« Reuters unexpectedly use that word--again. | Main | "I am an ardent believer in the free market" »

Wealth Theory

One characteristic which separates Republicans and Democrats in most people's minds, is their attitude towards wealth. Democrats often believe that Republicans are biased in favor of the wealthy and against 'the poor', who are commonly imagined as minorities, women, and the elderly, and that Democrats stand for fair outcomes, so made by actions taken to punish greed. Republicans often believe that Democrats are biased in favor of special interest groups and against 'working Americans', who are commonly imagined as America in total, and that Republicans stand for equal opportunity, so made by elimination of subjective barriers and penalties used to punish business success. Democrats and Republicans both claim to speak for Main Street, although Democrats claim Republicans are buddies of Wall Street, Republicans claim Democrats are buddies of Broadway, and far too many members of both parties act like they live on Bourbon Street. This article is written to set out my understanding of how wealth is created and developed, and to begin a discussion on perspectives of the same concern.

There is a sense in the modern culture that money is a bad thing, and that rich people are bad people. Democrats promote this sense in politics by accusing business leaders and major companies of "greed" whenever the business community is opposed to a policy or bill supported by Democrats. Opposition by Democrats to financial success, however, does not appear to extend to criticism of celebrities and actors, to lawyers or doctors, or to special-interest groups which support liberal causes. This hypocrisy is salient to the matter, since it demonstrates that Democrats are inconsistent in their application of their theory, designating non-productive wealth as acceptable while maligning wealth from production of useful goods and services demanded by the public. America will not be in crisis if Michael Moore's film fails, but as we have seen, it does fall into crisis when major auto manufacturers cannot produce profits. It should also be noted that it is inherently illogical for politicians, who receive money while producing no useful product, to sit in judgment of people and companies which do produce useful goods. That way lies madness and the myth of Man-created Global Warming.

The liberal lie about wealth depends on the zero-sum fiction of wealth. The idea is that there is only so much of any good thing, and it's human nature to want as much of it as you can get. That's greed, as they think of it. Everyone is entitled to their "fair share", which is almost never how it works out in practice, making the real world "unfair" by their rules. The idea that everyone should have a share of something, even if they did nothing to create or build it, sounds a lot closer to greed than those people who work hard to make a thing themselves. And anyone who's ever done farming understands that production is not a zero-sum equation. Come to that, farming is counter-intuitive in some ways. The idea that you take edible seed and bury it makes no sense until you understand how germination works. That's why Agriculture is the 'First Wave' of technology mentioned by the Tofflers.

And Industry, by the way, is the Second Wave, and it's no zero-sum matter either. Not everyone can make all the goods he or she wants and needs, nor equally well. Industry provides a means for a community, country or planet to raise its living standards and quality of life without increasing its cost of resources to the same degree. Capitalism works for many reasons, not least of which include the fact that major capitalist nations have healthier, happier citizens. One of the most basic laws of business is that to succeed, a business must have relatively low prices, superior features and convenience, or superior quality and customer satisfaction, or some two of the three if it wants to lead in its industry. Only a monopoly, like the Post Office or Congress, is immune to these economic laws, and even there, over a period of time degradation is inevitable. Anyone who tells you different is running for office with a jackass for a logo.

There are a few basic rules of how one creates wealth. One may receive it, as in inheritance; one seizes it, as in conquest or eminent domain or nationalization; or one may actually build wealth. Wealth is not simply manipulating numbers a la Bernie Madoff to create the illusion of wealth creation, nor is it the parasitical behavior of people living off other people's work, like people who make money off things like 'residuals' and other gambling-based activities. Wealth creation only occurs when the net wealth of all stakeholders in an enterprise grows. This is why farms, savings and loans, factories, and corporate labs are good investments, while law firms, casinos, and eco-thug restrictions are generally liabilities for a culture. The farmer's tools, land, and work combine to create food which is worth more than he puts into it. A savings and loan - properly run - protects savings and provides capital for worthwhile ventures, which grow to far beyond their initial investment and outlay. Factories produce products which improve the quality of life for their customers, employees, and communities, especially if they are run by people who live in those same communities, which creates a desire for good corporate citizenship. Corporate laboratories seek answers to pressing medical needs and provide improved options for people living with disease, impaired ability, pain, or other maladies. On the other hand, law firms not only consume assets while producing no goods or valuable services, they also leave impacts which damage communities as a whole. This is not to say that the law is not necessary, but it is abused by lawyers far more than communities are abused by businesses. Casinos also consume resources without creating any physical goods or valuable services; the net effect on a community with a casino is inevitably negative. And politics-based restrictions on corporate operations damages the effectiveness of those businesses, costs jobs, and consumes assets and resources with no production of goods or useful services. The point is that government, even when absolutely necessary, is by definition destructive, wasteful, and a liability to be minimized whenever possible.

All wealth creation involves risk. There is always the risk of failure, such as the farmer whose crops suffer from bad weather or insect blight, or the factory which must stay abreast of consumer demand and the cost-effectiveness of its methods. All successful corporations begin as small businesses, so protection of small business interests is not only quaint, it's Economics' version of Pediatric Medicine. As for public corporations, they exist under specific laws and requirements. A lot of people don't seem to understand that what Enron did, for example, was already against the law, even before the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. While there are crooks in business, there are crooks everywhere, as Congress and most city councils have proved well beyond dispute. There are far more good businessmen than bad, something Congress can hardly claim for itself. That's not to say that business should operate without reasonable rules and laws, but there's something very wrong with a Congress that knows so little about Economics and Business, with its own pallid record in Ethics, setting business leaders in general out as the enemy of the nation. And the results of the Auto Bailout in the year just past stand as a painful reminder of just how poorly Congress understands the effects of its actions. The Bank, Auto, and who-knows-what-else-is-to-be-bailed-out industries have not improved in financial stability or health, despite all the money poured into them. Because risk is not mitigated by government meddling, anymore than blaming Wall Street for blundering disasters in the White House is an effective means of improving job creation.


Risk is disliked, of course. But because you cannot escape it completely, risk tolerance is a factor in all economic activity. And as a natural function, the only way to persuade someone to accept higher risk, is to offer commensurate rewards for success under those conditions. Also, refusing to reward risk tolerance will inevitably damage performance, as the consistent results of Socialism demonstrate. As an example, consider at-will employment. A man has some money, and an idea. An idea he thinks will produce profits. So he hires employees to help him make the product or provide the service that is his idea. That's how most people these days make a living - working for a company that hired them to do a job. They could have started their own company, worked by and for themselves, but they did not like the risk, so they agreed to an arrangement where they could be assured of a certain income by doing a certain thing under certain conditions. If things didn't work out, the boss could fire you or you could quit. Simple, direct, and functional. Companies with good bosses, a good plan, and good employees grew strong. Companies without those things died out. Here in the bailout age, a lot of people would not believe that most of the original automobile companies eventually went under - Stanley, Packard, Deusenberg, Haynes, Studebaker, and Duryea were all major automakers at one time or another but which died out, even though some were successful for some years. The Studebaker was a popular company well into the 1950s, for example. And in addition to government intervention to protect selected industries and companies, there was also the drive to create protected classes of employees. Unions, for example, originally created to protect employee rights to safe working conditions and equal opportunity to advancement and compensation, were soon corrupted to become means to manipulate workstaff and extort money from businesses; the Mafia's gruesome history alone confirms that unfortunate development. Governments, from local councils to the Congress, have also interfered with business through initiatives meant to accomplish job growth or to advance selected outcomes, but inevitably such programs have cost well in excess of their benefits. The most obvious example would be Medicare, which controlled medical costs for a selected demographic of Americans but only to a degree and only for a finite time span, while the attendant costs have rocketed far beyond all projections. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection may not prove true with regard to biological cross-species evolution, but it is a truth of economics that cost and benefit can not be artificially manipulated to serve a political aim. While it is true that behavior can be influenced by rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior, this practice breaks down as the scale of subjects, cost, and time increase. The best examples are black market economies and attempts to legislate moral preferences.

For this reason among others, every nation depends essentially on small business first and foremost. This is because small businesses are most sensitive to new opportunities and dangers, and because small businesses exist for pure business reasons, paying in taxes and compliance for government and special interest interference but operating for valid business purpose. The effect of new policies upon small business is therefore a significant barometer for the economic wisdom of those actions, and should be carefully considered in historical context. An action which was ill-considered in 1934 is not a wise choice in 2010 simply because time has passed.

This brings us to present politics. The plain lesson of History is that policies based on the subjective values of the minority of the population, such as Carbon taxes, ex post facto taxes on executive bonuses, and arbitrary manipulation of mortgage and credit rates, may work for a limited time but in the long term prove ineffective, inefficient, and do more damage to the economy than any good. Any action taken will inevitably affect and influence the behavior of the whole economy, and focusing only on one part is going to lead to unpleasant surprises. Government actions will inexorably damage economic performance, with the exception of actions which reduce government restrictions. This is not to say that government regulation is not needed, but to observe that even the most necessary statutes mean accepting poorer performance for greater stability or control. Consequently, it never even possible for Obama's "Stimulus" to work as intended, anymore than a perpetual motion engine can function in real life, and for the same reason; economic performance comes from the actions of wealth-producing entities, which are individuals and businesses, never the government. The government is parasitic in economic nature, and therefore any government action which controls and redirects wealth will reduce the total amount in that process; it was therefore impossible ab initio for a plan to spend huge amounts of public money to result in anything but diminished economic performance. Cross-reference East Germany, 1945-1995 and compare to West Germany for the same time period.

This essay says nothing that was not already generally known. The emotional reactions from some folks may, however, serve as a sort of economic literacy test.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (12)

When I spend 500 smakolas a... (Below threshold)

When I spend 500 smakolas at the racino ,I will keep Barry in mind........... Maybe He will tip some 401k's?

Figure most proles are too ... (Below threshold)

Figure most proles are too dense to understand the basic lesson of "The Little Red Hen" or "The Ant and the Grasshopper." This stuff's really not tough.

The typical prole is also too dense to understand what happens when capital is reinvested. Shazam! More folks have to work producing the goods required for supplying those investments. Eh - still fails for the dumb donk proles' belief in equal outcomes.

These concepts are totally beyond your typical Congress Douche. These clowns are all in it for themselves and power - not improvement for proles (or any others). They're willing to throw the country over the cliff because it will NEVER affect them.

Good essay! Key line: "economic performance comes from the actions of wealth-producing entities, which are individuals and businesses, never the government"

DJ,Excellent artic... (Below threshold)


Excellent article. It will be interesting to see how any of the resident left-of-center readers will respond to this.

One minor disagreement with you:

Consequently, it never even possible for Obama's "Stimulus" to work as intended,
With respect, while the stimulus package was 'marketed' as a way to stimulate the economy and pull it out of a recession, it was 'intended' to pay off liberal special interests and raise the floor for future discretionary spending.

While it failed at it's 'marketed' aims (you are correct, it was never possible for it to succeed at it's marketed goals), it succeeded at it's 'intended' aims.

In addition to those car co... (Below threshold)

In addition to those car companies mentioned (how did you manage to overlook AMC?), you can also aid TWA and PanAm.

Wonder if those businesses would be considered TOO BIG TO FAIL today?

How socialist of you, Bryan... (Below threshold)
Burton Choinski:

How socialist of you, BryanD...you fit right in with the Obamatard crowd.

Guess what, you have the right to be a friggen miser if you want. I wish the left would stop with the stupid class warfare and work toward ways for everyone to have a chance to move up, instead of tearing down.

It wasn't the Republicans t... (Below threshold)

It wasn't the Republicans that set up the Federal Reserve, it was the progressives with the acquiescence of Woodrow Wilson and the Congress. There would be no Federal Reserve, if the Congress back then had the balls to say no to the Rockefeller cabal, but back then--as now, the progressives held sway over the nation's purse strings. Look at what a fine mess that lead to.

Burton,I have lear... (Below threshold)


I have learned to ignore bryanD. He is a "moon landing" denier and not a serious person.

BryanD said "Progressivism... (Below threshold)

BryanD said "Progressivism is a rubber word."
No, but liberals try to make the truth and many words "rubber." They customize them to suit their agenda.

If you think Madoff ripped ... (Below threshold)

If you think Madoff ripped off others, here's another example that has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars:

Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.

As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.

Read about it on my blog, I suggest you start here: http://tiny.cc/D5oJh and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.

After discussions with a la... (Below threshold)

After discussions with a large number of liberal friends and acquaintances, I've come to realize two things about the beliefs some of them have in regards to wealth: that wealth is a zero sum game, meaning that in order for someone to become rich they had to make someone else poor, and; the rich steal from the poor.

To address the first point, zero-sum wealth may have been the way a long time ago when wealth was defined as possessing gold, silver, precious gems, and other valuables.

Second, why would anyone waste their time stealing from the 'poor'? The poor don't have anything worth stealing. If one is going to steal, one steals from the rich.

bD is beginning to sound mo... (Below threshold)

bD is beginning to sound more and more LaRouchey. Believe me, I know, as my first wife was a refugee from the Labor Committee and it took a long time to deprogram her. And no, I am not offering my services to you, bD.

Studebaker is an interestin... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

Studebaker is an interesting case here. The company might have died out around 1940, however the massive war spending by the Roosevelt Administration's "Lend-Lease" program sent thousands of Studebaker trucks over to the Soviet Red Army during WWII, in which 2/3 of their trucks were American built. The Soviets had their own tanks, but needed lots of support trucks.

The war spending however allowed Studebaker to survive until the 1950's, however when they missed out on the huge 1954 Hudson-Nash merger(which at the time was the world's largest corporate merger, Studebaker was eventually bought out by Packard. The Studebaker cars survived until 1966.

Studebaker needed to make better advantage of the war spending which gave them a 20 year extra lease on life, but failed to do so.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy