Re:Wealth isn’t created at the top, it is merely devoured there
by jhbadger on Sunday April 16, 2017 @05:13PM
(#14127548)
The problem is in the definition of "created". A CEO of a company may say he "created" the wealth of the company through his decision to create a new gizmo. The engineers may say they created the wealth because they designed the gizmo. The workers who built the gizmo can also say the created the wealth in the most literal sense. Capitalism, technocracy, and socialism disagree on the importance of the three types of creation.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Wealth isn’t created at the top, it is merely devoured there
by mancerayder on Sunday April 16, 2017 @05:53PM
(#14127745)
I believe in classical economics the terms are Production and Distribution, the latter being in reference of profit, or value-add.
I totally agree that the ambiguity you described is an issue. It's unfortunate that common political parlance isn't in a habit of defining its terms as a step 1a before proceeding in a discussion.
Re:Wealth isn’t created at the top, it is merely devoured there
by jostmey on Sunday April 16, 2017 @06:52PM
(#14128009)
Of course it is hard to define how wealth is attained. But does that mean we should not try? What is worse? Giving up or finding a partially satisfactory solution? There may never exist a precise test for how wealth is created, but it would be better than nothing.