Visit the Active Site for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . com
[CENTER][U]When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why they are poor, they called me a Communist.
-Bishop Hélder Câmara[/U]
[I]Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
-Abraham Lincoln[/I]
[/CENTER]
Ok, try to follow me here.
In a system that has wealth, you need to have a finite amount of it.
Wealth is recognized as something that has value by the people around you, generally because of it's rarity or the quantity of it you have. If everyone has lots of wealth, it becomes a meaningless term because it looses it's value.
A good example would be Zimbabwe's hyperinflation, where you had banks printing $100 trillion notes and wealth couldnt really buy anything for you.
[CENTER][U]When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why they are poor, they called me a Communist.
-Bishop Hélder Câmara[/U]
[I]Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
-Abraham Lincoln[/I]
[/CENTER]
I cant follow you because you keep saying things that are not factual. You dont NEED to have a finite amount of wealth. What you are talking about is that you cant dissassociate work from value, by borrowing. But work, and thus value are not finite. There is no final amount of wealth that a finite number of people all have to share. Wealth is created constantly.
Bookmarks