Challenge Accepted: Is it individuals or society that builds wealth.

ashurbanipal · Apr 17, 2020

ludin said:
thanks again for proving what you said was false.
society doesn't create wealth.

Society does create wealth. Where do you get the idea that I "proved" otherwise? This is now the ninth time I've asked for some kind of explanation of how you get to your conclusion...

ludin said:
It is what the individuals in that society do that creates wealth.
SO i was right it is individuals that create wealth not society.

Circular argument. The propositions:

1. It is what the individuals in that society do that creates wealth.

2. it is individuals that create wealth not society.

Say about the same thing.

You're saying "A, therefore A." But A is false.

ludin said:
what you are doing is moving the goal posts because your original argument was a bust.

Feel free to show as much...

ludin said:
Easy because we are discussing economics.
and your argument has little to do with how capitalism sucks.

Hmmm...isn't capitalism an economic system? As I mentioned to G4N, I think if my thesis here is correct, it has something to say about how wealth ought to be distributed, though I haven't said yet how I think that should work out (though, to be clear, it wouldn't imply a purely socialist system). So yeah, my argument does have quite a bit to do with why capitalism sucks.

ludin said:
i created this thread because well you can't run away anymore.
you actually have to defend your argument for everyone to see.

Three points:

1. Again, were the other two threads somehow not accesible to the public, or to members of these boards? Did I post in invisible ink or something?

2. You've now abandoned two threads in which this discussion has been ongoing, and you'll note that I'm still here posting. So who has the pattern of running should be a matter of record.

3. My defenses have been posted above, and in two other threads in which you were a participant. You have yet to respond to any of them.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

soylentgreen said:
You are wrong and you are wrong because you do not understand what the word wealth means. You are mistaking it for profit and the two are not the same.

projection fallacy. you don't get to say what i understand or don't understand i know what wealth means.

The basic of economics is the taking or raw material and converting it into a product. That is the creation of wealth. The wealth is then sold on and after costs are taken out what is left is profit.

Very good you know what the term wealth means. you have yet to prove i don't.

Individuals become wealthy because they live in a society where the individual can claim ownership of the means of production ie. factories, and therefor the majority of profit generated from the sale of wealth.

Individuals become wealthy because they do something. There are plenty of societies that are out there that do not generate any wealth and are dirt poor.
So now what? you just shot your argument in the foot.

The individual did not create the wealth he merely owned it. He relied on the hiring of workers who are the ones who actually generate wealth by turning raw material into product which the individual claims ownership of.

Sure they did. The blacksmith that opens a blacksmith shop he doesn't just hire people. He doesn't hire people till he has more work than what he himself can handle. the same goes for most businesses.
They don't hire people until there is more work than they can do themselves. the way that they generate more work and gain more customers is by offering a good product or service at good quality.
if they offer a bad product or bad service then people do not come back and they go out of business.

So no, the individual does not create wealth he just owns it. By grouping a lot of workers, society, together, the individual can own a lot of wealth that is created by the workers, society.

Wrong. If an individual doesn't go out and do something then it doesn't get created.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

ashurbanipal said:
Society does create wealth. Where do you get the idea that I "proved" otherwise? This is now the ninth time I've asked for some kind of explanation of how you get to your conclusion...

Because YOU SAID it didn't. OMG i even quoted where you said it was individuals. Do you not read what you write.
Society doesn't exist without individuals. WIthout individuals living society doesn't bloody exist.
how hard is that to understand.

What is created in a society and how a society turns out depends on the individuals in that society.
as i stated there are currently societies out there that are dirt poor and can barely feed themselves.
so your statement that society generates wealth is inherently false. WHy? because the individuals in that
society are not functioning to generate wealth. Whether it is political or environmental or whatever it maybe.
nothing is being generated because people aren't generating it or what they are generating is being seized by other people.

Circular argument. The propositions:

Yes that is all you have is circular argument.

Feel free to show as much...

Already have all you can do is hand wave like you always do.

Hmmm...isn't capitalism an economic system? As I mentioned to G4N, I think if my thesis here is correct, it has something to say about how wealth ought to be distributed, though I haven't said yet how I think that should work out (though, to be clear, it wouldn't imply a purely socialist system). So yeah, my argument does have quite a bit to do with why capitalism sucks.

Your post has nothing to do with capitalism sucking (which it doesn't) capitalism is one of the best economic systems to implement.
it has lifted more people out of poverty where it is enacted than any other system out there.

Three points:

1. Again, were the other two threads somehow not accesible to the public, or to members of these boards? Did I post in invisible ink or something?

You run away without actually supporting yourself with anything.

2. You've now abandoned two threads in which this discussion has been ongoing, and you'll note that I'm still here posting. So who has the pattern of running should be a matter of record.

Because you were proven wrong and have nothing to support your arguement with other than "i say so"
i am still waiting for you to prove that society makes anything.

3. My defenses have been posted above, and in two other threads in which you were a participant. You have yet to respond to any of them.

Not only have i responded i have destroyed them you have nothing to support them. again this just more of your 'I say so' fallacy.
you have yet to prove that society generates anything.

why? because without individuals society doesn't exist.
that ultimate flaw in your argument. even with individuals society doens't always generate wealth this is proven today already.
look at africa or parts of the middle east or elsewhere.

the examples exist all over the place and all you can do is ignore, hand wave and deny.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

longview said:
Except that the support by itself does not displace the individual who is willing to take risks for greater returns.

society is a frame work. however the outcome of that frame work depends on the individuals that are inside of it.
sometimes it works like in the US. the US didn't come about because of society just came out of no where. it was
the individuals in this country that built it into one.

Others don't work out. take a look at parts of africa. they can barely feed themselves in some parts.
same goes for other places.

his argument that society generates wealth is false. why? it is heavily based on what the individuals do inside that society.
if his argument was true then no society would fail but there are countless examples of it doing just that.

longview · Apr 17, 2020

ludin said:
society is a frame work. however the outcome of that frame work depends on the individuals that are inside of it.
sometimes it works like in the US. the US didn't come about because of society just came out of no where. it was
the individuals in this country that built it into one.

Others don't work out. take a look at parts of africa. they can barely feed themselves in some parts.
same goes for other places.

his argument that society generates wealth is false. why? it is heavily based on what the individuals do inside that society.
if his argument was true then no society would fail but there are countless examples of it doing just that.

You are correct in so much as the framework, needs to be a functioning framework.
In Africa, many times that is not the case, individual rights are not protected.

aociswundumho · Apr 17, 2020

Rexedgar said:
Got no dog here, but has anyone created wealth on a deserted island?

Yes, they have. Building wealth means creating value, hence even if you build a hut that provides shelter you have created something of value.

aociswundumho · Apr 17, 2020

ashurbanipal said:
I think it's worse than that for proponents of the "individuals" view. To see why (and to summarize some of what I've posted here and elsewhere), just imagine that everyone tries to create wealth entirely without social inputs of any kind. Get rid of all tools, clothes, medicines, machines, houses, resources, education, etc. that someone got from someone else, and see how well a person does.

In this case the individual is benefiting from trade, not society per se. The person in question could have hypothetically imported all of the inputs from another country outside of the society he lives in.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

longview said:
You are correct in so much as the framework, needs to be a functioning framework.
In Africa, many times that is not the case, individual rights are not protected.

Because for whatever reason the individuals there didn't make it so or they were taken over or
whatever the reason there is a dysfunction in the system caused by individuals.

OrphanSlug · Apr 17, 2020

You guys may have butchered this subject beyond repair.

The first thing I would probably ask you all is to define wealth, then perhaps we can talk about how wealth comes to be.

distraff · Apr 17, 2020

ludin said:
Let's move this to a place where it is better suited. YOur entire contention at this point has been Society creates wealth. This is your argument. There is no moving the goal posts. There is no more running and hiding
behind your platitudes and other fallacies. No more do you get to just make "I say so statements". So now it is up to you to Prove your actual argument. This is your argument so you start with your actual proof.

Society creates wealth.
My argument is not that society creates wealth but individuals that create wealth.

So you get to go first.

I don't think its as simple as individuals or society. Its about individuals working within society as parts of social groups.

ashurbanipal · Apr 17, 2020

aociswundumho said:
In this case the individual is benefiting from trade, not society per se. The person in question could have hypothetically imported all of the inputs from another country outside of the society he lives in.

I'm not quite sure how to take your post. Do you mean that, if the hypothetical I proposed were actually the case, individuals would be benefiting from trade? If that's what you mean, let me be clear: the hypothetical proposed means that no one trades, or can trade, anything at all with anyone else (including ideas).

Or, do you mean that, in the hypothetical I proposed, the people in that kind of situation would benefit from trade, if they could? In that case, yes, you are correct. That would support my point. People do vastly better, and have more wealth, when they trade and otherwise interact with each other, than they do if they all go off to their separate squares and try to create everything all on their own.

With respect to whose society is doing the generating: sure, someone could import something from some other where, but doing that would be establishing a social connection with that other where. And doing so would still depend on social inputs on both sides.

HIP56948 · Apr 17, 2020

It's definitely a two-way street but I lean toward this>>

.
'Isn't it simply an amazing fact that when the workers and consumers stay home, the economy comes crashing down like a massive tsunami and the so-called big-time Job Creators are not able to "Keep things running" with their awesome boot straps and wealth.
Gee Whiz..it's almost as if the lowly workers actually create all the wealth..isn't it?

ashurbanipal · Apr 17, 2020

ludin said:
Because YOU SAID it didn't.

I said somewhere that society doesn't create wealth?

ludin said:
OMG i even quoted where you said it was individuals.

No you didn't. You quoted something that, in your mind, implies as much. But it does not so imply. See below.

ludin said:
Society doesn't exist without individuals. WIthout individuals living society doesn't bloody exist.
how hard is that to understand.

Quite easy to understand. I've admitted it several times. However, once again, I ask you to show how this is relevant. Or, let me try to explain a different way. Look, here are two propositions:

1. Society is composed of individuals.

2. The wealth created in a society is created by individuals.

You apparently think that 1 directly implies 2--that is, you apparently think that if 1 is true, 2 cannot fail to be true; it seems to be your view that if 1 is true, 2 must be true. I say, however, that 1 is true and 2 is false. 1 does not imply 2. I can admit to 1 and not have to accept 2, and still be reasonable (and, again, I've argued a couple different ways to show why--to summarize once again, going from 1 to 2 is the fallacy of composition).

Now:

3. The wealth created in a society is created by that society.

couldn't be true if 2 was true (actually, it could, but we'll skip the Davidsonian semantics), so because you think 1 implies 2, you don't see how I could possibly reasonably believe 3. What you're missing is that I deny that 1 implies 2. 1 does not imply 2. 1 is irrelevant to either 2 or 3, and doesn't tell us anything about the truth of 2 or 3.

If you think otherwise, you need to show some chain of reasoning such that 1 implies 2 and the negation of 3 before anyone should reasonably believe you.

ludin said:
What is created in a society and how a society turns out depends on the individuals in that society.
as i stated there are currently societies out there that are dirt poor and can barely feed themselves.
so your statement that society generates wealth is inherently false. WHy? because the individuals in that
society are not functioning to generate wealth. Whether it is political or environmental or whatever it maybe.
nothing is being generated because people aren't generating it or what they are generating is being seized by other people.

Irrelevant.

ludin said:
Yes that is all you have is circular argument.

More "I'm the rubber and you're the glue" bit. Hint: no one who made it out of third grade thinks that's a good way to argue.

ludin said:
Your post has nothing to do with capitalism sucking (which it doesn't) capitalism is one of the best economic systems to implement.
it has lifted more people out of poverty where it is enacted than any other system out there.

That one system is better than all the others doesn't mean it doesn't suck. Analogy: somewhere there exists the cleanest sewage in the world. Does that mean you'd want to go swimming in it?

ludin said:
You run away without actually supporting yourself with anything.

You'll have to clarify that. If I was still posting when you left those other two threads, that doesn't fit the definition of me "running away."

ludin said:
Because you were proven wrong and have nothing to support your arguement with other than "i say so"
i am still waiting for you to prove that society makes anything.

Non-sequitur.

ludin said:
Not only have i responded i have destroyed them you have nothing to support them. again this just more of your 'I say so' fallacy.

False.

ludin said:
you have yet to prove that society generates anything.

See arguments posted previous in this thread.

ludin said:
why? because without individuals society doesn't exist.
that ultimate flaw in your argument.

See above re: propositions 1, 2, and 3.

ludin said:
even with individuals society doens't always generate wealth this is proven today already.
look at africa or parts of the middle east or elsewhere.

Missing the point. Those people have wealth, and more perspicuously, they have more wealth as a society than they would have if they were all just working entirely on their own.

ashurbanipal · Apr 17, 2020

HIP56948 said:
It's definitely a two-way street but I lean toward this>>

.
'Isn't it simply an amazing fact that when the workers and consumers stay home, the economy comes crashing down like a massive tsunami and the so-called big-time Job Creators are not able to "Keep things running" with their awesome boot straps and wealth.
Gee Whiz..it's almost as if the lowly workers actually create all the wealth..isn't it?

Yeah...it is kind-of odd that when we all stop interacting so much with each other, wealth starts to magically vanish. To listen to some, we're all making the wealth all on our own, so that process should be ongoing right now...but it clearly is not.

ashurbanipal · Apr 17, 2020

aociswundumho said:
Yes, they have. Building wealth means creating value, hence even if you build a hut that provides shelter you have created something of value.

This is correct, and is roughly how I'm thinking about wealth. Part of my thesis is that if you genuinely remove all social inputs--all property created by someone else, all tools, clothing, medicines, etc. that someone got from someone else, as well as all ideas or skills gotten from someone else, and try to measure how much wealth a person would generate all on their own, without any of those social inputs, it would be miniscule as compared to the wealth they get in society.

It wouldn't be literally zero, but close enough so as not to really make a difference.

soylentgreen · Apr 17, 2020

ludin said:
projection fallacy. you don't get to say what i understand or don't understand i know what wealth means.

Very good you know what the term wealth means. you have yet to prove i don't.

When you make the mistake of saying that the individual creates wealth is the evidence that you are mistaking the word wealth for profit.

Individuals become wealthy because they do something. There are plenty of societies that are out there that do not generate any wealth and are dirt poor.
So now what? you just shot your argument in the foot.

Point out which countries those are. They will be the countries where industry has either never developed or has been destroyed by corruption or war. The individuals who are wealthy in those countries are so because they have successfully exploited society and claimed ownership of whatever wealth the country does produce. Not because they have as individuals created any wealth

Sure they did. The blacksmith that opens a blacksmith shop he doesn't just hire people. He doesn't hire people till he has more work than what he himself can handle. the same goes for most businesses.
They don't hire people until there is more work than they can do themselves. the way that they generate more work and gain more customers is by offering a good product or service at good quality.
if they offer a bad product or bad service then people do not come back and they go out of business.

Wrong. If an individual doesn't go out and do something then it doesn't get created.

And again you demonstrate a lack of understanding what the term wealth actually means.

There is no argument being made against the point that an individual can create wealth. If you are using the word wealth to only mean the turning of raw material into a product. As by your example of the blacksmith who labours by himself to produce products (wealth) .

But when the black smith seeks wealth ( profit as you are using the word to mean) by generating greater amounts of wealth (meaning product) by hiring workers who are doing the work of creating wealth ( meaning product) for him. And as the owner the blacksmith having hired a group of workers to create more wealth ( product) He, the blacksmith is the owner of that product, not the creator of the product. He is generating greater amounts of wealth (product) through the labour of others so as to be the owner of a greater amount of wealth (profit) as you are incorrectly using the word

the way that they generate more work and gain more customers is by offering a good product or service at good quality.
if they offer a bad product or bad service then people do not come back and they go out of business.

Yes, that is true. But only if you are talking about the theory of capitalism as adam smith first wrote about it.

But the problem with him is as the problem with marx. Both were born and lived in a time that could not begin to imagine global expanding corporations who simply laugh at and ignore this simplistic cliche you just presented.

He is considered the father of capitalism but at the time he wrote it businesses were as in your example. A small blacksmith working on his own or perhaps hiring a small group to labour for him. The concept of investment capital was the same as in just an individual or small group of investors who might back the cost of a trade ship returning with precious spices. Unlike today where they are global investors hidden behind corporate monopolies who really do not give a **** whether the product is good or not because they have the money, the power and influence to force bad products onto the market. ie tobacco companies, sugar laced food products, oil companies etc. All pollute or create illness and death with their products yet still do well because advertisement and corrupt governments are easier to deal with than creating a good salable product.

j brown's body · Apr 17, 2020

Seems like the growth of wealth would be highly limited without communication and transportation systems, which society, through government, enabled to happen.

The wealth for most people is in their homes. It was government guarantee of mortgage loans that enabled so many people to buy their homes.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

ashurbanipal said:
Irrelevant.

I say so isn't an argument

More "I'm the rubber and you're the glue" bit. Hint: no one who made it out of third grade thinks that's a good way to argue.

This is all you have? this is what i expect you running away again.

That one system is better than all the others doesn't mean it doesn't suck. Analogy: somewhere there exists the cleanest sewage in the world. Does that mean you'd want to go swimming in it?

PROVE IT.

You'll have to clarify that. If I was still posting when you left those other two threads, that doesn't fit the definition of me "running away."

YEah after i smashed your argument there was no point in responding to you "i say so arguments".
still waiting on some kind of evidence and still all i get is "i say so"

Non-sequitur.

dismissal fallacy is yet another loss for you.

False.

I say so isn't an argument.

See arguments posted previous in this thread.

YOu don't have any

See above re: propositions 1, 2, and 3.

I say so isn't an argument.

it is clear by now that you have nothing that supports your argument
of Society creates wealth.

Missing the point. Those people have wealth, and more perspicuously, they have more wealth as a society than they would have if they were all just working entirely on their own.

Moving the goal posts.

You said that society creates wealth. When a people can barely feed themselves they don't have wealth.
yet they live in "society"

Guess what proof again society doesn't create wealth. it is the ingenuity and the drive of the people and individuals in that society that creates wealth.
so far nothing you have said refutes any of this.

stop moving your argument around. you said society creates wealth.

evidently it doesn't.
already proven.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

distraff said:
I don't think its as simple as individuals or society. Its about individuals working within society as parts of social groups.

society doesn't happen in a vaccum. society occurs when social groups come together for various reasons.

What happens in that society is based on those social groups. The success or failure of that society happens due to the individuals in that society.
some tear themselves apart and are destroyed. others go on to create lasting impressions.

societal collapse happens when the individuals in that society stop working towards common interests.
society only generates something if the group of people in that society actually generate something.

ludin · Apr 17, 2020

soylentgreen said:
When you make the mistake of saying that the individual creates wealth is the evidence that you are mistaking the word wealth for profit.

again projection argument. so irrelevant.

Point out which countries those are. They will be the countries where industry has either never developed or has been destroyed by corruption or war. The individuals who are wealthy in those countries are so because they have successfully exploited society and claimed ownership of whatever wealth the country does produce. Not because they have as individuals created any wealth

I already have plenty of times. Africia, parts of the middle east, asia, the list goes on and on of societies that are pretty poor.

And again you demonstrate a lack of understanding what the term wealth actually means.

"I say so" is not an argument it is a fallacy PROVE IT.

There is no argument being made against the point that an individual can create wealth. If you are using the word wealth to only mean the turning of raw material into a product. As by your example of the blacksmith who labours by himself to produce products (wealth) .

Sure there is. the argument was that society makes wealth. Society is simply a frame work in which individuals operate. society itself creates nothing if the people in it do not create anything.
YOu can have a group of people and they just build huts and live in huts and do nothing else. no wealth is being generated.

But when the black smith seeks wealth ( profit as you are using the word to mean) by generating greater amounts of wealth (meaning product) by hiring workers who are doing the work of creating wealth ( meaning product) for him. And as the owner the blacksmith having hired a group of workers to create more wealth ( product) He, the blacksmith is the owner of that product, not the creator of the product. He is generating greater amounts of wealth (product) through the labour of others so as to be the owner of a greater amount of wealth (profit) as you are incorrectly using the word

No wealth. OMG websters damn definition of wealth.

3a: all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
b: all material objects that have economic utility
especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time.

The blacksmith even at that point buys the material, buys the coal, buys the heat, pays for the building, pays etc ...
therefore by default he owns it. He is creating it. He is seeking out people that need work or want work, he is generating the business that his
workers then supplying.

His workers aren't doing it he is. Yes you are incorrectly using the word because you have to distort and lie about what is said in order to try and
defeat the argument. This is called logical fallacies for a reason.

Yes, that is true. But only if you are talking about the theory of capitalism as adam smith first wrote about it.

It is true period.

But the problem with him is as the problem with marx. Both were born and lived in a time that could not begin to imagine global expanding corporations who simply laugh at and ignore this simplistic cliche you just presented.

It still applies.

He is considered the father of capitalism but at the time he wrote it businesses were as in your example. A small blacksmith working on his own or perhaps hiring a small group to labour for him. The concept of investment capital was the same as in just an individual or small group of investors who might back the cost of a trade ship returning with precious spices. Unlike today where they are global investors hidden behind corporate monopolies who really do not give a **** whether the product is good or not because they have the money, the power and influence to force bad products onto the market. ie tobacco companies, sugar laced food products, oil companies etc. All pollute or create illness and death with their products yet still do well because advertisement and corrupt governments are easier to deal with than creating a good salable product.

hyperbolic nonsense doesn't make a good argument.
it also in no way does not support or refute anything i said.

ashurbanipal · Apr 18, 2020

ludin said:
I say so isn't an argument

Yes, that is correct. I'm not sure why you're saying it.

ludin said:
This is all you have? this is what i expect you running away again.

Odd that you ask your question, and then go on to answer a bunch more of my comments. You clearly need to look up the definition of "all" and "running away."

ludin said:
PROVE IT.

In this case, quite easy: the predicates "is the best in a category" and "doesn't suck" are different, and there are all sorts of examples of something that's best in a category but still stucks. I gave one: somewhere there's the best sewage in the world. Sewage still sucks. There's the best amputation, but amputation still sucks. There's the best way to be decapitated, but being decapitated still sucks. Etc. The principle "if something is the best in a category, it necessarily doesn't suck" is false. So there's no straightforward way to reason from "x is best in this category" to "x doesn't suck."

Semiformally, the assumption Ba and the negation of the other assumption, N~Sx, can both be true at the same time, so the inference (Bx=>N~Sx) is false. That is, there's a line on the truth table in which Bx is true, and ~Sx is false.

Formally (using "N" and "P" for the standard modal operators):

P1. (Ax)(Bx=>N~Sx) (assumption)
P2. Ba=>N~Sa (instantiation on P1)
P3. Ba (assumption)
P4. N~Sa (implication on P2 and P3)
P5. Sa (assumption--amputation sucks)
P6. PSa (possibility and S5 on P5)
P7. ~PSa (modal definition on P4).
P8. ~(Ax)(Bx=>N~Sx) (QED by contradiction P6 and P7)

ludin said:
YEah after i smashed your argument there was no point in responding to you "i say so arguments".

The only things you've ever smashed were the unmentionables of a camel or two. You can't smash what you don't even have the mental capacity to understand. Dunning-Kruger on display...

ludin said:
still waiting on some kind of evidence and still all i get is "i say so"

Since I've already given you plenty, you should ask your grandmother to read my posts to you more slowly, perhaps over a period of several hours, letting each point sink in. Tell her to use a dictionary and an online pronunciation guide. It'll help.

ludin said:
dismissal fallacy is yet another loss for you.

Man...you're a little White Goodman, aincha? I named the fallacy you were committing; naming a fallacy correctly is not Ad Lapidem--but Ad Lapidem is what you're doing here. Actually, your entire recent post is one giant Ad Lapidem.

ashurbanipal · Apr 18, 2020

ludin said:
I say so isn't an argument.

Not even grammatical. Is English your first language?

ludin said:
YOu don't have any

It appears you got cut off there...

ludin said:
I say so isn't an argument.

You've said this already--is it some kind of code?

ludin said:
it is clear by now that you have nothing that supports your argument
of Society creates wealth.

I don't have any such argument, so you are correct. Why should I support an argument I don't have or make?

ludin said:
Moving the goal posts.

No, you were just hallucinating the goal posts.

ludin said:
You said that society creates wealth.

No I didn't. You have to read the entire quote in context to know what I was/am saying.

ludin said:
When a people can barely feed themselves they don't have wealth. yet they live in "society"

If they can feed themselves at all, they have some wealth. Name a society that you're talking about in particular.

ludin said:
Guess what proof again society doesn't create wealth.

Wait...what am I supposed to guess?

ludin said:
it is the ingenuity and the drive of the people and individuals in that society that creates wealth.
so far nothing you have said refutes any of this.

Sure it does. You just don't like that it does, so you're bloviating--I really don't know if you think you're actually arguing or saying something "smart" or if you're just trying to f*ck with me...but I kinda think you're not even so aware as to make a distinction.

ludin said:
stop moving your argument around. you said society creates wealth.

evidently it doesn't.
already proven.

No I didn't.

Also, you didn't respond at all to:

ludin said:
ludin said:

Because YOU SAID it didn't.

Click to expand...

ashurbanipal said:

I said somewhere that society doesn't create wealth?

Click to expand...

ashurbanipal said:
Look, here are two propositions:

1. Society is composed of individuals.

2. The wealth created in a society is created by individuals.

You apparently think that 1 directly implies 2--that is, you apparently think that if 1 is true, 2 cannot fail to be true; it seems to be your view that if 1 is true, 2 must be true. I say, however, that 1 is true and 2 is false. 1 does not imply 2. I can admit to 1 and not have to accept 2, and still be reasonable (and, again, I've argued a couple different ways to show why--to summarize once again, going from 1 to 2 is the fallacy of composition).

Now:

3. The wealth created in a society is created by that society.

couldn't be true if 2 was true (actually, it could, but we'll skip the Davidsonian semantics), so because you think 1 implies 2, you don't see how I could possibly reasonably believe 3. What you're missing is that I deny that 1 implies 2. 1 does not imply 2. 1 is irrelevant to either 2 or 3, and doesn't tell us anything about the truth of 2 or 3.

If you think otherwise, you need to show some chain of reasoning such that 1 implies 2 and the negation of 3 before anyone should reasonably believe you.

j brown's body · Apr 18, 2020

ludin said:
Yes they have. Back in the day the carribean was a very wealthy place and it was all started on deserted islands for the most part.

Pretty sure slaves played an important role here once the indigenous community played it's role of being wiped out.

TheEconomist · Apr 18, 2020

j brown's body said:
Pretty sure slaves played an important role here once the indigenous community played its role of being wiped out.

Being "wiped out" isn't exactly a role, as much as it is an observation of what happened and, depending on which events you have in mind, it can actually be a very unfair way to phrase it. Let me give you two examples from the United States. Europeans bringing diseases in full ignorance of modern medicine and epidemiology cannot exactly be blamed for doing something bad they couldn't properly anticipate. It is a very sad turn of events, but it's not fair to make it out as if it was intentional. On the other hand, if you have in mind the faction of Americans who supported early to mid 19th century Democrats who violated agreements struck with indigenous populations and ran armies through them, your accusation is very much an understatement. Not all Americans of the day can be blamed for it, but those that partook to it and supported it certainly share in that blame. So, depending on what happened in the Carribean, it might be unfair or not.

TheEconomist · Apr 18, 2020

With regards to this thread, I think that the problem might be ill posed and this creates a certain degree of confusion.

A good start would be to understand what we mean by wealth. It is related on a broad level to the notion of value and, in this regard, contemporary economic theory would be useful. The value of a good or of a service is to an individual whatever this individual is disposed to sacrifice in order to acquire it. When you look at a market from the point of view of a supply and demand model, producers provide consumers with different possible consumption baskets and trade-offs for moving between them, while consumers have preferences over them which they express by picking one basket instead of others.

In a very abstract manner, what is going on here is that:
1. Fundamentally, valuation is a personal judgement;
2. However, in the context of a market, those judgements can be aggregated to form a price. Other social processes may be used to aggregate said judgements;
3. Hence, from the stand point of a group of people, value is also the result of a social process.

The production of any good or service that at least one person values in the aforementionned sense constitutes a creation of wealth, regardless of how it is done or who does it. Generally speaking, production involves an entire set of people and relies as well on existing social norms, values and institutions to run smoothly. And, equally generally speaking, there is going to be some mechanism for bringing together many individual judgements on the value of what is being produced. There is no deep sense in which pitting individuals against a collection of individuals as the primary source of either valuation or production is a meaningful question, at least not as far as our societies are concerned.

However, casting the problem in the sense I provide here can lead to more meaningful discussions. The debate becomes essentially centered around how decisions with regards to the allocation of ressources should be made. To some extent, you could re-phrase this as how to create more wealth -- relying on a more decentralized or a more centralized decision process. The irony here is that the complexity of interactions that is involved in our contemporary primarily market-based economies (that is, the density of social networks involved) is a very strong argument in favor of decentralized decision processes. The strongest case for an heavy reliance on markets is made from the observation that no centralized authority can ever have anything near the appropriate information to make sensible choices... In other words, the individualist point of view on markets is that it's too complicated to coordinate that many people from the top down.

Challenge Accepted: Is it individuals or society that builds wealth.

ashurbanipal

ludin

ludin

ludin

longview

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig

ludin

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...

distraff

ashurbanipal

HIP56948

ashurbanipal

ashurbanipal

ashurbanipal

soylentgreen

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"

ludin

ludin

ludin

ashurbanipal

ashurbanipal

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"

TheEconomist

TheEconomist