Did you watch the news conference? Yeah, he was long winded at times. But isn’t that better than short, meaningless sound bites we usually get from politicians? Ignoring how he said it, what did you think about what he said? Do you agree with him? Still glad you voted for him (or didn’t)?
Agree or disagree, like or dislike, at least we have back in the White House someone who is smarter than a fifth grader. Refreshing!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 6022 access attempts in the last 7 days.
That Republican plan didn’t work. How about this Recovery Plan
pedro,
Maybe it’s your Cuban roots.
Live a little.
Heigh ho
#55, Poison Twin,
Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as “the annual produce of the land and labour of the society”. This “produce” is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property.
Thanks for proving my point. Notice that “wealth [is possessing] money”. You can’t have solid money by printing it to pay workers on make-do jobs because they aren’t producing anything.
[Non sequitur begins]
I’m sure glad they don’t have Leibertarians and poopcycle salesmen running the Treasury. we would remain in the mess we are in for ages.
[Non sequitur ends]
Let me pull a Paddy-O and help you out some:
I sure wish we had Libertarians running the Treasury. We wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now.
There. Fixed it for you.
Loser,
Maybe I should mention you’ve lost it.
Money is not the only form of wealth. Maybe to Leibertarians, but not Americans. Yet your claim is that the only way to make “solid money” is to produce something. You are wrong on both the philosophical level as well as the practical level.
Many people make money by lending it out to others for a rate of return or portion of the profits. They don’t produce anything, but they make money. Others make money by buying something and selling for a higher price. They don’t produce anything but they make money. Others will do something for money, serve food, drive a truck, teach, clean hospitals. Nope, they don’t produce anything either.
*
Then there is the problem that solid money is the only form that may be produced. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Solid money is either coinage or paper money. They may be readily exchanged for goods, services, or debts. BUT, your solid money makes up only a very small percentage of the wealth in this country.
Most of America’s wealth comes from intrinsic values. Oil in the ground can not be readily used or even extracted, yet it does have a value. The same with other commodities, gold, hydro power, the Mississippi River, and expensive paintings in the National Gallery. None of these may be deposited in a bank or can be converted into money without a process but they still have value which translates to wealth. None of them were “produced”.
You will need to do better if you think Leibertarian Economics could work.
#74, Poison Twin,
Maybe I should mention you’ve lost it.
We’ve all lost.
Money is not the only form of wealth.
Agreed.
Many people make money by lending it out to others for a rate of return or portion of the profits.
Correct. However, that interest has to be backed by something produced. If not, we end up with what we have today.
Interest paid on speculation with nothing to back it is insane.
Our money supply should be tightly tied to our GDP.
Others make money by buying something and selling for a higher price. They don’t produce anything but they make money.
I agree. However, see my note above concerning speculation. You can only do that so long before the whole system collapses.
Others will do something for money, serve food, drive a truck, teach, clean hospitals. Nope, they don’t produce anything either.
Serving food it a form of production. It is the end result of the production of the food.
Driving a truck is a form of production. It is the end result of the goods produced and getting them to market.
Cleaning hospitals is a form of production.
It is the end result of selling medicines, etc.
All of your examples show a classic misunderstanding of the economic system. You can produce all you want, but you still have to sell it. The act of selling is part of the cost of the goods.
Teaching is not production but a necessary act to ensure the next generation knows how to produce. I guess, technically, you could roll the cost of teaching into the overall cost of all good produces because you have to pay taxes which ultimately increases the overhead of producers.
Then there is the problem that solid money is the only form that may be produced. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Solid money is either coinage or paper money. They may be readily exchanged for goods, services, or debts. BUT, your solid money makes up only a very small percentage of the wealth in this country.
Quit taking things so literally. By “solid” I don’t mean something heavy in your hand.
Most of America’s wealth comes from intrinsic values. Oil in the ground can not be readily used or even extracted, yet it does have a value. The same with other commodities, gold, hydro power, the Mississippi River, and expensive paintings in the National Gallery. None of these may be deposited in a bank or can be converted into money without a process but they still have value which translates to wealth. None of them were “produced”.
And all of this has to do with producing solid money how?
You are confusing wealth with money. I never said that money is the only form of wealth. I said the possession of money is wealth by paraphrasing what you posted.
#75, Loser,
All of your examples show a classic misunderstanding of the economic system. You can produce all you want, but you still have to sell it. The act of selling is part of the cost of the goods.
You are wrong again and again. You told us that only production can make sold money. Money is only a representation of value. It is, however, an easy and consistent way to measure wealth and value. Make all the autos you want, until they sell they aren’t anything. The act of selling is not production nor is it always related. Real Estate and god are two areas that come to mind.
Economics refer to “Goods and Services Produced” to determine national value. The act of selling a vacant piece of land is just as important as producing the lumber that will be built on that land. For the Realtor though, he produced nothing.
The waitress is a service person. She did not produce anything. The same with the truck driver, teacher, or hospital cleaner. Neither transportation, education, nor health services produce anything. They are services. You can even add Bank Teller to that short list.
You are confusing wealth with money. I never said that money is the only form of wealth. I said the possession of money is wealth by paraphrasing what you posted.
In #44 you wrote
The only way to make solid money is to produce something.
Was that taken out of context?
Then in #73, you wrote
Thanks for proving my point. Notice that “wealth [is possessing] money”. You can’t have solid money by printing it to pay workers on make-do jobs because they aren’t producing anything.
I did not prove your point because it is wrong. Money is not created only through producing goods. Money is just wealth converted into a numerical index, usually accompanied as or expressed in, the form of currency.
If my house is worth $200,000, that doesn’t mean I could take it to the bank and trade it for a nice stack of bills. But it is still worth that much. To get that I would need to convert it through the sale of the house to a willing buyer that has that much money. But my house is still valued at $200,000 as far as my estate is concerned whether there is a willing buyer on the doorstep or not.
If the government builds a park, that park has value that is easily expressed in dollars. If they upgrade a building to make it more energy efficient, that work has value. If they plant trees for wind breaks etc. there will be value added. It doesn’t matter that the money is borrowed or not, something of value has been done and it can be numerated or expressed in dollars.
#76, Poison Twin,
The only way to make solid money is to produce something.
Was that taken out of context?
Kinda. I was talking about overall. Sure, you can increase your personal stash of cash through appreciation and the like, but ultimately the money to pay you for your increased value home has to come from somewhere.
Where does that money come from? It has to come from production. When 2/3 of your GDP is services, it all collapses because the money is not solid.
I stand by my statement. If you don’t believe it to be true, just look at what caused the mess we are in. Jobs going overseas, people “making money” instead of earning it through the use of speculation, etc. This country doesn’t produce anything but service jobs. The economy isn’t sound because the money isn’t sound.
Let’s talk about these in particular because they are good examples what the current administration is trying to accomplish.
If the government builds a park, that park has value that is easily expressed in dollars.
Agreed. However, what does it produce later on? Entry fees? Where do the people who make the money to pay the entry fees get that money from? They have to produce something, somewhere down the line. Otherwise, the government has a really nice looking park that no one visits because they can’t afford the entry fees.
If they upgrade a building to make it more energy efficient, that work has value.
And how do you do that? You buy something that is produced — windows, more efficient compressors, etc. Something was produced to do that.
And then you have to ask yourself how the work was actually paid for? Somebody has to produce something to pay for the contractors and the materials. Otherwise, you have any empty, energy inefficient building.
If they plant trees for wind breaks etc. there will be value added.
Somebody has to spend the time producing the trees in the first place. This goes back to my original statement about the selling (in this the case, including the installation of) the trees. It is part of the process.
It doesn’t matter that the money is borrowed or not, something of value has been done and it can be numerated or expressed in dollars.
Unless it is due to production of something, somewhere down the line, it is not sound, though.
Before you can start talking about sound money, you have start talking about production. With the Fed pumping out trillions of dollars with no production to back it up, eventually, those dollars will be worth less and less as they depreciate in value. That $200,000 you made from selling your home yesterday may only get you $50,000 in goods tomorrow. If you base wealth on the pure numerical values in cash you have on hand, then sure, you are correct. But you have to look at what that money gets you — less and less because the money isn’t sound.
That being said, I’ll revise, and admit that in my haste, I didn’t put my exact thoughts in this blog:
“part of wealth [is possessing] sound money”
Loser,
You are still wrong. Money is only one form of wealth. Other forms are equally valid expressions of wealth. Wealth, and money, may be accrued any of several ways. Production is just one and even then, not always a given.
Learn some basic economics. It has been several years since I sat in an Economics class but geeze, it is so easy to see you are on some bent theory that doesn’t hold water.
#78, Poison Twin
Money is only one form of wealth.
We agree on that.
What I am saying is that money (not wealth) must be backed by something substantial such as production.
You seem to be confusing the two.
You seem to be confusing the two.
Nope. You are the one confused. You wrote
The only way to make solid money is to produce something.
Now you have changed your mind and are now writing
What I am saying is that money (not wealth) must be backed by something substantial such as production.
You are all backwards. Money is just something that has a value attached. Other than that it is just a piece of paper or metal. But the Government has put its value behind what is circulated as money.
Wealth, and I’m repeating myself, is the value of everything. Oil in the ground, my house, a piece of the desert, a park, an automobile -sold or unsold, a bar of gold, a $10 bill, or that check with my name on it for $1,000,000 you are sending my way. 😉
Yes, American wealth is partly backed by the production capabilities of the US. It is also backed, and probably much more so, by the resource potential of this land.
There is no wealth created by the service sector. That is a mere exchange of money from one hand to another. But Production creates WEALTH not money. That wealth is only expressed as money. That auto may be sold at the sticker price or for substantially less, depending upon how bad the customer wants it and the dealer needs to part with it.
Money is just something that has made the barter system a whole lot easier.
The true believers voted for “hope and change”
‘Change’ apparently means stuffing the cabinet, staff and justice department with Clinton retreads and lobbyists.
‘Hope’? Primarily, the press conference was the use of FEAR to coerce people to accept a poorly conceived plan (to spend tomorrows income) that bypassed all of the usual processes (committee hearings anyone?) to account for the budgeting and thorough analysis of said plan, which is one giant tower of special interest provisions. The congressional budget office has stated that very little of this money would have any impact on the economy for 18-24 months.
http://tinyurl.com/ckh3xg
http://tinyurl.com/da2m7u
Why is it that all of our money must be funnelled through D.C. first, so that the idiots running the place can pretend they know how to control the economy? Why not give us all a tax break and let the economy be run by the people, who will spend or save their money as they see fit, with more immediate results. I believe that the collective intelligence of the people is wiser than a bunch of professional demagogues manipulating our money in order to achieve only one goal: Re-election.
#80,
Holy Crap! You didn’t call me a name!
I shall return the favor:
Mr. Fusion,
Money is just something that has a value attached.
That is very true. But if you want to make more of it, you have got to produce something to justify its creation.
Or do you believe that you can create all the money you want on a printing press and not worry about its true value?