1% of the world population own 82% of the wealth

[Supertramp 10]

People were more caring, politicians are just part of that group. Every part of our lives is dependent on benefits, not like the old days.

When I was growing up, my aunties/uncles looked after me when Dad was at work. Now its a paid childminder of breakfast club.

 

Still the same in my family. But politicians were definitely less caring, let's try taking a quick look through history and see what our politicians got up to and what problems they caused throughout the world, never mind just here.

[Bob Arctor 11]

Wrong. Just to be clear, people create wealth by adding value, not by producing something. Ask Sky or BT if Premiership footballers add value.

 

That's what I always thought but doesn't that back up Cyclone's point? Taking raw materials and adding labour to make a saleable product is what creates wealth in a capitalist economy, isn't it? I'm not sure where playing football fits in to that. People spend the wealth generated from making products on things like watching football, but that's the transfer of wealth and not the creation of wealth, as far as I can see.

 

I think this might work as a test of this theory: if the whole world stopped making anything, the global economy would collapse (wealth would stop being created); if all the entertainment industries stopped, the global economy wouldn't collapse, it would just shrink (wealth would still be created)

Edited January 25, 2018 by Bob Arctor

[tinfoilhat 11]

That's what I always thought but doesn't that back up Cyclone's point? Taking raw materials and adding labour to make a saleable product is what creates wealth in a capitalist economy, isn't it? I'm not sure where playing football fits in to that. People spend the wealth generated from making products on things like watching football, but that's the transfer of wealth and not the creation of wealth, as far as I can see.

 

I think this might work as a test of this theory: if the whole world stopped making anything, the global economy would collapse (wealth would stop being created); if all the entertainment industries stopped, the global economy wouldn't collapse, it would just shrink (wealth would still be created)

 

The UK economy is mostly serviced based. We make nearly nowt. Manufacturing sector is up since the pound went down but its not a big sector of the economy.

[Anna B 1,414]

The UK economy is mostly serviced based. We make nearly nowt. Manufacturing sector is up since the pound went down but its not a big sector of the economy.

 

We've been depending for too long on being propped up by being the centre of the financial markets - largely because of our 'light touch' financial regulations that makes us prone to / condoning of misconduct and tax evasion.

 

No wonder this government panders to the bosses and the banks

[Marsman 10]

To be clear, he doesn't 'generate' money at all. He just encourages people to move it around.

People who produce something, they create wealth.

 

Is that why paying taxes is counterproductive? Moving money from those who are able to create it to those who can only consume it.

[ENG601PM 10]

That's what I always thought but doesn't that back up Cyclone's point? Taking raw materials and adding labour to make a saleable product is what creates wealth in a capitalist economy, isn't it? I'm not sure where playing football fits in to that. People spend the wealth generated from making products on things like watching football, but that's the transfer of wealth and not the creation of wealth, as far as I can see.

I'll just say the same thing again. Ask BT or SKY if a footballer adds value. To put it another way, do they want to screen Man Utd or Handsworth Boys?

 

To pick up on a specific point, removing labour generally adds value and distributes wealth more widely over time. Mechanisation is a whole other discussion though.

 

 

 

I think this might work as a test of this theory: if the whole world stopped making anything, the global economy would collapse (wealth would stop being created); if all the entertainment industries stopped, the global economy wouldn't collapse, it would just shrink (wealth would still be created)

 

The idea doesn't get past first base Bob. How are you even going to have an entertainment industry unless somebody makes something? How are Handsworth Boys going to entertain you standing naked in an overgrown nuts and berry field?

[Cyclone 10]

Isn't that passage inherently self-contradicting?

 

Money doesn't just transfers 'because', there has to be an element of transactional justification, particularly outside the regulatory context of taxation (-being the only example I can think of right now, where money changes hand not specifically for creating wealth/adding value (-although it actually does, after a long fashion alluded to in your link)).

 

Buying a 'new' footballer is done to maintain or improve the overall performance of the club, performance which underpins everything 'about' that club (following, sponsorship deals, <etc.>). It's an investment. So what the footballer does on the pitch, indeed creates wealth for/adds value to the club (else the club value, real and relative, would decline; likewise if the 'new' footballer under-performed or did not perform at all).

 

From the clubs point of view he adds value. From a societal point of view I don't think he does.

Many services DO add value, teaching for example, there's value in teaching other people so that they can contribute in the future, although the value might be hard to measure, it's there.

Is there value, economic wealth, created, rather than just transferred by sport though, not much at all.

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2018 at 07:31 ----------

 

Is that why paying taxes is counterproductive? Moving money from those who are able to create it to those who can only consume it.

 

Do you think that the state can't produce anything?

 

There's definitely value added in having a road or a health service. Stop someone dying and they go back to work and continue to add value to the economy. The cost of an accidental death in terms of value lost can be in the millions if they're young.

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2018 at 07:33 ----------

 

I'll just say the same thing again. Ask BT or SKY if a footballer adds value. To put it another way, do they want to screen Man Utd or Handsworth Boys?

 

You've confused Sky or BT making money, with the production of wealth.

If you all (everyone on the forum) gives me £10 right now, I haven't added any value to the economy, I've just got more money, hell, even if I danced for it. My dancing doesn't add value to anything, it's not creating anything.

It's the same principle.

[cgksheff 44]

The only reason products have value is because people are willing to pay for them.

Usually because they want them.

Same applies to services.

[ENG601PM 10]

Do you think that the state can't produce anything?

 

There's definitely value added in having a road or a health service. Stop someone dying and they go back to work and continue to add value to the economy. The cost of an accidental death in terms of value lost can be in the millions if they're young.

You've got this wrong.

 

The state doesn't produce anything. It taxes and aggregates. In your example, aggregated roads are more efficient for a taxed population than turnpikes for individual users, although there's an easy case for the contrary in a different type of economy.

 

The NHS cost to the economy is far outweighed by the aggregated cost to the individual. If you (or 99.9% of people) dropped dead today your role will 99.9% be easily filled and in a couple of months time nobody will notice that you were ever there. The cost is in individual and societal terms, not aggregated monetary term.

 

A young person dying is of even less consequence, certainly not millions. There is no shortage of young people.

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2018 at 07:40 ----------

 

The only reason products have value is because people are willing to pay for them.

Usually because they want them.

Same applies to services.

 

Spot on. They add value.

[Bob Arctor 11]

The UK economy is mostly serviced based. We make nearly nowt. Manufacturing sector is up since the pound went down but its not a big sector of the economy.

 

I was thinking globally. Could UK service industries survive if no-one anywhere made anything?

[ENG601PM 10]

You've confused Sky or BT making money, with the production of wealth.

If you all (everyone on the forum) gives me £10 right now, I haven't added any value to the economy, I've just got more money, hell, even if I danced for it. My dancing doesn't add value to anything, it's not creating anything.

It's the same principle.

 

You could not be more wrong so let's use your very own example to shred your argument step by painful step.

 

Why would anyone give you £10 right now?

[L00b 441]

From the clubs point of view he adds value. From a societal point of view I don't think he does.

Many services DO add value, teaching for example, there's value in teaching other people so that they can contribute in the future, although the value might be hard to measure, it's there.

Is there value, economic wealth, created, rather than just transferred by sport though, not much at all.

The main commercial value in sports nowadays is in its entertaining function. Which is why Sky and BT are mentioned, instead of FIFA or Nike.

 

Additional value streams, besides those (obvious) of sports equipment makers (Nike, Adidas, Umbro...Salomon, Head, Titleist, etc, etc, etc) and bookmakers (Ladbrokes, William Hill, etc.), stem from sponsorship effects (consumer spend generated by-, whether directly or not).

You've confused Sky or BT making money, with the production of wealth. If you all (everyone on the forum) gives me £10 right now, I haven't added any value to the economy, I've just got more money, hell, even if I danced for it. My dancing doesn't add value to anything, it's not creating anything.

It's the same principle.

I fear you may be conflating, here.

 

That "If you all (everyone on the forum) gives me £10 right now, I haven't added any value to the economy" is right: no value is created, just money being transferred 'because' (refer my earlier post )

 

But that "hell, even if I danced for it. My dancing doesn't add value to anything, it's not creating anything" is wrong and not the same principle (IMHO): by dancing, you are creating entertainment value, valued at £10 per person in the audience in your example.

 

People paying £10 to you just because you asked, indeed just transfer wealth to you 'because', absent any value created.

 

People paying £10 to see you dancing transfer their wealth to you, but they do it as consideration for being entertained (transaction justification which I was on about earlier).

 

That is how and why a footballer performing on the pitch comes to be valued at £x: good old-fashioned capitalistic competition. It's down to player X's playing talent, and consistency, and audience appeal, and <...> (=constituents of individual aggregate value to entertainment-sports commercial market) relative to those of other players (his competition), and the value of that individual 'capacity to entertain' to the commercial football market at time T(-ransfer ) is £x.

 

I was thinking globally. Could UK service industries survive if no-one anywhere made anything?

Well, at least undertakers would, as would GPs and butchers

 

More seriously, the more specialised and higher value-adding, the likelier; the more commoditised, the lesser likely.

 

High-end £xxx per hour UK tax adviser in the City with years of experience structuring revenue offshoring = guaranteed survival.

 

Commodity-level baseline ICT support worker = guaranteed until the next overseas quote.

 

Then you have stakeholder theory/effects to consider.

 

Pre-Brexit (sorry for introducing Brexit, but real-life example, so perhaps pay attention), people like me are worth a multiple of £100/hour to their UK employer, because that's what our time sells for on the open (global) market.

 

Their capacity to work and act in the EU, for UK and rest-of-the-world clients, from the UK (i.e. exporting UK services) is an integral part of that hourly rate, has been since the early 90s (the advent of the EU trademark and design system)

 

Now fast forward to post-Brexit (01 April 2019), posited on the UK then lying outside the EEA (negotiating outcome currently sought by UK government). EU statutes and rules being what they are, UK professionals now cannot work and act in the EU, for UK or foreign clients.

 

The resulting loss of capacity to service, necessarily results in a decrease of the hourly value (unless UK firms uprate the value associated with the (maintained) capacity to work and act in the UK...if the domestic and global markets would bear it, and nothing is less certain in this day and age).

 

In practice, UK and foreign clients of UK firms still have service requirements for EU trademarks and designs, but UK service suppliers now cannot provide that service any more: either UK service suppliers sub-contract to their EU27 competition; or the UK/foreign clients go directly to the EU27 competition.

 

Guess which? (...and then you understand why I'm moving to the EU27 competition )

Edited January 26, 2018 by L00b