*.
> My whole thought is that everything should be split evenly
> across populations throughout the world.
> > Clearly, if you think that the onlly explanation for America's relative
> >opulence is that it is stolen, then you do not have much of an idea of how
> >wealth is created in the first place. I will post more on this later. Gotta
> >go.
> >
> > Nicholas
>
> I'm sure that this is not the only explanation, but it is a good and
> important one. In any case, I am not concerned with ho0w "wealth" is
> created since wealth is only a form of domination (see, once again, Locke,
> and Rousseau, who I really like on this subject). Wealth is just a
> justification for controlling an inordinate amount of the world's
> resources, and thus controlling a certain amount of power (sorry to be
> getting away from F's notion of power). But I am interested to hear how
> you think wealth is created.
>
> Jeff
Wealth is created legitimately either by saving or by
exchanging goods or services for pecuniary gain (read: profit). Without
savings there can be no investment. *One* of the reasons the economies
of the "Dragons of Asia" are growing so rapidly is that those countries
on the whole have relatively high national savings rates. (This is
significant since most savings are invested domestically, not
internationally. The Dragons, even those that permit foreign *direct*
investment, have to rely mainly on intra-national funds for growth.)
Other developing countries also need either *saved* intra-national
funds or foreign direct investment to grow. In the absence of foreign
funds, countries that are not accustomed to the practice of the "protestant
ethic" have a difficult time "starting up."
The other means of growth, profit, can only result after an
initial investment of funds. People who own stock in a company put
off consumption one day for compensation in the future by the
corporation for the use of those funds. Or, say, a family saves across
generations to start a business, which is profitable enough to justify
the family keeping it running, and some of those funds are reinvested into
the business.
None of this is to deny that capitalism produces (informal)
inequalities. Nor is it to deny that some state actions to adjust those
inequalities are beneficial to a society. However, only those societies will be
prosperous that maintain *a* system of private property and profit, whether that
system is purely free market (an idealization) or salt-water capitalism
(market socialism).
Nicholas