> . . . in the real world, wealth I create in no way decreases your 
> wealth, whether I'm turning my yarn into a sweater, turning my dirt and 
> my seeds into food, learning how to remove a brain tumor, writing a 
> book, etc.

This is only true if the inputs to wealth generation processes are 
infinite. If the precursors to wealth generation are scarce, then the 
action of creating wealth can prevent someone else from maintaining their 
current wealth level. Consider my corn example. There are multiple wealth 
generation processes that require corn as input: livestock production, 
ethanol generation, the creation of corn-based foodstuffs for humans, etc. 
Given a finite supply of corn, the redistribution of corn inputs to the 
ethanol sector (which leads to a subsequent boom in ethanol wealth) 
directly retards the expansion of the livestock and foodstuff sectors, and 
makes it more difficult for these sectors to maintain their current profit 
levels. This hurts their prospects for wealth generation.

Wealth generation might convert low valued inputs into high valued 
outputs, but this does not mean that the inputs are limitless. Wealth 
creation is often dependent on valuable resources that are highly 
contested. Thus, the generation of a unit of wealth often implies a winner 
and a loser in a battle over raw input. A new unit of wealth may 
eventually produce dividends for everyone, but that is not what we're 
debating. We're debating whether your wealth generation can negatively 
impact my wealth generation, and the answer is yes.


~j