>>. . . 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.

It seems to me that the very notion of getting a "market share" is based 
precisely on creating wealth with the prupose of taking it away from someone 
else. It's also interesting in the context of this debate and what you, 
Danny, consider the fallacious "pie" of the Daddy model, that one uses 
precisely a pie chart when companies analyze how to create more wealth. How 
does that add up with wealth creation not infringing upon others?
Trixie


>From: James W Mickens	
>To: Daniel Reeves  
>CC: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu
>Subject: Re: mind the gap
>Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>. . . 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

_________________________________________________________________
A place for moms to take a break! 
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us