Wealth is not a resource. It’s a result.

Article V - Convention of States

“If government doesn’t redistribute wealth, the ‘rich’ will get it all!”

The “limited resource” concept of wealth, with its “fair-share” implications for policy, is the foundation of the argument for Collectivism and the unreasonable fear of “income inequality.” This argument is infused with the rocket-fuel mix of class envy and economic anxiety so it drives policies which can destroy economic mobility and undermine American competitiveness.

Debunking it and replacing it with truth about economic liberty is among the most powerful ways we can undermine the Collectivist agenda.

Let’s start with more accurate definitions:

  • MONEY:   a representation and store of produced value
  • WEALTH:   an accumulation of produced value
  • POVERTY:   and insufficiency of produced value

Economic terms are properly defined around a central, observable fact: In a modern economy, wealth is produced. It’s not a finite resource, like water oil or land.

It’s not a resource at all. Wealth is a result of economic activity.

New wealth is constantly generated as people produce products and serves that others need, want and value. Capitalism is based on consent:

Others must want and value what a person creates or provides if that product or service is to be monetized at all.

Collectivist economies are based on force.

Since wealth is the result of economic activity, it’s no more reasonable to worry about “greedy rich people getting it all” than it is to worry that my use of words on this page diminishes the word-supply! Yet this throwback to the primitive age of conquest continues to plague policy discussions of today.

Many have been taught that there is a pre-existent and finite amount of “wealth” in the world for which the whole of mankind is obliged to compete. This “economic pie” apparently fell from the ether, because those who promulgate this distorted idea rarely offer coherent account for wealth’s origination.

A distortion of this magnitude – especially when promulgated by those with a Socialist agenda for America – is not just a harmless mistake because the erroneous conclusion drawn from it poses a very real danger to human liberty.

If wealth is a finite resource, it falls to Government, (ever-benevolent and infallibly just in the narrative of those pushing this agenda), to effect an equitable distribution of the nation’s wealth.

Government then becomes the final arbiter of “fairness” in all economic matters; deciding the value of various forms of labor, the price of goods and services and whether or not a given person has accumulated his “fair share.” This may sound extreme but it is where the “finite resource” idea of wealth leads. In fact, once we cede to government the right to appropriate and re-distribute our earnings “so everyone gets a fair share,” it cannot do otherwise.

Let’s arrest the degenerative course we’re on and put the Federal Government back in it’s Constitutionally assigned role!

Among the most consequential of actions citizens can take toward that goal is to support the fast-growing movement to convene the states under Article V of the US Constitution in order to propose restorative and reformative amendments which will constrain our Federal Gov’t.

If you’d like to learn more, please see ConventionOfStates.com

Conservative News

1 Comment
  1. True, too many seem to think of the economy as a zero sum game. As I write in my book, “Freedom or Serfdom?”

    “Statists often claim that the only way to help the disadvantaged is to take from the rich. They imply that economics is a zero-sum game; in other words they believe that there is a fixed amount of economic resources available, and that the only question is how do divide it up (“distribution” is the word they use). In their mind, whenever one person gets more, someone else must have less. That is clearly untrue. Every useful invention, every successful production endeavor, every increase in organizational efficiency, produces resources previously unavailable. That allows improvement in the economic situation of some people, maybe even everybody, without taking anything from anyone else. The “poor” child with only one snowball can create more, just as the entrepreneur can create more economic resources.

    “On the other hand, every restriction or tax on production reduces the resources available to everyone. It is possible to create new resources, but also to destroy or reduce available resources. For example, the tax on medical devices imposed to support “Obamacare” takes resources away from medical device makers. Those companies now have less money to use for research and development. They also have less incentive to invent, since government will take a chunk of any return on that investment. Those devices, which now may never be invented, would improve quality of life for people who need them.

    “Gambling is a zero-sum game. It only changes resource ownership from one person to another. However industry and labor are not zero-sum; they create or destroy resources. In fact creation of resources allowed the United States and other advanced countries to improve the lot of essentially all their citizens.”

    In the appendix to that book I also propose seven new amendments that would help reduce the federal government to its proper functions. Some of those amendments would have to be proposed by a constitutional convention since they do things Congress would never propose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana