About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew said:
While I got a good laugh from Glenn Fletcher's post -- which rightly upbraids Lovett for his overblown lamentations about the decline of SOLO -- I must agree with Brian, Andrew, and the others here ...
Thanks for seeing my post for what it was: a comment on Lovett's style, not necessarily his economics.

Glenn


Post 21

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy -- Thanks for no. 16.  Well done.

Post 22

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

You're right.  LBJ launched the Great Society, but Tricky Dick doesn't get the opprobrium he deserves for expanding it beyond what Johnson thought possible.

As for your question ...
One more question: Is it properly called "deflation" when the money supply isn't changed -- while wealth is increasing (from entrepreneurial discoveries)?
Yes, I call that deflation too.  I defined inflation and deflation too narrowly in my original response to you.  More broadly, deflation (D) occurs when the rate of change of the money supply (Rm) is less than the rate of change of wealth (Rw), or D = Rm < Rw.  Inflation (I) is the opposite, I = Rm > Rw.  Stability in a currency, as a unit of measure, is achieved when Rm = Rw.

The situation you described is the most common one for a hard money currency.  The deflationary effect of hard money in an expanding economy is typically masked by increasing productivity.  Because of increasing productivity, producers who borrow to purchase wealth-creating assets tend to create enough new wealth to pay back the windfall lenders receive from deflation.

In hard money economies this unearned transfer of wealth usually catches up with producers as deflation and productivity combine to drive prices excessively low.  So, depression results as producers sell assets to pay debt - and so produce less.  The depression wipes out enough wealth through bankruptcies and bad loans, that the money supply gets back in synch with the amount of wealth in an economy, and the hard money cycle starts again.  That's the story of American economy in the nineteenth century.

Andy


Post 23

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You're welcome, Jay.

Andy


Post 24

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great post, Andy.  You explained the problems of the gold standard perfectly.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. Period.

Andy's basic misunderstanding of the gold standard is that he he thinks the value of a dollar (or other unit of currency) is defined as a certain amount of gold. This is wrong. Rather, the dollar is a certain amount of gold. Andy is confusing a gold exchange standard with a gold standard.

Decreasing prices resulting from increased productivity are not a problem. They are not a transfer of wealth. What they are (or indicate) is an increase in wealth.

Money is the most marketable commodity. Since it is the most easily exchanged commodity (ie, is accepted in trade by more people for more things than any other) it is referred to as a medium of exchange and also serves as a unit of account. It is because its marketability extends over time that it is referred to as a store of value. These common (mis)definitions of money all are the result of the fact that money is the most marketable commodity.

Post 26

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Kurt.

Andy


Post 27

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick P,

As much as I love that mug of yours, I must respectfully disagree with a number of statements you made.
Inflation is an increase in the supply of money. Period.
I suppose you can define inflation that way, but it's not an edifying one.  It fails to distinguish between an increase in the money supply in pace with a growing economy, and an increase that outpaces economic growth and so distorts the dollar as a measure of wealth.
Andy's basic misunderstanding of the gold standard is that he he thinks the value of a dollar (or other unit of currency) is defined as a certain amount of gold. This is wrong. Rather, the dollar is a certain amount of gold. Andy is confusing a gold exchange standard with a gold standard.
I'm not confusing them.  But I am sweeping the various "hard money" standards into the same rubbish bin of obsolescene.  I understand the gold bugs when they say gold is money under a gold standard, but the problem with this is that you have reified money.  It's like saying a meter is that bar of palladium, or whatever, the ISO has in Paris.  This reification conflates a measure (money) with that which it measures (wealth).  However, money is not wealth.  It is means by which we liquidate wealth in order to trade or store it.
Decreasing prices resulting from increased productivity are not a problem. They are not a transfer of wealth. What they are (or indicate) is an increase in wealth.
You're absolutely correct.  Increased productivity accelerates the creation of wealth.  It is a good thing.  It is the one thing that mitigates the unearned transfer of wealth that occurs with the deflationary tendencies of a "hard money" economy.
Money is the most marketable commodity. Since it is the most easily exchanged commodity (ie, is accepted in trade by more people for more things than any other) it is referred to as a medium of exchange and also serves as a unit of account. It is because its marketability extends over time that it is referred to as a store of value. These common (mis)definitions of money all are the result of the fact that money is the most marketable commodity.
Sure, you can call money a commodity in a loose way.  What is actually traded is the stored wealth - i.e., capital - that money represents.  Remember, money and wealth are not the same thing.  There as different as a length of 8 feet and a 2x4 stud.

Andy


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy is mistaken about the nature of money, and about inflation and deflation. In a free market, money arises as traders seek commodities for the purpose of facilitating future trades. Eventually, this process singles out a particular commodity as the most widely-acceptable marketable good, which then is demanded not only for its utility as a commodity, but more dominately, as a medium of exchange. Since everyone uses money to exchange for goods, and all goods prices are expressed in terms of their exchange value with a single commodity, money, traders rely on money prices to calculate whether they are creating or losing wealth in terms of future exchange value. Such calculation is unrelated to attempts at measuring national wealth--the aggregate of various goods and services owned by various individuals. However, state central planners love to boast about their "scientific measurements" of misleading statistical aggregates. They brag about their allegedly careful "measurement" to persuade the unsuspecting that their coercive interventions into peaceful market activity are not thuggery, but "science".

Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money. When the Q increases, the price of money as expressed in the goods prices for money falls. That is, a computer chip might command $.30 instead of the $.15 it commanded prior to the increase in money. If the supply of computer chips were rising fast enough, the increase in money might not yield higher nominal chip prices, but chip prices will still be higher than they would have been.

Deflation is a decrease in the quantity of money. When the Q of money declines, the price of money as expressed in goods prices rise: computer chips fall in price from $.30 back to $.15. If the supply of computer chips were decreasing fast enough, the decrease in money might not produce nominally lower chip prices, but chip prices will still be lower than they would have been in the absence of the decrease in money.

There is good reason not to define inflation as an increase in M that outpaces the increase in wealth. First, there is no way to accurately or definitively measure wealth, since the goods and services that comprise it are heterogeneous and innumerable, and their value to their owners is subjective and fluctuates with circumstances. Second, there is no reason to concern oneself with the meaning of inflation other than to understand its causes and consequences. The cause, an increase in M, yields a consequence: goods prices that are higher than they would have been in the absence of an increase in M. A further consequence of an increase in money in a fractional reserve banking system is an unsustainable change in relative prices that lead to the artificial booms and busts that the Federal Reserve System is falsely and laughably credited with preventing or mitigating.

In a free market, if the production of goods increases faster than the production of a commodity money, say gold, the result is an entirely benevolent decline in prices that gradually lifts living standards of everyone, especially the poor. The notion that this process could somehow lead to dangerously low prices is confused. Lower prices in a free monetary system simply reflect a greater outpouring of material abundance.

The idea that inflation is an increase in money sufficient to make consumer prices rise, rather than simply an increase in the quantity of money, is an offshoot of the ideology of central banking. This false ideology is based on the myth that the coercive "guidance" of bureaucrats and political climbers who hold down jobs in the Fed is somehow required to steer an economy between the shoals of inflation and deflation. Since central bankers pose as "economic scientists", they need statistical aggregates, such as GDP, national income, and the consumer price index, to persuade themselves and others that they "run the economy". What they really do, however, is what politicans always do: rob Peter to pay Paul.

An indepth explanation of this subject may be found in Ludwig von Mises' The Theory of Money and Credit and in Human Action; or in Murray Rothbard's Man Economy and State and in America's Great Depression; or in George Reisman's Capitalism; or In Hayek's Prices and Production; or in numerous books and articles listed on the Ludvig von Mises website. A brief and very readable explanation of the subject of money and banking may be found in Rothbard's short book What Has Government Done to Our Money?.

(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 9/09, 5:28pm)


Post 29

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark,
Andy is mistaken about the nature of money, and about inflation and deflation. ... In a free market, if the production of goods increases faster than the production of a commodity money, say gold, the result is an entirely benevolent decline in prices that gradually lifts living standards of everyone, especially the poor.
If hard money deflation is benevolent, how does it benefit borrowers?  How does it increase the standard of living of anyone when the price of labor falls with the prices of commodities?  It is only increased productivity that allows wages to rise while prices fall.  Hard money deflation steals from productivity to mask its inelasticity in expanding with a growing economy.

This the fundamental problem with hard money that gold bugs never address.  Fortunately hard money is as obsolete as barter is because we now have robust free markets in currencies, credit, and all manner of capital instruments.  That free market has done a good job of weakening the power of central banks to manipulate the money supply.  (Remember when the markets socked the Swedes with a 60% interest rate a few years back when the Swedish government tried to inflate the kroner?)  In time the central banks will become nullities.

Andy


Post 30

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark,
There is good reason not to define inflation as an increase in M that outpaces the increase in wealth. First, there is no way to accurately or definitively measure wealth, since the goods and services that comprise it are heterogeneous and innumerable, and their value to their owners is subjective and fluctuates with circumstances.
You don't have to measure wealth, if you let the price mechanism of a free market regulate the money supply.  Let banks expand or contract credit in response to the market, and you'll have a stable currency without arbitrarily defining it as a chunk of shiny rock.

Andy


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy: The reason that "hard money deflations" do not impoverish is simple: there are no hard money deflations. The supply of gold does not contract, because people safeguard it for its value. Deflations occur only as a result of coercive money and banking regulations that attempt to protect banks from runs that arise when bankers attempt to issue more bank notes, or loans of bank notes, than they have gold on deposit. In the absence of banking regulations, any surplus issuance of bank notes by a particular institution would almost immediately force the withdrawal of gold from that institution in favor of other banks that refrained from the fraud of fractional reserve banking. The regulations permit banks in concert to expand money and credit well beyond their gold despoits. When bank loans go bad during the inevitable downturn of the business cycle generated by fractional reserve bank inflating, some banks are threatened. Depositors rush to retrieve their gold, which ushers in a spontaneous monetary contraction and deflation. The inflation that inspired the artificial boom, and the deflation that follows, are features of a state regulated banking system, not of a free market gold standard. In American history, the banking regulations to which I refer were imposed by state legislatures throughout the nineteenth century, and the panics and crashes that erupted during that century, such as the Panic of 1837, were the direct consequence of those regulations.

To the extent that prices fall under an authentic gold standard (or whatever commodity the market selects as money), that process is beneficial to everyone: debtors, creditors, workers, and business people. For the decline in prices reflects a rise in the value of money; the rise in the value of money reflects an increase in the demand to hold money. The increase in the demand for money occurs because greater production of physical wealth requires more expenditure of money to facilitate trade. This gradual decline in prices happens only because production has been rising. And since production can increase only as the result of capital accumulation, and since capital accumulation increases the productivity of workers, real wage rates rise. Debtors do just fine because economic progress conveys to nearly everyone the benefits of rising real wages and real profits. In other words, each player is likely to enjoy higher real income with which to pay debts.

The idea that money exists to measure wealth is, with due respect, confused. In a free market, traders use money prices to calculate, but no one needs to "measure wealth". When one exchanges a gold piece, or a fiduciary receipt for some quntity of gold, for a good, one is not seeking to measure wealth, but simply to buy some good. Economic calculation requires money prices, but such calculation does not measure wealth; it only informs the trader whether he is gaining or losing market exchange value by doing a deal. The only types who preoccupy themselves with measuring wealth are politicans who pretend to be "economic planners".

Finally, the deflation in the money supply in the early 1930's happened as a response to central bank inflating throughout the Roaring Twenties. The primary cause of the monetary deflation was the outflow of gold from the United States, which had inflated enthusiastically; to Europe, which had inflated at a slower rate. The outflow contracted bank reserves in spite of "heroic" measures by the Fed to ramp up reserves and the money supply. With loans rapidly going bad as a consequence of the reversal of the Fed's artifical boom, a monetary contraction was unavoidable. The fault for the Depression lay with the Fed, but not because it didn't succeed in inflating in the early Thirties, but rather because it succeeded in inflating throughout the Twenties. Two great sources concerning this period in history include Rothbard's America's Great Derpression, and Benjamin Anderson's A Financial History of the United States from1900 through 1945. Anderson was a veteran Wall Street banker who for years was the chairman of Chase Bank; in his history he writes of the Fed's frantic efforts to pump up the money supply. As I recall, Anderson documented that the Fed actually increased bank reserves despite the gold outflow, following a brief dip in late '29 and early '30. Still, the money supply later contracted in response to the liquidation of malinvestments inspired by the inflationary boom, as banks failed, depositors withdrew cash, and borrowers and lenders avoided new loans.

Although the Depression was a major tragedy, its duration and intensity were due to the misguided attempts by both Hoover and FDR to coercively prop up wages and prices in the face of a declining money supply. The deflation that accompanied the Depression was not its cause, but its consequence.

Further, that deflation was beneficial, not wealth destroying. Busines cycles occur when producers respond to central-bank-manipulated, artifically low interest rates. As rates decline, producers react as though more capital were available for new capital intensive ventures than has actually been saved. The resulting expansion in business loans and projects ushers in an artifical wealth-destroying boom that wastes scarce and precious capital in unsustainable investment white elephants. The recession is the curative that corrects the errors of the boom and reconnects economic decisions with the reality of scarcity. The deflation is beneficial because it accelerates the cure of recession, by reducing white elephant investment prices, contracting spending, and thereby more rapidly liquidating wealth-consuming malinvestments. To the extent that the deflation encourages saving over consumption, it actually serves to partly rationalize the malinvestments that suffer from a dearth of savings.

One last note which I should have addressed earlier: an authentic free market commodity standard does not entail price fixing. People may trade gold coins or receipts for those coins for goods; such voluntary exchange does not require fixing the price of gold against any other good or money. In foreign trade, the price of gold would fluctuate against the value of foreign fiat currencies, which usually lose value as central bankers "manage" their captive money. The price fixing of gold that you refer to arises after banking regulations prop up fractional reserve bank inflating. When central bankers then attempt to coercively repress the market's repricing of their depreciating bank notes against gold, they resort to price fixing.


Post 32

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 8:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I enjoyed this article very much. I have had some contact with the Central Banks of Brazil and Venezuela and have read a great deal on BIS (Bank of International Settlements). I finally understood the reason Central Banks came into existence - to strengthen the world's currencies (through risk management guidelines) so that global trade could be encouraged without major problems, thus increase the wealth in the world.

After digging into the Fed for a while, it became obvious that it is a different animal than the rest of the Central Banks out there, since it is based on checks and balances for processing local information. That makes it work better that the ones where one person (usually) has an enormous amount of economic clout.

Greenspan can only work within a small margin compared to the rest of the world's Central Bank directors. However the Fed is stronger than all the others - practically a partner of BIS (not formally, but that's the way it works out in practice, from what I see) - due to the strength of information provided by the check and balances system.

But if he is in the position he is in and says what he said about the Fed, what does that say about the rest of the world?

Dayaamm!

One day of this all blows up, there is going to be a mess bigger than anything seen in history.

Also, I see a great deal of economic stability provided to international banking institutions through off-ledger accounting of illicit monies and unaccounted war plunder. Lot's of monkey-business with government bonds. I don't see that as going on forever either.

Michael

Post 33

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy, Mark's reasoning resonates better with my overall cognitive abilities to identify reality. Do you, sir, have a rejoinder to his penetrating, pervasive insights?

Ed

p.s. Now, I'm being "forceful" in my requests of you -- though not insincere.

Post 34

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
Do you, sir, have a rejoinder to his penetrating, pervasive insights?
Prices drop for two reasons:  [1] Supply and demand, and [2] deflation.  Mark says only central banks can cause deflation.  That's wrong.  If you have M amount of money in an economy of W wealth in one year, and then you have M amount of money in an economy of W*1.05 wealth in the next year, prices will fall for no reason other than deflation.  Remember, D = Rm < Rw.  Clearly that can happen with hard money.  In fact it tends to happen with hard money, because the commodity behind it, by its nature (for instance, gold), does not usually increase in supply with the overall economy.

Mark says that is not deflation if it happens in a hard money economy.  Now think about that.  In a fiat money economy, how would the effect be any different if the central bank kept the money supply at M while wealth increased from W to W*1.05?  It would be the same.  Why is it the same?  Because whatever backs a currency, its function as money remains the same.  It measures the value you and I want to exchange.  Mark can say his money is gold.  I can say it is all those onions I grow to make a living.  We're both reducing our wealth to its representation in money.  In the end we both have to agree on the yardstick for an exchange - for instance, the dollar.  In that function, it does not matter whether a dollar is hard or fiat.

That's not to say a hard dollar and fiat dollar will retain the same integrity as a yardstick.  Until all fiat currencies began floating against each other in the international currency markets about two decades ago, central banks could manipulate fiat money at will.  Little wonder the relative integrity of hard money was preferred.  However, hard money is not immune to deflation and inflation, as I illustrated above.  Mark says it does not happen, because he conflates the beneficial lowering of prices because of supply and demand (driven by increased productivity) with the adverse lowering of prices by hard money deflation.  He does not distinguish between the two.

By failing to do so, Mark does not account for the fact that as hard money deflates, a loan for L dollars becomes more valuable to the lender as M (money supply) stays the same and W (wealth) increases.  While the borrower's increased productivity may be able to create enough additional wealth to cover this increased value, it remains a fact that the lender did nothing to earn it.  All that has happened is the yardstick for L dollars has changed.  It would be like contracting with a farmer to supply you with 100,000 bushels of grain by the end of the year, and when it comes time for him to deliver, you inform him that a bushel is now five percent bigger than it was at the time of the contract.  Just because the farmer might be productive enough to cover this arbitrary and unearned boon to you doesn't mean the change in bushel size is a good thing.

But that's what Mark and the gold bugs assert by conflating the two causes of falling prices to mask the detrimental effects of hard money deflation.

Andy

P.S. Mark's history of the Great Depression is correct except for his emphasis.  His brush off the Fed's contraction of the money supply in 1929 and 1930 which sank the Bank of New York was not a blip but the catalyst for ruin.  Nevertheless, Mark and I share the same contempt for the Fed.


Post 35

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark,

I answered you in most post above to Ed, and welcome your reply to it.  Just to make clear, I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough response to me.  You like hard money, I don't.  However, we both recognize the same enemy.  If the central banks disappeared, I don't know if our differences would matter much, because the market would decide whether or not my idea of money is more efficient than yours.  I think we can agree that's where the decision belongs, and not in the hands of bureaucrats.

Andy


Post 36

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy, I want to thank you for responding to all my inquiries. You are a champ. I don't know if I'm getting on your nerves yet (never intended to), but I have a moral issue with this:

===============
While the borrower's increased productivity may be able to create enough additional wealth to cover this increased value, it remains a fact that the lender did nothing to earn it.
===============

What about ye' ole' line-o-reasonin' ... you know, the one that runs like this:

===============
Lenders can lend because, in the past, they've been productive economic agents (they've boosted the economy).

Hard-money deflations come from these boosts in productivity (that outpace the growing "known reserves" for a rare metal such as gold).
-------------------

Therefore, if anybody deserves a boon from deflation, it is the self-same folks who've been so productive as to cause it, in the first place (ie. today's "lenders").
===============

Ed

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Thanks for the kind words.  You asked is if a lender might not deserve his windfall from hard money deflation because the reason why he can lend is that he has accumulated wealth from his prior productivity.  I agree with you that the answer to this question lies with the moral goodness of productivity, which is in fact an Objectivist virtue.  Because of that, my answer to you is no.

A lender does not create wealth.  He is a rent-seeker from existing wealth.  New wealth comes from production only, either by growing it, mining it, or making it.  So when a lender lends money to a producer, his act is one remove away from productivity whereas the producer is by definition productive.  The lender is of course entitled to the rent for his wealth - that is, interest upon his loan - that he and the producer agree upon, but the lender has no moral claim upon the productivity of the borrower beyond that.

Maybe I should illustrate my thinking on this.  Let's say I'm an onion farmer and you are a banker.  You agree to lend me $10,000 to buy a tractor, which I must pay back one year from now.  (Of course, you're charging me interest, but we'll just focus on the principle because that's sufficient to illustrate my point.)  At the time we agree to the loan, the wholesale price of a bushel of onions is a buck.  So I need to produce 10,000 bushels of onions to pay you back.  However, a year later deflation, as opposed to increased production, has lowered prices by 5% for no reason other than the fact that a dollar measures five percent more wealth.  This is no different than declaring each bushel must now contain five percent more onions.  A dollar buys more onions because it has enlarged as unit of measure of wealth, not because onions are less valuable.

That means instead of producing 10,000 bushels of onions, I now have to produce 10,500 bushels to pay back the principle of the loan you made to me.  I have to either work more to produce that additional 500 bushels of onions, or I have to become more productive (produce more with fewer resources) to do that.  Either way, it is my effort, not yours, that creates this additional wealth in onions.  After all, an onion is still an onion, Ed.  I have the moral claim on those extra onions, not you.  Yet, you in effect get more of them from me without doing anything to earn them.  Deflation of the money supply has imposed a burden upon me that is offset by a windfall to you.  That is why I entered this thread calling deflation a thief.

Now in the real world, Ed, you as a lender did nothing wrong.  Whether our money is hard, fiat, or free market (as I advocate), we are going to have spurts of deflation and inflation because as well as the price mechanism works to communicate the realities of supply and demand, there are always lags, errors, and irrationality (think bubbles) that will cause deviations from perfect tracking of the money supply with the economy.  But objectivity does require that you recognize as a lender that you receive from me an unearned boon during deflation, just as I as a borrower receive one from you during inflation.  The only wrong would be as a lender to demand that the government institute a deflationary hard money regime knowing that by its nature it "steals" from producers.

To wrap up on a tangent ... Lenders wouldn't profit from the windfalls of deflation if they were willing to charge negative interest rates on loans.  Negative rates would offset the worst problem with the deflationary tendencies of hard money.  But I'm unaware of that occurring in any competitive environment.  I'm not sure why unless it's the uncertainty of sustained deflation that precludes it.  Food for thought.

Andy


Post 38

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy,

You write: "A lender does not create wealth. He is a rent-seeker from existing wealth. New wealth comes from production only, either by growing it, mining it, or making it."

This is false. Wealth is also a tool of production, and like any tool may be used badly or well. By optimizing the use of existing wealth - that is, by lending to those who will use his wealth well - a lender contributes to productivity. In contrast, a lender who lends his wealth to those who use it badly has negative productivity.

One possible cause of this error is a misunderstanding of the concept of productivity. To be productive is to cause wealth to increase. But, as my e-mail signature says, "Context matters. Seldom does anything have only one cause." Any given increase in wealth may have several causes. One of those causes is often the sound judgement of men who invested their money productively.

There are other things false with your statement - for example, a provider of services is also a creator of wealth - but those may be left as an exercise for the reader.


(Edited by Adam Reed
on 9/11, 11:12am)


Post 39

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,
To be productive is to cause wealth to increase.
I agree with this.  Well put.

However, I disagree that lenders, lessors, and service providers create wealth.  I say this because I apply your statement narrowly.  Lenders and lessors earn income by letting others use their existing wealth.  For example, I rent a tractor from you to work my onion farm.  Your tractor already exist.  You have created no new wealth by renting it to me.  I however create new wealth by putting your tractor to work to grow onions.  You have made me more efficient by renting me a tractor.  You have provided me with the means to increase my productivity by renting me your tractor, but I am the one who is actually producing.

As for service providers, such as lawyers, accountants, teachers, etc., they consume existing wealth in exchange for applying their expertise.  What new wealth is created by an accountants producing an income statement and balance sheet for my onion farm (which I need to show you that I can afford the rent on your tractor)?  ;-)  None.  However, by hiring an accountant to do my books instead of myself, I have more time to be productive by growing onions.

So I agree that lenders, lessors, and service providers can be valuable in the wealth creation process, but they are secondary economic actors to the primary ones, the actual wealth creators such as farmers, manufacturers, miners.  Without them, there would be no lawyers, accountants, or bankers.  Lenders, lessors, and service providers cannot exist with the actual wealth creators, because they do not produce any new wealth.  You cannot imagine a truly functioning economy without farmers, manufacturers, or miners.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Andy


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.