What Is Genuine Wealth And The Economics Of Happiness?

Wealth is the temporary control of energy.

Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment and the future.

It is that simple and there's no need to write books on the subject.

Mark is correct in saying that the GDP, efficiency, growth and productivity etc. calculations are fraudulent as they represent only monetary figures, without debits. Which makes all present economic calculations worthless and the theory itself the biggest crime wave in human history, destroying the ecology and humanity by killing people by the tens of millions.

Ed Deak.

"calculations are fraudulent as they represent only monetary figures, without debits"

If I understand what you've been talking about wrt fraudulent economics, you are saying that if something is "created" then something had to be expended in the process, but current economic theory ignores what was expended unless what was expended had a monetary value assigned - which is something that's arbitrarily assigned meaning it may often be ignored, thus creating the false (fraudulent) impression that "POOF" wealth can be created out of pure nothingness.

For example, if you mine uranium and sell it at a "profit", the cost to the overall system is probably a large negative value when the destruction of the environment is factored into the equation. In the mining example, the "wealth" is not created, it was instead always there, but has been concentrated into the hands of a few individuals at the expense of everyone else by forever taking something of value away from the land.

I'm I at least getting warm?

I was away all day on our biweekly shopping trip, but you're getting the facts OK.

The same calculations must be used as in manufacturing. You have to calculate all the real costs of what goes into a product and then deduct them from the price, which is then is your income.

In economics everything goes into the GDP as income, without any deductions for costs. Then, because monetary costs are not realities, but often violence induced, temporary perceptions, the physical inputs may exceed any reasonable standards of calculations, e.g. 10 workers calculated at .5 hp each, or 5 hp overall, may be replaced by 100 hp energy inputs, but because the company can obtain that excess energy at low monetary costs, it is considered "efficient", breaking all the physical rules of efficiency.

Then, because the long term damage caused by the excess inputs isn't calculated, the real costs are transferred on the future.

This is why we have pollution, climate change, growing poverty and hunger, etc. without any effort to recognize them as debits.

Now here's one: "Human labour doesn't cost anything to an economy, because it is energy neutral".

I'll have to leave you with this, for now.

Cheers, Ed.

I'm glad Ed spelled out his theories so clearly here.

To accept his theories, however, one must assume that there is some universal non-monetary measure of "costs".

There is a reason why we measure cost in dollars and not joules. And that is that the only real costs in an economy are opportunity costs. To put it another way, when it comes to cost, everything's relative.

At the heart of every successful economic transaction is the surrendering of something a person has for something he wants more. In a win-win transaction (the basis of free markets), both sides accomplish this.

But how can both parties, in the same exchange, trade something less valuable for something more valuable? Easy. Each party has their own measure of value, based on individual circumstances. If I had plenty of something, the satisfaction (marginal utility) of getting an additional unit of that thing is far less than that I gained from acquiring my first unit of it.

The same quantity of a finished good can be next to worthless to one person and incredibly valuable to another. The exact same principle applies to raw materials. It's supply and demand, pure and simple. If many people want something, it's valuable. If no one does, it isn't.

A pool of oil hundreds of feet underground has no value to a nomadic tribe wandering above it. They lack the technology to exploit it, so it is worthless to them. If someone else comes along and takes it out of the ground, the tribe has lost nothing (other than perhaps there being some degradation to the environment created by the extraction process).

Yes, there are costs borne by the environment through manufacturing that are not adequately accounted for in calculations of business profit. Economists (who are much brighter folks than Ed gives them credit for) recognized these, and gave them a name - externalities. However, these are difficult to measure and assess. Why? Because, as I've pointed out, there is no standard unit for costs besides those given to us through currency systems.

What would you pay or give up for a healthy environment? How much is your great-grandchildren having clean air and water worth to you? Tricky, eh? What debt (moral or otherwise) do you owe to future generations. After all, legal decisions relating to abortion have decreed than an unborn child does not have a right to life. What rights could humans than are not only unborn, but unconceived possibly have?

Yes, monetary inputs are as real a form of cost as energy. Why? Because labour is also an opportunity cost. An hour spent doing something is an hour not spent doing something else. In the nomadic tribe example I referred to, an hour of a strong man's effort is worth far more than an inaccessible pool of oil, energy expenditure (or lack thereof) be damned.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Ed's theories argue for the un-doing of the Industrial Revolution. Civilized humanity moved beyond the insular medieval village, subsistence agriculture, the cottage industry and the barter system for good reasons. There are better and less radical ways to deal with the problem of unaccounted externalities than tearing down the system that lifted us out of pre-industrial drudgery and material deprivation.

Oh, and for those who noticed my departure and absence - I'm back!

“Oh, and for those who noticed my departure and absence - I'm back!”

And after such a Grand Announcement of “not having any fun” too

Welcome back Indie!
I was betting you couldn’t stay away my Maven of the Contrite*

Aye, There’s then rub(bed) back for fun, Eh Wot?

Well then, Fun it shall be!

So, You’re glad spelled out his premise so clearly iz ya?
And why, exactly, are you glad?
I’m sure you’ll tell won’t you?


I suppose the concept of mineral rights came about with thinking similar to your oil example.
You really are a Ferengi at heart ain’t cha?




* contrite
c.1300 (contrition), from L. contritus, lit. "worn out, ground to pieces," pp. of L. conterere "to grind," from com- "together" + terere "to rub."




---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

This line is dead, Indie, but if you're still on, I never suggested the return to nomadic life styles, but to make the industrial revolution, or any other revolution, serve the public interest, and not act as a tool of blackmail and enslavement by a ruling class, who now control the economy, handed to them by those "bright" economists and idiot politicians.

By the way, how is a person calling him/herself an "individualist", while advocating and making excuses for collectivized fascism, or rather a gilded version of Soviet politbureaus ?

Ed Deak

Thanks for the "warm welcome". For the sake of those not familiar with the story, my "contrition" was very specific. Since you brought it up, it was related to what I interpreted as anti-Jewish sentiments in the anti-Zionist writings of you and Arthur Topham.

You can understand my confusion about this topic, when apparently all one has to do to go from being a bigoted crackpot to a sensible political commentator is perform the following:

sed 's/Jewish/Zionist/g' followed by
sed 's/Jew/Zionist/g'

(Zionist being both a noun and an adjective)

Unfortunately, that leaves the non-bigoted anti-Zionist in the unfortunate position of having to defend himself and his beliefs due to the bigots who cloak themselves in a convenient euphemism.

And as to your Star Trek reference, I say better a Ferengi than a Borg drone, which is what Canadian left-liberal thinking is quite reminiscient of. For me, this attitude is best summed up in Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" rant.

I'm back not to serve as some right-wing straw man (as Ed attempted to do in his all too predictable response), but to suggest that most of the real problems cited by the good leftish folks on this forum have a right-libertarian solution. I'm not here to defend corporations (which are simply another form of legally mandated collective usurping the power and rights of individuals). Nor am I here to defend George Bush and his war in Iraq. Nor am I here to defend to excesses of white-collar criminals like Conrad Black.

Actually, I'm not here to do anything but challenge left-authoritarian groupthink wherever I encounter it. I'm here to challenge statist paternalism, condescending nobless oblige, heavy-handed social engineering, politically correct identity politics, smug anti-Americanism, equally smug Torontocentrism, protectionism and pro-monopoly stances. I believe that we owe a minimum standard of living to all our citizens, but an excessive levelling of wealth and income destroys the incentives that make our economy work. Where meritocracy and equality come into conflict, I opt in favour of meritocracy.

Why are market solutions worth pursuing over ones involving central planning? The answer is simple - choice. In a market economy, I get to choose whether to consume a particular good or service. And I get to choose from whom I purchase it. My desire or lack of desire for it becomes an input into the decision of how much of it to produce. Non-market solutions involve at their core some form of coercion or control. The government can't make me watch the CBC (at least not yet), but they can force me to pay for it.

I don't think you're going to find me the cartoon villian you saw me as before. Of course, if you really want to, I'm sure you can find a way.

An interesting Ed equation.

"...advocating and making excuses for collectivized fascism, or rather a gilded version of Soviet politbureaus" = "He disagrees with me"

There is another measure that can be used besides money to evaluate the cost of a transaction.

Time.

When you live in a system which seeks infinite consumption in a finite world, there is a temporal limit to it. Sooner or later, this system, our system will fail, because it takes ressources from the environment without giving anything back. It is a parasitic relationship. How long can it last? That would be an intelligent question to ask yourself.

Time is an objective measure which can be used to determine the efficiency of a system. Of course, I guess it is a measure which is hard to evaluate, but maybe not so much harder than the price of any good or service.

Also, I think you are wrong in thinking that Ed is advocating us returning to the Stone Age. The Industrial Revolution brought us great means to help all. Simply, we must have the intelligence to make it last. We must replace our current parasitic societal system with one which promotes symbiotic relationships.

Creating a symbiotic system will most probably require some planning, though, which you probably won't like because it will mean the end of so-called "free" market.

The "free" market isn't free. Nor does it promote choice. Some in the world can't buy food nor healthcare nor shelter. People are considered as commodities to be bought and sold, "human ressources", what an euphemism! What kind of incredible freedom is that?

Your "free" market comes at the cost of the happiness and well-being of millions, maybe even billions of people, and seriously, I can't see what's worth sacrificing these things.

Your "free" market can only work in a very competitive environment, while at the same time promoting profits at all cost. However, to attain maximal profit, you must eliminate competition, which means that this system promotes the very thing which *will* make it crash, sooner or later.

Not to menting the fact that monopolies created in order to maximize profit eliminates choice from who you buy. Take media convergence, for example. All mainstream medias outlets are getting concentrated in the hands of a few, who are then free from providing a good service to the population. They can now focus on corporate interests, and thus manipulate information in order to maximize their profits.

Wow. What an incredible system that is.

One which only gives illusion of freedom.

Which promotes profit at the cost of happiness and well-being.

Which promotes the very thing which will make it crash.

Which uses parasitical short-term relationships.

It will crash.

Mark my words, sooner or later, it *will* crash, and I think not only is it starting to fail, its end is relatively soon.

And if we're not prepared when that happens, then, *then*, going back to the Stone Age is a certainty.

Time. Short-term vs long-term. That's a measure which you could think about, sometimes.

Oh, and as a side note, absolute individuality is absolute stupidity, and I hope that's not what you seek, and that you recognize the need for at least some measure of collective organization. If not, what the hell are you doing here? If you want to be an absolute individualist, that means you must grow yourself your own food, make your own shelter and clothes, produce your own electricity, build your own electronical components all by yourself (and the machinery used to build them) and assemble them all by yourself in a working computer, for which you would need to code yourself the operating system. Then, you would need to create your own networking communication protocol and still somehow manage to find a way to connect to this site and, well, you get the idea.

Face it, we're all together in this. When one fail, everyone suffer. We depend on each other. Don't you think it would make sense to make sure *everyone* profit for as long as possible and that we make sure the environment lasts for as long as possible, even if just to ensure our optimal survival?

I'm not advocating for the collective to be more important than the individual, nor for the reverse. What I'm saying is that we must find the balance between both, and that a system built upon this idea would give us better chances at both survival and happiness than the "free"-and-savage-"Law of the Jungle v2.0" current market system.

The Sharp Wolf

"Hooray for the free movement of capital and market capitalism, where people are the main commodities to be bought and sold. This is what's called democratic, globally competitive, free enterprise." </sarcasm>

“I don't think you're going to find me the cartoon villian you saw me as before. Of course, if you really want to, I'm sure you can find a way.”<br />
I did that? I saw you as a villain<br />
And a cartoon?<br />
Well Oil-Can Harry, as you are determined to have me see you as the cartoon villain, your fixations on ancient concepts of the political spectrum are still firmly set in place as are your interpretations of what constitutes any idea of what is Jew-ish and what is Zionist.<br />
Have you returned here then to enter into honest debate or been busy in the attempt to not only firm up a false stand, but to stand in support of historic evil?<br />
<br />
It matters not how firmly one believes when the beliefs as but on deception and I would guess that you are an intelligent person but a rather obsessed “individual”<br />
The world is not always as we see it to be and it is up to those of us with balance in our hearts to both teach AND (capped for emphasis only) learn.<br />
Thus far your case(s) have been frame in such a way as to draw to you the very thing you claim to reject.<br />
When I read the words of studied Rabbi’s on the topic of Zionism I am more inclined to accept those words that I am of one so ill informed and holding their own bias as you appear to be.<br />
There is My Friend, a vast difference between what you so falsely choose to call Anti-Semitism and Judeophobia or Jude phobia, a fear of Jewish people.<br />
<br />
In support of my claim I offer the following><br />
There may even be the balance sought contained in the first offering <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www2.jewishculture.org/jewish_scholarship/feinstein/singerman.doc">http://www2.jewishculture.org/jewish_scholarship/feinstein/singerman.doc</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.twf.org/News/Y2002/0401-NetureiKarta.html">http://www.twf.org/News/Y2002/0401-NetureiKarta.html</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1249">http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1249</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/">http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/</a> <br />
<br />
TRADITIONAL JEWS ARE NOT ZIONISTS<br />
Although there are those who refuse to accept the teachings of our Rabbis and will continue to support the Zionist state, there are also many who are totally unaware of the history of Zionism and its contradiction to the beliefs of Torah-True Jews.<br />
<br />
<br />
Have I gauged you wrongly in thinking you have mind enough to streach beyond the silly assertion you place here?<br />
<br />
I would like to believe so <br />
Dio<br />
<br />
ps Be so sure not, indie, it'll bite you in the ass<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

It is an old economist phrase that "time is money"

What we have to remember is that we have very limited resources, but unlimited time.

We also have to remember that an employee sells "life" during the time he/she's working for somebody else.

Another fact is that when we were using more human labour and no, or less automation, we had no ecological crises, less illness and no climate change.

Total self sufficiency is impossible, but the solution to many of the world's problems is the most self sufficiency from the individual to the community and country levels.

This would eliminate many of the present ecological and health problems.

We live in an over 3000 sq/ft house on 3 levels, we built ourselves, made all the furniture, painted the pictures on the walls, carved the sculptures and grow much of our own organic food and there are machines in the yard I built from scratch, or rebuilt in our own workshops.

I happen to be a "master" cabinetmaker, with articles in trade magazines. If anybody still has Lee Valley Tools WoodCuts, I had a number of articles illustrated by myself and also did all the Shop Tip illustrations, and also happen to be world class with the graphite pencil.

Now, if anybody wants to bring an economics professor onto the line, watch me taking him, or her apart.

In other words, it can be done by anybody who's willing to set his or her mind to it and is willing to learn and work to be free.

Ed Deak.

Individualist writes:

"There is a reason why we measure cost in dollars and not joules. And that is that the only real costs in an economy are opportunity costs. To put it another way, when it comes to cost, everything's relative."
-----------

Ah, yes, Jewish thinking at its best. The dollar is always the bottom line and seeing as how the Jews control the economy it would appear quite natural for Individualist to equate and promote this line of tripe.

Individualist writes:

"At the heart of every successful economic transaction is the surrendering of something a person has for something he wants more. In a win-win transaction (the basis of free markets), both sides accomplish this."

More bullshit. At the heart of every successful Jewish economic transaction is the surrender (for the goyim) of their rights and freedoms and the continuing enslavement of the non-Jewish masses to a Jewish-created economic model that sucks, like a sadistic parasite, the lifeblood of the people in the form of usury and taxation and increasingly repressive bureaucracy.

Individualist writes:

"A pool of oil hundreds of feet underground has no value to a nomadic tribe wandering above it. They lack the technology to exploit it, so it is worthless to them."

Yes Individualist. And who would those "nomadic" tribes be? The Arabs (more Goyim) of the Middle East who just wander around the desert and have no need of all that fabulous wealth hidden between the layers of sand and their camels? Is that why the Jews decided to invade Arabia when the first signs of oil were discovered and have since set up their phoney "state" of Israhell in order to destroy and control the region for that bottom dollar lurking in in the bottom of every barrel of crude that comes out of ground?

Individualist writes:
"Economists (who are much brighter folks than Ed gives them credit for) recognized these, and gave them a name - externalities. However, these are difficult to measure and assess. Why? Because, as I've pointed out, there is no standard unit for costs besides those given to us through currency systems."


All economic theories over the past century have been mass marketed by Jews and then acted upon as if they were something more than merely theoretical. There are human costs but only when it comes to Jews. The goy aren't considered in your equation because the Jews designed it that way from the start. So you hide all this suffering and destruction and needless death within your deceptive rhetoric under such crap as "externalities". Like collateral damage from your weapons systems Individualist this is just another lie to decieve the general public.

Individualist writes:

"What would you pay or give up for a healthy environment? How much is your great-grandchildren having clean air and water worth to you? Tricky, eh?"

More Jewish mind-fucking. If the economic system wasn't controlled and manipulated by Jewish interests the world would still be using common sense and a reverence for Creation (Nature) rather than the old Jewish maxim of the dollar as the bottom line.

Individualist writes:

"There are better and less radical ways to deal with the problem of unaccounted externalities than tearing down the system that lifted us out of pre-industrial drudgery and material deprivation."

The present "system" is a Jewish one designed to fuck up all the nations of the world and destroy both the Christian and Moslem worlds. It's a Jewish world and cheap baubles and plastic living and endless, unpayable debt now exists for all the Gentile/Heather goyim of the world. Hardly what I would call uplifting Individualist! Sounds more like slavery to me.

Individualist writes:
"Oh, and for those who noticed my departure and absence - I'm back!"

Great! My sword was getting a bit rusty.


---
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
http://www.radicalpress.com

Individualist writes:

"Thanks for the "warm welcome". For the sake of those not familiar with the story, my "contrition" was very specific. Since you brought it up, it was related to what I interpreted as anti-Jewish sentiments in the anti-Zionist writings of you and Arthur Topham."

Oi veh! "anti-Jewish sentiments" indeed! And what the hell is wrong with criticism of Jews Individualist? Is it against the law to express a negative opinion of a Jew (if you happen to be a goy like myself)? Are Jews somehow exempt from criticism for their ways merely because they're God's "chosen ones"?

It's fine for you Jews to call Jesus Christ the most grievous of names and tell your fellow Jews that He's nothing but a fraud and is spending eternity boiling in a pit of excrement and that his mother Mary is a whore but we goy must NEVER say anything uncomplimentary about you poor, Godforsaken Jews or else we're being "anti-Semitic". Give it a rest Individualist. The Arabs are the Semites. The Jews are frauds and liars and don't possess a Semitic cell in their bodily forms.

If it's too hot in the kitchen for you take a walk but don't make false accusations based on outright lies (or else people might start to think you too are working for the Mossad as well)!

---
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
http://www.radicalpress.com

Ed wrote:
------------
Now here's one: "Human labour doesn't cost anything to an economy, because it is energy neutral".
------------

I'm sorry, but after thinking about this for a while, I have no "Ah ha!" to present. A comment you made down the line however prompted me to respond with some of my thoughts which, if I'm fortunate, may lead to an "Ah Ha!".

------------
We also have to remember that an employee sells "life" during the time he/she's working for somebody else.
------------

True, but what's a human life worth? I did the calculation long ago and came to the conclusion that my life as an employee could never be compensated for through money. I have only one life, and my goal has been to live it, not work it. If a job felt as though I was living, then fine, but such a thing seemed like an impossibility for me, so I never did go down the employee route and never will.

I find myself enjoying the ride as a "freer-than" person, and I think a great deal about how I can become even more self-sufficient - it's actually become fun, but I'll admit that in the early days it had its stressful moments (yet the "ups" were that much more).

Life I suppose, is all in the struggle.

An economy is purely an imaginary concept in our minds, therefore it follows no laws or rules that are not also purely imaginary. There is no money (what is money if not a delusion?), therefore does something like an "economy" that is based on something that does not in fact exist, exist?

When we talk about an economy, what are we really talking about here?

Individualist spoke of "opportunity", and I do think he (or she) is correct. Economists do not concern themselves with anything that does not involve greed and the accumulation of wealth* (see note below) - why should they?

Yet we cannot just ignore the damage or "costs" caused by an economy that's gone well out of the realm of sanity.

Since there is no money, what is it that we're measuring when we speak of profits and losses?

I cannot see money, but I sure can see the costs to the environment and to our youth who grow up in an obsessive society that teaches everyone to surrender their lives for a few imaginary tokens along with dreams of accumulating piles of imaginary tokens.

What I see is pure insanity and little more, but so be it.

*wealth IMO is a measure of ones control over others - or more accurately, the rather curious phenomenon where people allow themselves to be controlled by others for no good reason.