Yes, though it's important to note that the economic notion of value is weighted according to wealth and therefore more than a bit weird. Feeding an orphan creates no "value" because they have no money to pay you with, while merging companies into a mega-monopoly that can shake down the rest of the economy creates loads of "value" because it pays rich investors huge dividends. Of course, there are plenty of honest ways to create value and get paid for it, and that's pretty cool. Both extremes exist, most things are in the messy middle, and reasonable minds can differ about which way the system leans and what should be done about it, if anything.

Another piece of important context is that the US is a developed economy, not a growth economy. If the pie is growing at 2% and the capital slice of the pie is growing at 10%, anyone who lives in the remainder and argues that their slice is being grown is a fool.

> Feeding an orphan creates no "value" because they have no money to pay you with

Only because it’s illegal to make them work? I imagine it could be quite lucrative.

Big bad government enforcing those pesky human rights.

I think people understand that, for example, investing in schools generates more value than you put in.

I appreciate your point in general, but I doubt the specific one you made. At least for the US.

The US ever larger amounts of money per pupil (around $17,280 per pupil annually these days according to the Internet), but educational outcomes haven't really changed much over the decades. Whether you measure that in absolute terms or by international comparison.

Are they investing or just wasting money?

They are certainly trying to.

Yes, feeding an orphan is consumption (not investing), just like buying a yacht with your money.

Rich people do these kinds of things all the time.

And it has zero value since the orphan doesn't pay.

Neither does the yacht.

This kind of thing is best analyzed using the subjective theory of value.