Your example of the realtor and the bank is not wealth creation, but money transfer.
Money transfer - assuming it isn't charity - is wealth creation, you are always getting something in return in exchange for that money. That something is increased wealth.
The only wealth created in this instance is the wealth you add to the pie when you use that loan to complete your house.
First, that $100K did not exist before I asked for it. It literally was created. Second, these aren't two unrelated events. I bought money after all.
if you piss that money away or burn it, all you have done is give money to someone else. The world is not richer as a result.
Actually, the bartender would be richer in this case. I bought money, that action alone increased my wealth the same way buying a car increases my wealth. I have something now that I didn't have before. What I do with that money is really irrelevant, in the same way that how fast I drive the car is irrelevant.
If I physically burned the money, sure. But the same is true if I physically burn my house down. Of course this too adds to the economy.
Again, conflating wealth to some sort of "good" is a near impossibility, since it devolves into opinions of value and worth.
My wealth is now decreased? Hello? I have a house that I didn't have before! It takes some strange reasoning to assume my wealth is decreased because I'm paying interest on a loan.
How about wealth of the overall economy? When a tornado happens, when a house burns down.. as mentioned, wealth is destroyed because resources are utilized that could've been used for other purposes - investment, new venture, etc.
You give the example of Christmas. Wealth is hardly ever created when you buy lots of stuff for Christmas - that's wealth distribution from your savings to Macys. Savings is still wealth. If nobody spent anything for Christmas, wealth would not decrease - because our money would remain in our savings accounts.
Technology is a good example of wealth creation. With the invention of the internet, we save time on many things like shopping, buying plane tickets, etc. Time that could be used on other things in our lives.
The definition of wealth that you are using is not the same as the one recognized by most economists.
As such, some of the things you are saying are absurd in that context, and it really makes it difficult to keep the conversation in scope. I can certainly tell you that if everyone stayed home this Christmas, the economy would come close to collapsing.
I don't take issue with what you're saying, but you have moved beyond this being a discussion regrading economics, I'm afraid.
Ok, now this is getting interesting. You raise some interesting points that make me question the deeper meaning of what wealth really is. Perhaps we simply disagree about the definition of wealth. From Wikipedia:
the meaning of wealth is context-dependent and there is no universally agreed upon definition. At the most general level, economists may define wealth as "anything of value" which captures both the subjective nature of the idea and the idea that it is not a fixed or static concept.
So it seems a lot of the discussion in this thread revolves around semantics, mainly about what defines wealth.
So what exactly is your definition of wealth? I don't understand the logical basic behind your arguments.
For example: Actually, the bartender would be richer in this case. I bought money, that action alone increased my wealth the same way buying a car increases my wealth. I have something now that I didn't have before. What I do with that money is really irrelevant, in the same way that how fast I drive the car is irrelevant.
You exchanged your money for a car. You could now be wealthier in the sense that the car brings you happiness or functionality that you didn't have before, enabling you to be more productive. But what if you already owned a car and were simply indulging yourself? What if this was your 5th car that you didn't need? So you could keep on buying cars forever, and you'd be continually increasing your wealth?
I don't understand why buying the car automatically makes you wealthier. If you give a hobo $10,000 to buy an hour of him walking in circles, you've increased your wealth of entertainment perhaps, but it is a stretch by any definition of wealth to say you've created it.
If I physically burned the money, sure. But the same is true if I physically burn my house down. Of course this too adds to the economy."
Assuming your house was functioning and adequate then the economy is poorer without your house. That is wealth destruction not creation. For now you have to pay for a new house. Someone has to use the materials and labor to build that house. You pay him your money to do so. Now you have less. Wealth was not created here. It was shifted around from your pocket to the construction company's.
Money transfer - assuming it isn't charity - is wealth creation, you are always getting something in return in exchange for that money. That something is increased wealth.
The only wealth created in this instance is the wealth you add to the pie when you use that loan to complete your house.
First, that $100K did not exist before I asked for it. It literally was created. Second, these aren't two unrelated events. I bought money after all.
if you piss that money away or burn it, all you have done is give money to someone else. The world is not richer as a result.
Actually, the bartender would be richer in this case. I bought money, that action alone increased my wealth the same way buying a car increases my wealth. I have something now that I didn't have before. What I do with that money is really irrelevant, in the same way that how fast I drive the car is irrelevant.
If I physically burned the money, sure. But the same is true if I physically burn my house down. Of course this too adds to the economy.
Again, conflating wealth to some sort of "good" is a near impossibility, since it devolves into opinions of value and worth.
My wealth is now decreased? Hello? I have a house that I didn't have before! It takes some strange reasoning to assume my wealth is decreased because I'm paying interest on a loan.