Sorry Jake Bugg...

[andy6025]

Wealth is created my friend by Supply and Demand in it's various guises. By selling a product designed to save the buyer money and in turn create cash income for future investment is one example. Countries can trade with one another at competitive prices to buy and sell the other's goods, the profits from these goods going to the end seller.

I've spent many a year successfully selling machinery that creates wealth to both buyer and seller.

It seems that none of the pen pushers would agree with your analysis of 'wealth creation,' for you appear to have located it mostly in the act of exchange ('by selling', 'countries can trade') and then last you have machines creating wealth (which they'd all find rather humorous). While merchants do indeed make their bread by 'buying low and selling high', that's not as a rule how the 'wealth of nations' is created.

You might be curious to know (but mostly likely not) that all of the most profound thinkers in political economy unanimously locate the creation of wealth in the productive process, and boil 'value' down to labour, measured mostly in units of time. The usefulness of buying the labour of others is that in doing so you are buying a wealth-creating force. Adam Smith is partly an the exception, who on the eve of the birth of capitalism struggled with its distinct processes and besides the labour theory of value, he mysteriously thought that some objects had an instrinsik (sic) value. But of course, chemists with even the most powerful microscopes to date have yet to find such an illusive substance.

Supply and demand is simply a process that determines variations in price from their normative value. After all, with only a few exceptional saleable goods (such as land) supply comes from the 'mixture' of labour with nature. Case in point, if the alchemists above discovered how to convert lead into gold with minimal effort (i.e. labour) then the price of gold would plummet. And on the other side of the equation, when demand surpasses supply, prices only rise until social labour is reconfigured to address the higher demand.

As for where they got their observations: Smith got his labour theory of value from spending extensive time in a pin factory. Ricardo had originally been a stockbroker. Marx's partner Engels' father owned a factory (in which Engels worked and Marx also spent time), and Malthus - the most ruthless and right wing of them all was a Reverend. Another group of political economists, the French Physiocrats, got their observations from agricultural accounting - hence why still today modern economies and taxation are figured annually and seasonally; to coincide with agricultural cycles.

But I get though that there's long been a movement afoot to shun anyone who bothers to study anything in detail and understand how it works.

[SwalePie]

It seems that none of the pen pushers would agree with your analysis of 'wealth creation,' for you appear to have located it mostly in the act of exchange ('by selling', 'countries can trade') and then last you have machines creating wealth (which they'd all find rather humorous). While merchants do indeed make their bread by 'buying low and selling high', that's not as a rule how the 'wealth of nations' is created.

You might be curious to know (but mostly likely not) that all of the most profound thinkers in political economy unanimously locate the creation of wealth in the productive process, and boil 'value' down to labour, measured mostly in units of time. The usefulness of buying the labour of others is that in doing so you are buying a wealth-creating force. Adam Smith is partly an the exception, who on the eve of the birth of capitalism struggled with its distinct processes and besides the labour theory of value, he mysteriously thought that some objects had an instrinsik (sic) value. But of course, chemists with even the most powerful microscopes to date have yet to find such an illusive substance.

Supply and demand is simply a process that determines variations in price from their normative value. After all, with only a few exceptional saleable goods (such as land) supply comes from the 'mixture' of labour with nature. Case in point, if the alchemists above discovered how to convert lead into gold with minimal effort (i.e. labour) then the price of gold would plummet. And on the other side of the equation, when demand surpasses supply, prices only rise until social labour is reconfigured to address the higher demand.

As for where they got their observations: Smith got his labour theory of value from spending extensive time in a pin factory. Ricardo had originally been a stockbroker. Marx's partner Engels' father owned a factory (in which Engels worked and Marx also spent time), and Malthus - the most ruthless and right wing of them all was a Reverend. Another group of political economists, the French Physiocrats, got their observations from agricultural accounting - hence why still today modern economies and taxation are figured annually and seasonally; to coincide with agricultural cycles.

But I get though that there's long been a movement afoot to shun anyone who bothers to study anything in detail and understand how it works.

Great post sir!

[andy6025]

Thank you, Swale.

One correction - Adam Smith wrote on the eve of industrial capitalism, rather than capitalism itself - which began to overtake feudalism around the 16th century in English agriculture. Many places even in Europe as late as the mid 20th century (pockets of Italy, for example) still clung to the feudal mode of production, whereby markets were entirely peripheral (subsistence peasant economies prevailed) and where they existed for the exchange of surplus, prices were determined by magistrates/councils and were highly dependent upon status; for example destitute widowers often got first choice AND cheaper prices.

Those of you who list The Godfather as a favourite film might like to know that the title 'Don' wasn't originally for some swaggering crimelord, but rather to the peasant among the commune who owned the plough.

[sidders]

... ah, 6.025, by issuing your study list you have confirmed the sources of much of your pretentious, patronising piffle. Try Steve Keen for a real world view.

This has to be one of the most pathetic responses on this board and shows what a shallow duffer you are.

[seriouspie]

It seems that none of the pen pushers would agree with your analysis of 'wealth creation,' for you appear to have located it mostly in the act of exchange ('by selling', 'countries can trade') and then last you have machines creating wealth (which they'd all find rather humorous). While merchants do indeed make their bread by 'buying low and selling high', that's not as a rule how the 'wealth of nations' is created.

You might be curious to know (but mostly likely not) that all of the most profound thinkers in political economy unanimously locate the creation of wealth in the productive process, and boil 'value' down to labour, measured mostly in units of time. The usefulness of buying the labour of others is that in doing so you are buying a wealth-creating force. Adam Smith is partly an the exception, who on the eve of the birth of capitalism struggled with its distinct processes and besides the labour theory of value, he mysteriously thought that some objects had an instrinsik (sic) value. But of course, chemists with even the most powerful microscopes to date have yet to find such an illusive substance.

Supply and demand is simply a process that determines variations in price from their normative value. After all, with only a few exceptional saleable goods (such as land) supply comes from the 'mixture' of labour with nature. Case in point, if the alchemists above discovered how to convert lead into gold with minimal effort (i.e. labour) then the price of gold would plummet. And on the other side of the equation, when demand surpasses supply, prices only rise until social labour is reconfigured to address the higher demand.

As for where they got their observations: Smith got his labour theory of value from spending extensive time in a pin factory. Ricardo had originally been a stockbroker. Marx's partner Engels' father owned a factory (in which Engels worked and Marx also spent time), and Malthus - the most ruthless and right wing of them all was a Reverend. Another group of political economists, the French Physiocrats, got their observations from agricultural accounting - hence why still today modern economies and taxation are figured annually and seasonally; to coincide with agricultural cycles.

But I get though that there's long been a movement afoot to shun anyone who bothers to study anything in detail and understand how it works.

Well done Anders - I am no longer ignorant ........and will now be able to quote facts from the writings of the above mentioned giants of political economical garbage. I thank you sir, this information will help enormously! Your uncle John McDonnell would be proud!

[andy6025]

Well done Anders - I am no longer ignorant ........and will now be able to quote facts from the writings of the above mentioned giants of political economical garbage. I thank you sir, this information will help enormously! Your uncle John McDonnell would be proud!

Uncle John? You have me mistaken for someone else. My relatives on both sides hailed from the capitalist class... you know, like the ones that judged your quarterly/annual sales reports and informed you of your worth when you were out flogging machines.

[seriouspie]

Uncle John? You have me mistaken for someone else. My relatives on both sides hailed from the capitalist class... you know, like the ones that judged your quarterly/annual sales reports and informed you of your worth when you were out flogging machines.

Sensible relations then ...... you obviously went the other way.

Quarterly / Annual sales reports - not where I was son. It could take up to 18 months to close some contracts especially when dealing with the big boys. Word of mouth and a check through your correspondence with 'potentials' was good enough for my boss ........ " Thanks for the order on this one Serious, it'll give the lads plenty of overtime as I see a quick delivery is needed .......... in the meantime have a rest for a few days at the 'usual' in Jersey and take the wife".

[TheBlackHorse]

... el sid ... you clearly have no understanding of the woffle 0.6025 spouts if you believe he understands business.

[andy6025]

Sensible relations then ...... you obviously went the other way.

Quarterly / Annual sales reports - not where I was son. It could take up to 18 months to close some contracts especially when dealing with the big boys. Word of mouth and a check through your correspondence with 'potentials' was good enough for my boss ........ "

Until you go under the knife, you're a son wherever you go.

And try phoning it in to your tax man every 18 months and see if he'll take your word for it. Or even to the shareholders for that matter...

[sidders]

... el sid ... you clearly have no understanding of the woffle 0.6025 spouts if you believe he understands business.

WAffle, not woffle. His post was about wealth creation, not business. Which of the thinkers he has extensively read did you take issue with from your own extensive reading?