“No, the ones we are getting right off the boat from China. Those are worthless, according to you, so give me one of those for free.”
I never said they were “worthless”.
Reading comprehension course for you!
“If it’s not “wealth”, then it must be “worthless”. There is no in-between state.”
Ridiculous! Is a can of beans “wealth” or “worthless”?
Is an underwater house being rented out “wealth” or “worthless”?
“How one “accumulates wealth” is an entirely separate question from the current question, which is whether the trade between China and the US is imbalanced, so your objection is irrelevant.”
No it isn’t.
By your logic if I buy a flat screen tv, I’m somehow “wealthier”. All I’ve done is taken 500 dollars and traded it for a tv that will be worthless in 5 years.
There’s no net gain, and in time a net loss.
and if we as a nation buy millions of flat screen tvs we’re all NOT wealthier.
On the other hand, if I took that same 500 dollars and bought Apple stock, in 5 years, I’d (most likely) be “wealthier”.
“Wealth is wealth.”
And consumer goods are not wealth.
“I suggest you take a refresher economics course, or just crack open a dictionary.”
Tell you what, go out and buy large amounts of flat screen tv’s and I’ll buy an equal dollar amount of stocks, bonds, real estate, etc...
...and we’ll meet in a couple of years to see who has “wealth”.
Lol.
“I never said they were “worthless”.
Reading comprehension course for you!”
Au contraire, you said so by implication when you said they were “not wealth”. If something isn’t wealth, then it is worthless. Anything that has worth is wealth. Logic comprehension course for you!
“Ridiculous! Is a can of beans “wealth” or “worthless”?”
Obviously, since I can exchange a can of beans for money, or other goods with value, a can of beans must be wealth.
“Is an underwater house being rented out “wealth” or “worthless”?”
The fact that it is being rented demonstrates it is wealth.
“By your logic if I buy a flat screen tv, I’m somehow “wealthier”.”
Wrong, that is not “my logic”, you are trying to argue with a straw man. If someone gave you a flatscreen tv, you would be wealthier. If you exchange an equivalent amount of currency for a flat screen tv, there is no net increase or decrease in wealth.
“On the other hand, if I took that same 500 dollars and bought Apple stock, in 5 years, I’d (most likely) be “wealthier”.”
You are still confusing your economic concepts. In this case, you’re confusing appreciating assets (the stock), with wealth. Appreciating assets can indeed create wealth, however that doesn’t mean that your wealth disappears unless you purchase appreciating assets. It may, over time, but that isn’t a foregone conclusion.
“And consumer goods are not wealth.”
Then give them to me for free. The fact that nobody is stupid enough to do that demonstrates that they indeed have value, and are, therefore, wealth.
“Tell you what, go out and buy large amounts of flat screen tv’s and I’ll buy an equal dollar amount of stocks, bonds, real estate, etc...”
You’re just demonstrating your confusion some more here. I never suggested that consumer goods were a great investment plan. However, consumer goods do have value, and are therefore “wealth”. You cannot disprove that by making apples and oranges comparisons like you are trying to do here.