Where did Jaggerbot earn his pretend fortune?

[shagdrum]

Shag – you are wrong when you say the government cannot create wealth – it can.

The government provides for public schools (a socialist program). Because of the opportunities that schooling affords people they are able to go out and create wealth (make more money).

They provide for public schools by taxes, which inherently stifle wealth creation.

And the example of "wealth creation" you cite is metaphorical at best. It is dishonest and intellectually insulting to redefine what wealth creation is simply to rationalize your preconceived notions. Facilitating wealth creation is not the same as wealth creation.

Wealth is only created by the private sector. These kids will end up creating wealth in the private sector. These schools are taxpayer funded, so that is not wealth creation but is wealth redistribution and wealth destruction right there (due to scarce resources being misallocated by the politicians).

But, for the sake of argument, lets assume your absurd notion that schools somehow create wealth. They start out in the negative because of the misallocation of resources. Now, consider how inefficiently they are run; how poor our "return on investment" is there. Now compare that to private schools or home schooling. Because they would be some of the opportunity costs, you have to consider the alternatives of private school and home school. Otherwise you are cherry picking. The return on investment is much greater in private schools and in home schools (due to the higher quality of education and the lack of that same misallocation of resources that is inherent in government run programs, among other things). So the government is forcing the poor "investing" of our money in a broken system that doesn't give much of any return on the face of it.

But lets look at bit deeper then face value. Still running with that notion as schools as a means of wealth creation, how many of those kids end up on government assistance and become leeches on society rather then end up creating wealth in some fashion? Now compare that to private and home schooled kids? When you consider that, it is highly unlikely that government funded schooling is in any way a "wealth creator", even in a metaphorical sense (which is all it can be).

Your other examples are nothing but straw men and are all examples of taxpayer funded programs/initiatives. If it is funded by taxpayers, no wealth can be created. Only redistributed and destroyed.

So, only if we assume metaphorical, indirect "wealth creation" is the same as literal,direct wealth creation, and only if we ignore the opportunity costs, can we say that schools somehow "create wealth". It seems you are cherry picking and equivocating. The same holds true for all your other examples.

 

[foxpaws]

They provide for public schools by taxes, which inherently stifle wealth creation.

The government invests in public education which creates a more educated work force which in turn creates wealth. If someone who has gone to school and is able to come up with a better mouse trap he will create more wealth. The investment in that person's education has created wealth down the road. The wealth may be created in the private sector, but without the tool that the government provided, no wealth would have been created.

But, for the sake of argument, lets assume your absurd notion that schools somehow create wealth. Consider how inefficiently they are run; how poor our "return on investment" is there. Now compare that to private schools or home schooling. If you are going to look at schooling as a way to create wealth then you have to consider those as well, otherwise you are cherrypicking. The return on investment is much greater there. So the government is forcing the poor "investing" of our money in a broken system that doesn't give much of any return on the face of it.

That discussion is for our school voucher thread. The public education system may be inefficient, but it still creates wealth. You made the statement that the government didn't create wealth - you didn't make the caveat that the government has to make wealth at the same rate as some 'company'. Companies make money at different rates, so does the government.

Also, still running with that notion, how many of those kids end up on government assistance and become leeches on society rather then end up creating wealth in some fashion? Now compare that to private and home schooled kids? When you consider those, it is highly unlikely that government funded schooling is in any way a "wealth creator", even in a metaphorical sense (which is all it can be).

Got the numbers on that Shag - I would like to see a success ratio of private school kids, home schooled kids, public educated kids, broken down on economic and social opportunities. I would really like to see that. Public school does create wealth opportunity because of the opportunities that any education provides. Once again, you can place a barometer on how much - but you just made the statement that government doesn't create wealth - you didn't state that it needed to create wealth in excess of a certain amount, or that it needed to create wealth better than the private sector - you just said it didn't create wealth at all. None.

Your other examples are nothing but straw men and are all examples of taxpayer funded programs/initiatives. If it is funded by taxpayers no wealth can be created. Only redistributed.

Those are not straw man arguments shag- those are examples that disprove your ascertain that "Government creates no wealth." So, for example, if the government commissions a new tank to be built, and while building that tank, the private contractor creates a new type of alloy that is impervious to a certain caliper of weapon. That technology, along with that metal is now available to be sold to the private sector. Now, eventually that technology may have been invented, but, maybe not. There might not have been pockets deep enough, other than the US Government, that would have funded that technology. But, now, that technology is out in the public sector, and it has been found to be popular and creates wealth opportunity. You can say that private sector would fund a 50 billion dollar technology, but in reality, it can't. If it would take more than 5 to 10 years to see results from that technology, private business will not take it on. But, the government can take on that task, and perhaps in 15 years the gain will be greater than the investment. Plus, we are requiring government to protect us, the constitution does that. So the government creates that tank. The money would have been spent anyway. The government allows that technology to be used by the private sector. There are no patents on government created technology. It is public property, and now that public property is generating wealth. And over time will create wealth larger than the government investment. Once again - if the investment is less than the amount made by that investment, something magical occurs - profit. Wealth is created. Maybe the government should hold patents - want to see the amount of wealth the government could make if it went back and patented everything that it created? The government lets private enterprise use that knowledge for free. But, the profits gained by that knowledge is wealth. Directly attributed to the government's investment.

So, only if we assume metaphorical, indirect "wealth creation" is the same as literal,direct wealth creation, and only if we ignore the opportunity costs, can we say that schools somehow "create wealth". It seems you are cherry picking and equivocating.

No shag, you were the one that used a foolish blanket statement. You didn't state direct or indirect. If you use a blanket statement then I get to show examples that prove your statement wrong - that the government cannot create wealth. Imagine if Jefferson didn't have the foresight to make the Louisiana Purchase from the French. No private entity could have made that purchase, only the government's vast resources could have done that. Don't you think that the people of the United States have seen unthinkable amounts of private wealth created from that investment by the government. The government invests, the wealth is created privately, but without the investment, there is no opportunity for the creation of wealth. Investing in America and Americans is where the government creates wealth. Just as private individuals and businesses invest in other companies and in themselves, and then they reap the rewards of good investment, so does the government. Your investment creates wealth. Just as the government investment creates wealth. It invests in research, education, security, etc.. With the example of research, that research becomes successful, creates wealth opportunities in the private sector, which in turn creates a larger tax base. But, without the government's resources, some of that research would not take place. Business doesn't have the opportunity or the funds to have projects take decades to fulfill profit expectations. Only the government can do that.

 

[Icedphoenix]

I usually don't comment on these pages cause i am not as familier with some of the more in depth things y'all go into but on a basic level i agree with both sides on this.
the system is wasteful and poorly managed but taxes do pay for roads and other services trash pick up basic things that people don't see because its something they take for granted and yes private schools are better ran which is why my daughter when old enough will be attending private schools i do believe you get what you pay for and a private school coming out of my pocket is a better education system when you answer to the person writing the check directly you tend to listen more.


the link that jager posted about socialism i believe it was the second one in it the gentleman writing the article made a reference to the gas companys having to answer for their profits which is something that needed to happen if you let company's run around like that unchecked it would in turn destroy the principle of free economy if your charging people what they make just to get back and forth to make it you run into a collapse of the system how can i pay for my daughters school so she can in turn become a person able to make wealth from the money i personally invest in her if i have to spend everything to just take her to and from school people have to be able to spend money in every aspect of of the economy for it to work not just make a single company rich.
i know i probably have a few flaws on deeper levels on that but just a thought on a basic level but shag he doesn't seem to back anything up just posts links to other forums or articles

 

[Mick Jagger]

I can prove that this country is great despite having some socialism.

Why don't you prove that the Civil War was a big step toward socialism like this nut job believes? http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/march-towards-socialism-part-3/

 

[shagdrum]

The government invests in public education which creates a more educated work force which in turn creates wealth. If someone who has gone to school and is able to come up with a better mouse trap he will create more wealth. The investment in that person's education has created wealth down the road. The wealth may be created in the private sector, but without the tool that the government provided, no wealth would have been created.

Apparently you missed what I said about this already. Specifically concerning opportunity costs and the piss poor "return on investment" as well as the redefinition of wealth creation to include metaphorical wealth creation through the facilitating of wealth creation.

If you are going to ignore the substance of my criticisms you are wasting my time ( and that of everyone else) and not arguing in good faith. Again.

That discussion is for our school voucher thread. The public education system may be inefficient, but it still creates wealth. You made the statement that the government didn't create wealth - you didn't make the caveat that the government has to make wealth at the same rate as some 'company'. Companies make money at different rates, so does the government.

I am simply applying basic economic principles like opportunity cost to this. Are you saying that a double standard should be applied here?

Got the numbers on that Shag - I would like to see a success ratio of private school kids, home schooled kids, public educated kids, broken down on economic and social opportunities.

Can you say, "moving the goalposts"? Stop trying to facilitate your denial of reality through disingenuous busywork.

Public school does create wealth opportunity because of the opportunities that any education provides. Once again, you can place a barometer on how much - but you just made the statement that government doesn't create wealth - you didn't state that it needed to create wealth in excess of a certain amount, or that it needed to create wealth better than the private sector - you just said it didn't create wealth at all. None.

Again, you are ignoring the point I made about opportunity costs.

if the government commissions a new tank to be built, and while building that tank, the private contractor creates a new type of alloy that is impervious to a certain caliper of weapon.

Defense is it's own unique thing and the military is generally an exception to the rule of government inefficiency.

But even in this example, it is a private contractor creating the new alloy in response to a need by it's customer.

If you are going to argue that the government creates wealth by facilitating wealth creation and utilizing the private sector then you are simply proving my point that only the private sector creates wealth. All you have show is a few instances where, arguably, the government, in some fashion, facilitates that wealth creation. You have yet to show any example of the government actually creating wealth.

No shag, you were the one that used a foolish blanket statement.

So, basic economic facts are now "foolish blanket statements"? That is more then a little presumptuous.

You didn't state direct or indirect.

It was implied in what I said. You are simply parsing in an attempt to spin...

If you use a blanket statement then I get to show examples that prove your statement wrong

But you don't get to redefine and mischaracterize my statements to do that.

Imagine if Jefferson didn't have the foresight to make the Louisiana Purchase from the French.

Again, facilitating wealth creation is not the same as wealth creation.

Ramble on all you want, but you have yet to show any example that disproves my claim. In fact, your points only strengthen my claim. The government may in some ways indirectly facilitate wealth creation, but ONLY the private sector actually creates wealth.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Why don't you prove that the Civil War was a big step toward socialism like this nut job believes? http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/march-towards-socialism-part-3/

Here's the same wacko saying that it's socialism for the government to merely manage federal lands. http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/march-towards-socialism-series-finale/

 

[shagdrum]

...but shag he doesn't seem to back anything up just posts links to other forums or articles

I don't back anything up, or the jagger-bot doesn't back anything up?

 

[Mick Jagger]

I don't back anything up, or the jagger-bot doesn't back anything up?

Some things are self evident, dude.

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently you missed what I said about this already. Specifically concerning opportunity costs and the piss poor "return on investment" as well as the redefinition of wealth creation to include metaphorical wealth creation through the facilitating of wealth creation.

You can 'grade' the ROI - but there is a positive ROI - that is all that matters.

And once again - you were the one that ill defined 'create wealth'. Investing creates wealth - want to see Jagger's fictitious bank account - his pretend fortune was probably created in a large part by investments. Just as the government creates wealth. Through investments. The wealth is still created, the means is unimportant - right?

If you are going to ignore the substance of my criticisms you are wasting my time ( and that of everyone else) and not arguing in good faith. Again.

And you are wasting mine, and everyone else's time by trying to backtrack and redefine how you specifically view wealth being created. If you can't see that wealth can be created via investment - well, shag - good luck paying off those student loans. Oh, that is right - you are investing in your education because you believe that it will create wealth further down the road. Just as the government invests in education so it will see wealth further down the road - what a concept.

I am simply applying basic economic principles like opportunity cost to this. Are you saying that a double standard should be applied here?

You were the one that stated that the government does not create wealth - now you are expanding that to include factoring in opportunity costs? Talk about moving goalposts... the government creates wealth through investing in education. Could it do it more efficiently, or could the private sector do it better - perhaps. But, that isn't the question here is it shag. The only question is does the government create wealth? Not how much, or could it be done better, just does it?

Can you say, "moving the goalposts"? Stop trying to facilitate your denial of reality through disingenuous busywork.

You were the one that added the section about how the private sector could educate children better - it doesn't even belong in this discussion. We have one for that, as I stated before - one that deals with that subject. If you want to explore this go there... but, here we are discussing how government creates wealth. It appeared you wanted to create busy work for me by injecting this bit of misdirection-I just tossed it back to your side of the court shag...

Again, you are ignoring the point I made about opportunity costs.

And again, you know, if you argue opportunity costs, I am going to have to assume then that you do believe that the government is creating wealth - because now you are stating that they could either do it better, or give it to the private sector to do better. If the government isn't creating wealth, why worry about opportunity costs?

Defense is it's own unique thing and the military is generally an exception to the rule of government inefficiency.

But even in this example, it is a private contractor creating the new alloy in response to a need by it's customer.

But, the military is still part of the government shag - and can't be excluded from your blanket statement. You didn't state that the government doesn't create wealth, except for the military. Your statement is all inclusive.

And who do private companies make money off of - customers. That is how wealth is created. So, if the government is a customer, aren't they creating the opportunity for wealth for that company? What makes them different from Frontier buying planes from Boeing?

If you are going to argue that the government creates wealth by facilitating wealth creation and utilizing the private sector then you are simply proving my point that only the private sector creates wealth. All you have show is a few instances where, arguably, the government, in some fashion, facilitates that wealth creation. You have yet to show any example of the government actually creating wealth.

It is odd shag, you obviously understand the fact that the person or entity with the money creates wealth for others. In the Polanski thread you understand that the people that back his movies are creating wealth for Polanski, and for themselves when they see a predetermined percentage of the profits. What if the government gave money to Polanski. Aren't they creating wealth for Polanski by investing in his film. And if he is successful, it is creating wealth for itself by taking a percentage of the profits (taxes).

It was implied in what I said. You are simply parsing in an attempt to spin...

No, shag indirect or direct was not implied in your statement. I invest, that is an indirect way to create wealth. The wealth isn't any different because of the means I use to get there. It still buys me cars and shoes. The store doesn't say 'You can't buy those shoes with that investment money, foxpaws, you have to buy it with money you earned from a salary". Now you are trying to interject things that weren't in the original statement. Sorry shag - I won't let you go there.

But you don't get to redefine and mischaracterize my statements to do that. And examples that are, at best, tangential to my claim don't disprove it.

I haven't redefined or mischaracterized anything shag - I have used your exact quote. I am sorry if you weren't very good at stating what you 'really' meant.

Again, facilitating wealth creation is not the same as wealth creation.

Ramble on all you want, but you have yet to show any example that disproves my claim. In fact, your points only strengthen my claim. The government may in some ways indirectly facilitate wealth creation, but ONLY the private sector actually creates wealth.

The private sector is where the wealth 'happens' but how it is created shag is a whole different thing.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The private sector is where the wealth 'happens' but how it is created shag is a whole different thing.

Shag never created or acquired any wealth, dude. He just sit around the shack eating Cheetos and blaming excessive government regulation for his lack of financial success.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag never created or acquired any wealth, dude. He just sit around the shack eating Cheetos and blaming excessive government regulation for his lack of financial success.

that is 'dudette' to you....

 

[TheDude]

that is 'dudette' to you....

Pic or it isn't true

 

[shagdrum]

You can 'grade' the ROI - but there is a positive ROI - that is all that matters.

There is absolutely no way you can no that. You are simply asserting that as truth. And considering all the factors against it, that is highly unlikely.

And once again - you were the one that ill defined 'create wealth'.

No. The creation of wealth is pretty well understood unless you are uninformed or intentionally don't want to understand it except in the context of your little world view.

Investing creates wealth

No, the government doesn't "invest". That is a bad term to use. It bastardizes the term to use it like that. The government is not looking to make money or to grow their money.

And in every example you cite, there is no literal return on investment. At best it is, again, metaphorical. A distinction you clearly are incapable of making.

What happens is the government basically makes a resource that is completely autonomous. That means that the actions of that resource are not dependant on the government. Weather or not that resource ends up making wealth or leeching off of society is in no way determined by the government.

The same is true of all the other examples you cite of the government facilitating the creation of wealth. In each case they either create or provide a resource that the private sector then used to create wealth. And it is an economic fact that the private sector distributes and utilizes scarce resources as efficiently as is realistically possible.

And you are wasting mine, and everyone else's time by trying to backtrack and redefine how you specifically view wealth being created.

I am not "backtracking". What is happening is what always happens. You talk in circles and create a web of distortions, half-truths, etc. Then I have to come in and clean up the mess. Then you come back and do the same thing. It becomes a war of attrition.

You were the one that stated that the government does not create wealth - now you are expanding that to include factoring in opportunity costs?

I am not expanding anything. I am simply expecting any claim of some entity creating wealth to make economic sense the same way that the fact that the private sector creates wealth makes economic sense.

You are trying to ignore certain standards and basically get a double standard injected here; another patented foxpaws false premise (tm). Now we know that you will not shut up. What's that propaganda technique called? Oh yeah, the Big Lie.

Talk about moving goalposts... the government creates wealth through investing in education.

And here you are equivocating again. Reason be damned!

The only question is does the government create wealth? Not how much, or could it be done better, just does it?

Now you are attempting to lower the bar for your standard which is based on something which doesn't happen. The question is not simply does the government "create wealth" (to which the answer is "no"). The question for your specific example is does it create wealth, on the whole; in the aggregate. If the opportunity costs (wealth destroyed) exceed any supposed "wealth creation" then no wealth is created. And with every government initiative, that is the case.

You were the one that added the section about how the private sector could educate children better - it doesn't even belong in this discussion.

If your claim is to be at all economically realistic then it must confront the issue of opportunity costs. Instead you are trying to avoid confronting it...

So your claim only holds weight in some utopia based on wishful thinking. Many ideologies have tried that in the real world and all have failed to various degrees.

And again, you know, if you argue opportunity costs, I am going to have to assume then that you do believe that the government is creating wealth

You are once again, attempting to DECEIVE!!

When I first brought up this issue of opportunity cost it was under the auspices of accepting your premise for the sake of the argument. I in no way genuinely accepted that premise. But it is very telling that you would try and weasel that in like that.

But, the military is still part of the government shag - and can't be excluded from your blanket statement.

An exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule, it confirms it. And the military itself does not create wealth it facilitates the private sector creating wealth (in a very efficient manner compared to any and ever other government organization).

And who do private companies make money off of - customers. That is how wealth is created.

You really have no clue how wealth is created, do you? You are simply grasping at straws. This statement alone, shows your utter economic ignorance.

If you were actually conversing in good faith, I would gladly take the time to explain how wealth is created.

It is odd shag, you obviously understand the fact that the person or entity with the money creates wealth for others.

But this book. Read it and get back to me.

Amazon.com: Basic Economics 3rd Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (9780465002603): Thomas Sowell: Books

In the Polanski thread you understand that the people that back his movies are creating wealth for Polanski

I said no such thing. Either you are basing that on your severe misunderstanding of economics and specifically concepts like wealth creation, etc. Or you are intentionally working to distort me to try and "trap" me. Either would not be out of character for you.

No, shag indirect or direct was not implied in your statement.

Well, given your utter economic ignorance, maybe I should have spelled that out. I was assuming some basic level of knowledge in economics which clearly doesn't exist on your part.

I haven't redefined or mischaracterized anything shag - I have used your exact quote. I am sorry if you weren't very good at stating what you 'really' meant.

Again, sorry I assumed some basic level of knowledge on your part.

FYI: the mischaracterization doesn't have to be intentional or direct. It can be something that is implied or inferred in what you say. Your ignorance of economics here is a big part of that, it seems...

The private sector is where the wealth 'happens' but how it is created shag is a whole different thing.

How does wealth "happen"?

Also, while you are at it, answer me this...

We know that if the government was a non-entity in the economy, under a pure capitalist system, wealth would be created by the private sector. They do not need the government to create wealth.

If there is no private sector, can the government create weath? All the examples you cite are of the government facilitating the creation of wealth in the private sector. How does the government, alone, create wealth (no private sector involvement of any sort)?

 

[foxpaws]

There is absolutely no way you can no that. You are simply asserting that as truth. And considering all the factors against it, that is highly unlikely.

So there isn't a positive rate of return on education. We are all better off if we remain uneducated? We will be wealthier? So, you want to go against almost everything out there (and no, I am not going to run around finding 'proof' on this shag) and state that education doesn't have a positive rate of return on the investment?

No. The creation of wealth is pretty well understood unless you are uninformed or intentionally don't want to understand it except in the context of your little world view.

My little world view shag - I am the one that knew to include indirect forms of wealth creation, such as investment. You and your 'big world' viewpoint seemed to forget that tiny segment of how wealth is created. Wall Street I am sure is please to be at least included in my little world view...

No, the government doesn't "invest". That is a bad term to use. It bastardizes the term to use it like that. The government is not looking to make money or to grow their money.

It might not be on 'purpose' - but it happens shag. And in the example of education government does invest to make money. An educated populace is better for the nation overall. We can compete better in the world marketplace, and make more wealth!!!! And the government can collect more taxes - woo hoo!!!!

And in every example you cite, there is no literal return on investment. At best it is, again, metaphorical. A distinction you clearly are incapable of making.

It is a literal return Shag. I would say remove all government funding of all programs from the inception of this country and see what kind of wealth you have remaining. Take away the large land purchases - like Louisiana and Alaska. Just by doing that, the nation you have left would be pretty poor in comparison to the United States as it stands today. Take away all the wealth created in the great midwest and Alaska. That wealth is a return on the investment this country made in land.

What happens is the government basically makes a resource that is completely autonomous. That means that the actions of that resource are not dependant on the government. Weather or not that resource ends up making wealth or leeching off of society is in no way determined by the government.

So, what does that paragraph have to do with the fact the government creates wealth - I see no correlation at all shag...

The same is true of all the other examples you cite of the government facilitating the creation of wealth. In each case they either create or provide a resource that the private sector then used to create wealth. And it is an economic fact that the private sector distributes and utilizes scarce resources as efficiently as is realistically possible.

Once again shag - you are trying to skew the discussion to the fact the government doesn't create wealth efficiently. And I will state again, just by the fact you need this argument - you admit to the fact that the government creates wealth, albeit poorly in your opinion, and that private industry could do a better job. Nonetheless, wealth is being created.

I am not "backtracking". What is happening is what always happens. You talk in circles and create a web of distortions, half-truths, etc. Then I have to come in and clean up the mess. Then you come back and do the same thing. It becomes a war of attrition.

Nope shag what is happening is what always happens. You make some strange, blanket statement, and when caught, you have to try to find some way to justify yourself. You did it in the 'this is an example of leftist hate' thread, you have done it in other threads. I have to come in and explain that indeed what you have stated is just another one of your little 'truism' which if really analyzed isn't quite so 'true'.

I am not expanding anything. I am simply expecting any claim of some entity creating wealth to make economic sense the same way that the fact that the private sector creates wealth makes economic sense.

So all those people who merely invest don't make economic sense?

Now you are attempting to lower the bar for your standard which is based on something which doesn't happen. The question is not simply does the government "create wealth" (to which the answer is "no"). The question for your specific example is does it create wealth, on the whole; in the aggregate. If the opportunity costs (wealth destroyed) exceed any supposed "wealth creation" then no wealth is created. And with every government initiative, that is the case.

So, shag - since you do this to me all the time, show me where wealth is destroyed when new technologies are created for government military projects, which, in turn, are then transferred to be used in the private sector and wealth is created from those technologies.

When I first brought up this issue of opportunity cost it was under the auspices of accepting your premise for the sake of the argument. I in no way genuinely accepted that premise. But it is very telling that you would try and weasel that in like that.

Ah, you were just being nice to me.. right? Nope, you made a mistake. If you are going down the opportunity cost highway, it is too late to try to get off that exit now.

Speaking of which-you haven't even addressed the fact that without the road system no wealth can be created. During the building of the Interstate system the government knew it could invest in the infrastructure of this country and create new and more wealth with the new system of high speed highways.... hmmmm how much wealth has that created? And who else could have created that astronomically expensive system? Only the government.

An exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule, it confirms it. And the military itself does not create wealth it facilitates the private sector creating wealth (in a very efficient manner compared to any and ever other government organization).

But, shag - it is the government - isn't it? And in this case, since you used a blanket statement that the government doesn't create wealth, you get to live or die by that. If nothing else, your all important, we love it, military system will be your downfall. You can't say something bad about it - so, now it has to be the 'exception' to the rule. Sorry shag - the military is very much a part of the government, and if it creates wealth, then the government creates wealth.

You really have no clue how wealth is created, do you? You are simply grasping at straws. This statement alone, shows your utter economic ignorance.

Well, sweetheart, I must know a little... I would imagine my net worth might be a bit larger than yours.

In the Polanski thread you understand that the people that back his movies are creating wealth for Polanski

I said no such thing. Either you are basing that on your severe misunderstanding of economics and specifically concepts like wealth creation, etc. Or you are intentionally working to distort me to try and "trap" me. Either would not be out of character for you.

Really? So, this is what you said in the Polanski thread...

They should play into the judgment involved in facilitating that art. If I had Bill Gates money, would it be moral for me to fund his movies (in which he makes a profit and betters himself) if he has unquestionably committed a major crime for which he has not paid his debt to society?

I don't have to distort anything. You said that the people investing in Polanski movies would create profit for Polanski - it would create 'wealth' for him (that is what profit is - isn't shag?) So, you do understand how investment creates wealth - although according to you somehow that isn't really creating wealth.. right?

Well, given your utter economic ignorance, maybe I should have spelled that out. I was assuming some basic level of knowledge in economics which clearly doesn't exist on your part.

Well, given the fact you still don't understand that indirect creation of wealth and the direct creation of wealth in the end still does exactly the same thing - creating wealth - I guess perhaps you should read this...

FYI: the mischaracterization doesn't have to be intentional or direct. It can be something that is implied or inferred in what you say. Your ignorance of economics here is a big part of that, it seems...

So, you do understand direct and indirect - mischaracterization is still mischaracterization whether it arrives directly - or it creeps in indirectly...

We know that if the government was a non-entity in the economy, under a pure capitalist system, wealth would be created by the private sector. They do not need the government to create wealth.

If there is no private sector, can the government create weath? All the examples you cite are of the government facilitating the creation of wealth in the private sector. How does the government, alone, create wealth (no private sector involvement of any sort)?

the private sector may not need the government to create wealth - but that doesn't discount the fact that government does create wealth -

And, since we are a capitalist system where the only sector we have where wealth is accumulated is the private sector - at this point any wealth the government creates is in that sector. Once again shag - you are confusing where wealth is created and how wealth is created.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The creation of wealth is pretty well understood

Dude, you ain't gonna get rich lecturing us on what wealth is and how it's created. You need to get a hair cut, get a real job and try to accumulate some wealth. I graduated from college with half a million dollars in the bank.

 

[shagdrum]

We are all better off if we remain uneducated?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

An educated populace is better for the nation overall. We can compete better in the world marketplace, and make more wealth!!!!

See the above explanation of a straw man argument.

It is a literal return Shag. I would say remove all government funding of all programs from the inception of this country and see what kind of wealth you have remaining. Take away the large land purchases - like Louisiana and Alaska. Just by doing that, the nation you have left would be pretty poor in comparison to the United States as it stands today. Take away all the wealth created in the great midwest and Alaska. That wealth is a return on the investment this country made in land.

You are continuing to equivocate on both the terms "investment" and "wealth creation"; substituting a metaphorical usage of those terms for a literal usage.

Another false premise that you will continue to try and inject; a propaganda technique called the Big Lie:

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".​

Once again shag - you are trying to skew the discussion to the fact the government doesn't create wealth efficiently. And I will state again, just by the fact you need this argument - you admit to the fact that the government creates wealth, albeit poorly in your opinion, and that private industry could do a better job. Nonetheless, wealth is being created.

Again, see the explanation given for a straw man argument above.

Nope shag what is happening is what always happens. You make some strange, blanket statement, and when caught, you have to try to find some way to justify yourself. You did it in the 'this is an example of leftist hate' thread, you have done it in other threads. I have to come in and explain that indeed what you have stated is just another one of your little 'truism' which if really analyzed isn't quite so 'true'.

If you have to mischaracterize me to "explain" or "prove" something, then you are actively working to mislead.

So all those people who merely invest don't make economic sense?

Again, see the explanation of straw man argument as well as the explanation of equivocation.

Ah, you were just being nice to me.. right? Nope, you made a mistake. If you are going down the opportunity cost highway, it is too late to try to get off that exit now.

Another Große Lüge

Speaking of which-you haven't even addressed the fact that without the road system no wealth can be created.

Wealth was before the road system was created.

But, shag - it is the government - isn't it? And in this case, since you used a blanket statement that the government doesn't create wealth, you get to live or die by that. If nothing else, your all important, we love it, military system will be your downfall. You can't say something bad about it - so, now it has to be the 'exception' to the rule. Sorry shag - the military is very much a part of the government, and if it creates wealth, then the government creates wealth.

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

Also, I never said anything about the military creating wealth. So, once again, see the explanation of a straw man argument.

I don't have to distort anything. You said that the people investing in Polanski movies would create profit for Polanski - it would create 'wealth' for him (that is what profit is - isn't shag?)

Nope. profit is not the same as wealth and "making a profit" is not the same as "creating wealth".

So, you do understand how investment creates wealth - although according to you somehow that isn't really creating wealth.. right?

Again, see the explanation of equivocation. You are confusing a metaphorical investment with a literal investment.

the private sector may not need the government to create wealth - but that doesn't discount the fact that government does create wealth -

Then why are you dodging the question?

And, since we are a capitalist system where the only sector we have where wealth is accumulated is the private sector - at this point any wealth the government creates is in that sector.

Name any other economic system besides capitalism that creates wealth.

Maybe if you would stop habitually mischaracterizing me, equivocating and constantly attempting to inject your Big Lies, I might have an interest in discussing things with you...

Anybody wanna place any bets on how many mischaracterizations/fallacies in general her response will have?

I say five...

 

[Calabrio]

Dude, you ain't gonna get rich lecturing us on what wealth is and how it's created. You need to get a hair cut, get a real job and try to accumulate some wealth. I graduated from college with half a million dollars in the bank.

...I hate to have to tell you this-
but all those guys who said they'd pay you later if you blew them first weren't being honest. You really don't have all that money in the bank.

So sorry.

 

[foxpaws]

Name any other economic system besides capitalism that creates wealth.

Personal wealth? If followed to the letter - none. There is personal wealth created in most economic systems - but it is done illegally, or outside the boundaries of the economic system in place.

But, our government works within the capitalism system to create wealth.

Once again shag - you don't seem to understand the difference between where wealth gets created and how wealth is created. Once you understand that - get back to me...

Anybody wanna place any bets on how many mischaracterizations/fallacies in general her response will have?

I say five...

Don't bet on it...

Cal - perhaps Mr Jagger just didn't get the concept of getting the money up front...

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - perhaps Mr Jagger just didn't get the concept of getting the money up front...

...he got confused because they all told him they'd put it in the back.

 

[foxpaws]

...he got confused because they all told him they'd put it in the back.

Ba Da Bump Bump Bump

 

[Mick Jagger]

Name any other economic system besides capitalism that creates wealth.

Mercantilism.

 

[shagdrum]

Once again shag - you don't seem to understand the difference between where wealth gets created and how wealth is created. Once you understand that - get back to me...

A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome.

Well, we have at least one type of deceptive argument. Arguably a red herring fallacy.

 

[foxpaws]

A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome.

Well, we have at least one type of deceptive argument. Arguably a red herring fallacy.

shag - I realize this might be beyond your scope of reality- but where you get laid is a whole lot different than how you get laid...

 

[shagdrum]

Mercantilism.

Wrong. The accumulation of gold and silver does not create wealth. The analogy today would be the fed simply printing more money; that doesn't create wealth. In fact, it destroys wealth.

And the whole "theory" of mercantilism is based on a zero sum fallacy. So it never would create wealth, even under it's on flawed understanding of wealth. It simply took wealth that already existed from other places, namely from other countries. Redistribution on an international scale, at best. There is a huge difference between redistribution of wealth and creation of wealth.

Wanna try again?

 

[shagdrum]

shag - I realize this might be beyond your scope of reality- but where you get laid is a whole lot different than how you get laid...

Really? You are reduced to hurling irrelevant insults now?

You stay classy.