It is true when taken to the extreme. If you don’t own your own body then wealth cannot be created because you would suffocate to death.
But explain what the flaw is with this logic: “If humans act to maximize utility then it is clear that utility/wealth is derived from human action.”
What? my examples from before should clear this up.
The military and connected universities came up with the internet? One could argue that there was no freedom, liberty, or private proprerty involved. It was collusion and property taken from others that were then channeled into specific projects that only benenfited a few for a time. Then when it was made available the private property, freedom, and liberty cause the utility of the internet to explode which then leads to value of product and wealth from exchange.
Any information that we derived from the moon landing could also be an example, For instance, we could never “prove” that all things fall at the same rate because of air resistance, but since we were able to go to the moon and test Newton’s hypothesis in a “controlled” (no air; no air resistance) environment we added wealth (in the form of scientific verification) and utility (because we can use that info for future scientific application)
The same could be said for the highway system, the manhattan project (not cause of the bomb, but the nuclear physics research involved).
Fact is the government CAN do good things, but it is rare because of how it conducts its business.
If the government can take resources away from people and create something (or research) then it does create wealth. As long as it serves some end wealth can be created, it just might not be the most efficient way to do so.
Nothing wrong with your quote, but that is like saying people breath because they are alive. You are stating the most basic axiom Mises had.
and tried to say that because utility,. value, wealth, etc, are all subjective that therefore they are the same thing. They are all different things, but can all be seen by different people in different ways, that is what makes them subjective. They could be said to fit in a category of ideas thats interpretation is subjective when applied.
But in your case you gave the government officials private property rights so there was still some private property which is why wealth creation was possible.
I didn’t say they were the same thing BECAUSE they were all subjective. They are all the same thing because their definitions are virtually identical. It’s like comparing happiness and enjoyment. They’re the same thing. And happiness is subjective in the sense that people can acquire more happiness from a special photo then receiving a million dollars.
Well i’d disagree that their definitions are similar enough to say that they are virtually the same.
i said
“It was collusion and property taken from others that were then channeled into specific projects that only benenfited a few for a time.”
they took private property, therefore negating the point of calling it private. I just said the government taking resources from the private market.
So basically as long as something is subjective, it means the same thing as something else that’s subjective.
Ugly. That’s subjective. Must mean “happiness.” Beautiful. That’s subjective. Must mean “wealth.” Actually, it must mean ugly too, for that matter. As, if Ugly = happiness and happiness = beautiful, that must mean beautiful = ugly. Isn’t subjectivity fun?
Right. So a slave never ate a scrap of food because he was hungry, he only ate because his master told him to. Slaves never had sex because they wanted to, their masters ordered them to do it. Slaves didn’t run away from their plantations because it was in their own self interest and they were attempting to maximize their happiness…their masters commanded they do it. Yeah. I buy that.
Subjectivity is subjective.
<.<
…
.>
..
“So basically as long as something is subjective, it means the same thing as something else that’s subjective.”
No! You completely misunderstood what I said.
I didn’t say they were the same thing BECAUSE they were all subjective. They are all the same thing because their definitions are virtually identical. It’s like comparing happiness and enjoyment. They’re the same thing. Happiness is subjective in the sense that people can acquire more happiness from a special photo then receiving a million dollars. Similarly, people can prefer a photo because they perceive more value in it then a million dollars. The reason they perceive it to be more valuable is specifically because the photo brings them more happiness. Hence, the value is derived from the happiness that can be extracted. Hopefully, that clarifies a bit.
When I speak of private property I use the word in it’s most absolute sense. If something is not “private property” then I view it as impossible for anyone the use the object. So if slaves didn’t own their own bodies obviously they would not be able to move without their masters permission. If they did then they are not completely under the control of their master which means that they are not completely owned by the master. You’re just looking for flaws instead of trying to comprehend my philosophical and theoretical argument.
The reason I made the statement that happiness and value are basically the same is because value is derived from happiness. People perceive things as valuable only if the thing can bring them happiness, otherwise it’s useless.
“It was collusion and property taken from others that were then channeled into specific projects that only benenfited a few for a time.”
I understood what you said but our definitions of private property differ. I was considering the word in it’s most purest sense. If the government steals property then the government official is now in charge of the property making it his private property. I view private property as reality itself which is confusing but my argument is philosophical and theoretical. It needs to be to explain where the very essence of wealth is derived. Wealth is derived from human action. The desire for humans to make themselves better off. Therefore if they have “freedom”(private property), again in the most purest sense, to behave the way they want then they will create as much wealth/happiness as possible to make themselves as happy as possible.
That is my argument. If it is not already clear and intuitive then I can’t clarify further.
Not looking for, found. In fact, the whole thing is flawed. That’s the whole point. And I’ll show you why. Because it’s based on nonsense like this:…
I could prove the moon is made of cheese so long as I define the world in such a way that makes everything qualify as cheese. This has been my point all along. You have no point, you’re just overcomplicating the basic tenets of capitalism so as to make it sound like you have some kind of novel insight. There is nothing novel or complicated about anything you’ve said. And the only thing that makes it sound any different than anything most on this forum have heard before is due to your sloppy, subjective, and unheard of definitions.
hehe
Obviously, you never understood what I was trying to convey.
My point, stated as simply as possible, was that wealth is the creation of the individual freely attempting to maximize their happiness. The less freedom they have the less wealth they are capable of creating. I don’t understand why you keep trying to dispute this simple and undeniable truth.
But regardless, I would like to hear your answer of where wealth comes from.
Like I said. Nothing new, and nothing the vast majority of people in this forum don’t know and haven’t heard 1000 times before from people who didn’t have to make up definitions and flip flop on their claims to say it.
“Like I said. Nothing new, and nothing the vast majority of people in this forum don’t know and haven’t heard 1000 times before from people who didn’t have to make up definitions and flip flop on their claims to say it.”
John James,
You’re assuming that the insights I brought up are obvious but they are not. Forget everything you’ve learned from Austrian economics for a moment and look at the world from a naïve perspective.
When most people think of wealth they think of mansions, gold and other material objects. They would never consider that all wealth is subjective because it is the individuals preferences that determine what wealth is. You yourself made this mistake when you tried to correct me regarding the words “wealth, value, happiness and utility”. What I was trying to say before and what I will repeat is that value, wealth and happiness are all derived from each other. You only Value an object because that object has the capabilities of bringing you Happiness. This is one insight that is absolutely necessary when considering where wealth comes from.
Most people just believe that natural resources are what differentiates a rich country from a poor one. This is an incorrect assumption however it is one that is easy to believe. The average capabilities(intelligence, strength, etc.) of humans is the same all around the world. So it seems that the fact that some countries are rich and others are poor is just random and that you just have to be lucky enough to be born in a resource-rich nation to be wealthy.
Many socialistic economists want to increase the amount of education and health as a solution to pull countries out of poverty. My insights are obviously not clear to these people.
If it is so obvious how come Mark said “i thought wealth came from productivity?”. Then TheNcredibleEgg said “Wealth comes from innovation (ideas, knowledge) put into practice.”. You also said “wealth doesn’t come from private property either. You can have private property all day long, for thousands of years but there will be no wealth created.” This statement clearly shows that you don’t understand anything I was trying to convey.
The answer to where wealth comes from is based on three fundamental insights:
1)Wealth is subjective.
Humans act to maximize utility.
Humans only have the ability to act the way they want if they have freedom(private property over their own body).
Most people do not consider even one of the three. #2 is obvious to Austrian economists because it is the action axiom. Austrians can also generally sympathize with the #1 and #3. However, I’ve never seen an article where all 3 are combined and explained this precisely.
When Mises and Rothbard attempt to debunk socialism they use the incentive problem and the economic calculation problem. This is a mistake on their part. These two problems are significant but by no means the only problems. Mises and Rothbard missed the insights that I brought up. The problem is not the lack of incentive or the lack of prices, it is the lack of freedom for individuals to seek their own self-interest. Mises claims that socialism is impossible on a large scale but admits that on an island it could work. If he truly understood where wealth came from then he would explain that even on an island the less private property the less wealth could be created. And that socialism, the way he defines it, could theoretically work in a large economy as long as the central planner is productive enough to support the whole country.
Simplification: “You don’t think what I’m saying is novel? Oh…well…uh…Pretend you’re an ignorant know-nothing and then listen to what I have to say. It will sound pretty novel then.”
this is a joke, right?
So, where are your published works, kid?
Wealth comes from an economic process of converting raw materials in to usable goods. Which is then sold using currency for a profit. So the one aspect of wealth comes from the earth and the other aspect of wealth can come through service good which is gained through knowledge, ie gaining a skill that can generate a profit without using the earths resources. But then some might say that the person’s time is then the resource that still in effect is a resource of the earth. But that is taking it a bit far.