George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
George_Washington said:Adam Smith had some good ideas, yes. He said that the true measure of a nation's wealth is the number of goods and services it can produce. He advocated machinery, the division of labor, and producing low, selling high. He rebelled against the old mercantilist system. He also said that a product's true value is the amount of labor that went into it.
But what if this is false. What if the true measure of a nation's wealth isn't how MUCH goods and services they can produce but the QUALITY of goods and services they produce. And then let's say that the true value of a product isn't how much labor went into it but THE USAGE OF NATURAL MATERIALS. It seems to me that most products are expensive because they use resources that are often times nonrenewable. For example, why are diamonds so expensive? Well, because the Debeers family owns a monopoly on it but also because they are rare and nonrenewable within a human time frame. It seems like pretty much every product is expensive because it uses something natural in it. For example, why are a pair of Gucci athletic shoes more expensive than a pair of Nike athletic shoes? Gucci is imported, so you're going to have to pay import costs. BUT, I think it's how they are made. Gucci shoes use leather and other natural materials, whereas Nike uses plastic and man made materials.
So is it better for a nation to produce one high quality pair of shoes than 10 cheaper ones?
This is just a theory of mine. Discuss.
George_Washington said:For example, why are diamonds so expensive? Well, because the Debeers family owns a monopoly on it but also because they are rare and nonrenewable within a human time frame.
George_Washington said:It seems like pretty much every product is expensive because it uses something natural in it. For example, why are a pair of Gucci athletic shoes more expensive than a pair of Nike athletic shoes? Gucci is imported, so you're going to have to pay import costs. BUT, I think it's how they are made. Gucci shoes use leather and other natural materials, whereas Nike uses plastic and man made materials.
George_Washington said:So is it better for a nation to produce one high quality pair of shoes than 10 cheaper ones?
George_Washington said:Adam Smith had some good ideas, yes. He said that the true measure of a nation's wealth is the number of goods and services it can produce. He advocated machinery, the division of labor, and producing low, selling high. He rebelled against the old mercantilist system. He also said that a product's true value is the amount of labor that went into it.
But what if this is false. What if the true measure of a nation's wealth isn't how MUCH goods and services they can produce but the QUALITY of goods and services they produce. And then let's say that the true value of a product isn't how much labor went into it but THE USAGE OF NATURAL MATERIALS. It seems to me that most products are expensive because they use resources that are often times nonrenewable. For example, why are diamonds so expensive? Well, because the Debeers family owns a monopoly on it but also because they are rare and nonrenewable within a human time frame. It seems like pretty much every product is expensive because it uses something natural in it. For example, why are a pair of Gucci athletic shoes more expensive than a pair of Nike athletic shoes? Gucci is imported, so you're going to have to pay import costs. BUT, I think it's how they are made. Gucci shoes use leather and other natural materials, whereas Nike uses plastic and man made materials.
So is it better for a nation to produce one high quality pair of shoes than 10 cheaper ones?
This is just a theory of mine. Discuss.
George_Washington said:Adam Smith had some good ideas, yes. He said that the true measure of a nation's wealth is the number of goods and services it can produce. He advocated machinery, the division of labor, and producing low, selling high. He rebelled against the old mercantilist system. He also said that a product's true value is the amount of labor that went into it.
But what if this is false. What if the true measure of a nation's wealth isn't how MUCH goods and services they can produce but the QUALITY of goods and services they produce. And then let's say that the true value of a product isn't how much labor went into it but THE USAGE OF NATURAL MATERIALS. It seems to me that most products are expensive because they use resources that are often times nonrenewable. For example, why are diamonds so expensive? Well, because the Debeers family owns a monopoly on it but also because they are rare and nonrenewable within a human time frame. It seems like pretty much every product is expensive because it uses something natural in it. For example, why are a pair of Gucci athletic shoes more expensive than a pair of Nike athletic shoes? Gucci is imported, so you're going to have to pay import costs. BUT, I think it's how they are made. Gucci shoes use leather and other natural materials, whereas Nike uses plastic and man made materials.
So is it better for a nation to produce one high quality pair of shoes than 10 cheaper ones?
This is just a theory of mine. Discuss.
MiamiFlorida said:I think most of us have a very superficial view of what "national wealth" really is. Back in the 80's I found it very amusing that some people were saying Japan was "wealthier" than us. Today some Europeans would have us believe that the EU as a whole is "wealthier" than the US.
How do you calculate how much 9,600,000 square kilometers are worth? Or 2 million square kilometers producing one fifth of the food consumed around the planet?
What value do you place on a bridge,a port, a highway, a tunnel, a university? How about a forest?
We have 19,000 km of coastline. Given the 200-mile coastal territorial rights....how many million square kilometers is that?
Does Europe have a territory the size of Alaska which is basically wilderness? Do they have our natural resources?
How can we talk about our National Debt without talking about our National Worth? What percentage of our National Worth would you say our trillion-plus debt represents? 1%? half of that? one tenth of that? one thousandth of that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?