what do you expect for free?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i'm getting rather bored with the personal put downs. tongue in cheek is fine but patronising nastiness is rather unnecessary.

I'm sorry for my comment ninky, twas unnecessary, though directed to wards both equally.

TBH I have wondered at times if you reply in exactly the same way as Bendix does..but more subtly?

(edit, now realise even that could be insulting. sheesh.)

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm sorry for my comment ninky, twas unnecessary, though directed to wards both equally.

TBH I have wondered at times if you reply in exactly the same way as Bendix does..but more subtly?

i am confrontational and probably can be a bit cutting but i don't think i ever resort to personal insults if that is what you mean by subtle.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

the examples you give are no more simply moving money around than the private sector.

taxes are frequently used to generate wealth. if they weren't collected they wouldn't be available to do that. even the taxes used to pay for the military could be said to generate wealth even if it is in ways we might not agree with.

dss generates wealth. for example housing benefit paid to private landlords allows them to accrue equity and grow their business.

if the treasury isn't central to the creation of wealth then i'm not sure what it is doing.....

None of them create wealth. You asked for departments that create wealth and none of these do.

You can attempt to fudge this but they move money around without creating. Some bits of the private sector do the same but that has nothing to do with anything. You asked a question and I showed you 3 departments that don't produce wealth.

How does the Treasury create wealth as your prime example? Not how is it central to creating wealth but how does it actually create wealth?

The military generates some wealth (although not much) as it generates output. The same can be said for state education, Department of Transport and many other departments. Whether they do so efficiently is a moot point but they create wealth as they create output which even better can be used to generate further output. Whether they do so on a net basis or only gross is also moot but wealth is generated.

Shifting money from here to there (my examples) are not wealth generating. They are just moving money around. If I transfer money from my checking account to my savings account I don't generate wealth despite it being a private sector transaction.

ninky_2

lir - why would someone of my thinking come onto this board other than to have their viewpoint challenged? what gets rather frustrating is when people turn attention away from attacking a viewpoint and instead attack the person with the viewpoint.

there is plenty of nonsense that gets posted on here that just gets ignored so if people think i am just posting nonsense (as has been suggested) then just ignore it - don't engage.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Shifting money from here to there (my examples) are not wealth generating. They are just moving money around. If I transfer money from my checking account to my savings account I don't generate wealth despite it being a private sector transaction.

but they are not just mindlessly just shifting money around. they are shifting it with consideration in order to create wealth. as such this uses human ingenuity / time / labour etc to produce surplus value = wealth. hmrc / dss / treasury are all key players in wealth creation.

even moving money from one account to another could be a form of wealth generation. as can taking out debt.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

but they are not just mindlessly just shifting money around. they are shifting it with consideration in order to create wealth. as such this uses human ingenuity / time / labour etc to produce surplus value = wealth. hmrc / dss / treasury are all key players in wealth creation.

even moving money from one account to another could be a form of wealth generation. as can taking out debt.

What you do with the money can be wealth creating but the act of transferring money in itself isn't wealth creating.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

i am confrontational and probably can be a bit cutting but i don't think i ever resort to personal insults if that is what you mean by subtle.

Which part of my comment about you being intelligent and engaging do you find most insulting, you poor precious luvvy?

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

What you do with the money can be wealth creating but the act of transferring money in itself isn't wealth creating.

but surely in order to do the thing with the money it has to be transferred into the right place? so that is part of the wealth creating process - no?

can you give me an example of something that is wealth creating.

oneeye1

spadoosh wrote: »

appologies ninky thats not a slur on you or the thread, like it. Just don't like extremist views and charging for the police is pretty extreme as is suggesting everyone has to contribute to get anything out.

football clubs and many others pay for the police i think it would be a great idea to have a police officer patrolling if you wanted him to at your expense.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

can you give me an example of something that is wealth creating.

Plenty. Building a house would be an example, so would planting a tree. Both create wealth as they allow for greater output/consumption in future.

Financing those things is a necessary precondition of creating the wealth (in the West at least) but isn't a part of creating the wealth IYSWIM.