Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to Wrong.

"Source" v. "transfer"
Bowser — (archived)

I have to agree with you regarding unimproved real estate, and the same arguments apply to stocks, bonds, etc. I think wealth needs to be defined. I'm meaning an intrinsic value, a worth in and of itself.

For instance, an iron in the ground is worthless, except in potential. A gun barrel has a value.

For the moment, though, I'll stay with labor as the "source". Once wealth is created, then there are various methods to transfer that wealth.

I'm thinking that if wealth were "created" by the appreciation of real estate the Japanese economy would be booming. And it's not. The Tokyo real estate market was a sort of circle-jerk, with a life of its' own, not related to true wealth or value. Almost a Ponzi scheme. That sort of value can go up and down too easily to be real "wealth".

Real estate, it seems to me, like money, is a vehicle for the transfer wealth, not wealth itself. If it were, there would be a stable, minimum value.

A government can print money, for instance. That is not "creating" wealth, but the illusion of wealth, as money should be simply the measure of real wealth. Money is not, at its' core, wealth any more than real estate is.

Fine points, and honorable people, far brighter than I, have different thoughts on it.

Arf

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (35 posts)