I've been picking on Forbes for having the word millionaire or billionaire on every cover, and was astonished to see neither word appear on their Sep 29 edition, although the cover story is on the world's richest doctor (who happens to be a billionaire.) As if to make up for this oversight, the Special Edition Oct 20 copy has five covers, one after another, each with a billionaire.
On page 264, Forbes editors quote a 2001 edition, defining wealth:
Next, after saying that, Forbes celebrates 400 people based on gold, jewelry, large cash accounts, lots of land.
Human action mixed with raw or owned materials creates property which may be pledged as assets against loans (at no interest) or simply money invested into projects which bring out new solutions or more better cheaper faster provision of commodities. Wealth is the range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources.
On Page 25 Steve Forbes give his current definition. Money is not wealth. (I wonder how he defines money?) He goes on to say money measures wealth.
Wait, what? How does how much medium of exchange a person happens to be storing measure the range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources?
Forbes still has a mix-up of definitions... and gets a lot right about money as a medium of exchange, and how financing matters, and condemns Keynesianism and its sinecure with a halo. Forbes praises the free market and capitalism (well, pick one Steve, they are mutually exclusive)... and then says those officious government hacks despise those who got wealthy providing the very goods they buy.
Just so... but something those government hacks know is capitalism picks winners and losers, so don't complain when the system under which your particular skillset thrived also demands you kick back to those whose particular skillset will go unused.
If Forbes wanted all of that creativity, imagination, innovation, inventiveness to optimize the range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources, then the optimal means is the free market.
But first you have to define money properly, next wealth, and then accept there will never be "exceptional wealth" in terms of gold, jewelry, large cash accounts, lots of land any longer since there will not be the capitalist system to enforce the rules that require pipefitters pay to protect Bill Gates' intellectual property rights, etc, ad nauseum. No capitalist patterns and practices, not exceptional wealth as celebrated by Forbes.
Instead, we'd get a range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources, brain cancer cure, $29.95, OTC, sold by Jimmy's Better Cures, a world class laboratory out of Inglewood. Fast Food would stop inducing diabetes since their subsidies of diabetes inducing ingredients would disappear.
The great big mystery in life is what would be? We know what we have. We see what capitalism gets us, and the people with the guns think it is just fine. What we do not see, is what we might have. When telephony was deregulated, we saw vast unrelated fields link up to bring astonishing new goods and services. Yet, we will not hazard another instance of deregulation, what I would call "free market lite."
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
On page 264, Forbes editors quote a 2001 edition, defining wealth:
The Forbes 400 demonstrates that the real wealth of our nation is not physical - gold, jewelry, large cash accounts, lots of land, - but metaphysical, what stems from the human mind - creativity, imagination, innovation, inventiveness.Boy is that bollixed up... yes, medium of exchange and land is not wealth, true, but neither is creativity, imagination, innovation, inventiveness. Along with land, these are worthless without human action.
Next, after saying that, Forbes celebrates 400 people based on gold, jewelry, large cash accounts, lots of land.
Human action mixed with raw or owned materials creates property which may be pledged as assets against loans (at no interest) or simply money invested into projects which bring out new solutions or more better cheaper faster provision of commodities. Wealth is the range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources.
On Page 25 Steve Forbes give his current definition. Money is not wealth. (I wonder how he defines money?) He goes on to say money measures wealth.
Wait, what? How does how much medium of exchange a person happens to be storing measure the range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources?
Forbes still has a mix-up of definitions... and gets a lot right about money as a medium of exchange, and how financing matters, and condemns Keynesianism and its sinecure with a halo. Forbes praises the free market and capitalism (well, pick one Steve, they are mutually exclusive)... and then says those officious government hacks despise those who got wealthy providing the very goods they buy.
Just so... but something those government hacks know is capitalism picks winners and losers, so don't complain when the system under which your particular skillset thrived also demands you kick back to those whose particular skillset will go unused.
If Forbes wanted all of that creativity, imagination, innovation, inventiveness to optimize the range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources, then the optimal means is the free market.
But first you have to define money properly, next wealth, and then accept there will never be "exceptional wealth" in terms of gold, jewelry, large cash accounts, lots of land any longer since there will not be the capitalist system to enforce the rules that require pipefitters pay to protect Bill Gates' intellectual property rights, etc, ad nauseum. No capitalist patterns and practices, not exceptional wealth as celebrated by Forbes.
Instead, we'd get a range of goods and services available to what range of people with their own resources, brain cancer cure, $29.95, OTC, sold by Jimmy's Better Cures, a world class laboratory out of Inglewood. Fast Food would stop inducing diabetes since their subsidies of diabetes inducing ingredients would disappear.
The great big mystery in life is what would be? We know what we have. We see what capitalism gets us, and the people with the guns think it is just fine. What we do not see, is what we might have. When telephony was deregulated, we saw vast unrelated fields link up to bring astonishing new goods and services. Yet, we will not hazard another instance of deregulation, what I would call "free market lite."
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
A definition of wealth: The access to a products and services that improve your standard of living, not necessarily the number of dollars in your savings account.
Think about this: Who is "wealthier" now: Our most privileged and powerful ancestors at any time in history (the King of England in the middle ages), or a middle class, or even "poor" American?
see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDej3riTOS4
Even in modern times, is there really that much of a difference between driving a Toyota Camry and a Mercedes Benz? Also, both poor and rich today in America have equal access to essentially decent quality food at the grocery store if they take the time (Even the poor with government assistance).
Post a Comment