Replies

It is important to define wealth. You can't measure your wealth by the things you buy -- for example if you buy 3 cheap Chinese television for $200 each and used a credit card, you don't have $600 ---for one those televisions are only worth maybe $50 each once they're used ---so you owe $600 for something that might be worth $150. Same with a car, if you buy a car that costs $25,000 and stretch payments out for 5 years, first the minute you drive that car off the lot, you've lost at least $5,000 and in a couple years you still owe more than half but the car has lost more than half it's "value". Everything you own is technically used and isn't worth much.

I agree. That's actually another problem with his wealth creation theory. Virtually all manufactured goods disappear and have to be recreated. The value of manufactured goods is a tiny percentage of the accumulated wealth in the world. It's primarily intangible assets or a nonmanufactured tangible like land. See posts 244 and 246. He never answered my question. I was just applying his wealth theory to the trade deficit.

"That's actually another problem with his wealth creation theory."

Yes, wealth is a tricky subject at best and most folks think that wealth is piles of money! The piles-of-money/goods-owned = wealth theory is a very simplistic view of the capitalist world and gets many folks into trouble.

I was just applying his wealth theory to the trade deficit.

Yes ---because the value of the tv or whatever thing is now longer very high once it's been bought but the trade deficit remains. Also much of that trade deficit is from people who didn't buy with actual money but with credit so it contributes to our national debt.