Did you get all your groceries that way? What about people who don't have vegetable gardens? You were claiming that all groceries are "natural resources". That claim is obviously false. If all you are saying now is that some groceries can be thought of as natural resources, since some people grow some of their own groceries, of course that's true, but it's a much, much weaker statement than the claim of yours that I objected to.
> Your statement exceeds the requirement to be in the primary sector of the economy
So what? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Not to mention that such definitions are arbitrary anyway.
> I'm not denying that shipping is on the service-goods continuum.
I'm talking about wealth creation. If you agree that shipping is wealth creation, good.
> It's also: (1) not much of developed economies (~5% of USA for all logistics combined, including local transport); (2) not necessarily supplied by the western economies that receive the goods (where does the line get drawn? It's not as clear-cut as, say, looking at who owns the logistics firm); (3) useless in the absence of things to ship; (4) historically speaking, when desirable goods exist but cannot be shipped, the customers move.
None of these contradict anything I was saying. (See further comment below about "western".)
> Then you agree with, or are overlooking, the specific caveat "in the West" that was in TeMPOraL's comment?
Neither. First, "Western" countries trading with "non-Western" countries gives wealth to both, not just to the "Western" countries. (For example, a "Western" firm paying a "non-Western" firm to ship goods to the "West" creates wealth for both.) Second, you do know that "Western" countries trade with other "Western" countries, right?
First: That's what a vegetable garden is, my parents had one. I also enjoy picking fruits off blackberry bushes, and those things are invasive weeds that grow basically everywhere in both city and countryside.
Second: Your statement exceeds the requirement to be in the primary sector of the economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sector_of_the_economy
Note also that TeMPOraL's comment said "primarily", and agriculture composed 0.7% of the UK economy, 1.12% of the US economy, and only 5.9% of the global economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_secto...
> Goods in China are no good to you in the US. Shipping goods across the world is wealth creation.
I'm not denying that shipping is on the service-goods continuum.
It's also: (1) not much of developed economies (~5% of USA for all logistics combined, including local transport); (2) not necessarily supplied by the western economies that receive the goods (where does the line get drawn? It's not as clear-cut as, say, looking at who owns the logistics firm); (3) useless in the absence of things to ship; (4) historically speaking, when desirable goods exist but cannot be shipped, the customers move.
> Or automated. That's true. It still doesn't mean these things aren't wealth creation. Trade is wealth creation.
Then you agree with, or are overlooking, the specific caveat "in the West" that was in TeMPOraL's comment?