Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
In economics, the use of the word real usually relates to whether something is inflation-adjusted or not, such as the difference between real and nominal GDP or interest rates.
|
Other than the fact that the way I described the concept was in a broader perspective what is the difference between what you present here and what I presented? Either way it illustrates that your post about non-existent "real" wealth is wrong.
Quote:
|
The context in which you have consistently used the word real has invariably been metaphysical. I should know; I spent a great proportion of the time earning my liberal arts degree studying postmodernism.
|
I defined how I use the term. In the context of wealth creation there is a clear difference between those who create "real" wealth and those involved in wealth transfer or those who create personal wealth by diminishing the wealth of others.
I am not going any further with your post. Because you made a charge on this point that indicates you have not read what I have written or that you don't take it seriously. I remember specifically trying to get an understanding of the concept before we even went down this road - I don't recall your actual response but I do recall it was some what flip. However, the importance of this question in the context of tax policy and doing what is best for society is paramount. You don't seem to understand that. and i don't know what to say to you.
---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
so these "real wealth creators".....the ones who are sitting on over a trillion dollars in cash, have created how many jobs this year?
|
Here is the problem with your point of view. A company like GE is mature and in a very different stage than true growth companies that create "real" wealth. So, GE sitting on money overseas can certainly help our economic growth, but I don't expect "real" wealth creation from a company like GE. New companies, start-ups, etc. is were we will see the next round of "real" wealth creation (perspective: a company like GE can still be entrepreneurial and innovative, etc. just less likely).
To give an example: Today if a start-up wants to raise funds through an IPO thanks to relative new law, the cost will be in the neighborhood of at least $2 million to cover the regulatory costs. If the compay had that $2 million to invest compared to meeting duplication regulatory issues wouldn't we all benefit? Perhaps more jobs. Perhaps more innovation. Perhaps higher wages? Perhaps lower costs to the consumer?
Another example: look at the costs for a pharmaceutical company to get FDA approval? I am not suggesting getting rid of the FDA, but would we all be better off if the system for drug approvals was made more efficient? Yes, I used the word "efficient"! It has meaning! There is value and benefits for always seeking efficiency improvements! Metaphysical my a$$.