PDA

View Full Version : Which sections of industry/government contribute the most to the economy?


JonIrenicus
05-13-2010, 03:42 PM
I have no idea, but maybe someone else does.



I am just curious about the relative productive value of certain players.


Retail chains?

banks?

Financial institutions

universities

hospitals/healthcare in general?

construction?

Transportation?


Where do most of the jobs come from?

Which area is better at generating new wealth?


For example, the advent of the assembly line and the car industry was an entirely NEW section of wealth for the economy at one time. A source of value that did not exist before. It led to never before seen jobs, and sales.


The wealth generated there was based off the trade of funds for better transportation. A net plus. What is the net plus of say, certain market trades? Is it the same, higher? Lower? Negative?

It just seems that certain ways of making money are more.. vampiric as opposed to generating new wealth and value. It's like the income of lawyers, it sucks wealth from the society, necessary for proper function of the society to preserve laws and fair play, but still a sort of tax and maintenance cost. The wealth of the lawyering profession is entropic in nature.

The wealth generated from the car industry seemed the opposite of entropic, you seemed to get more from the endeavor.

Does none of this make sense?

kezboard
05-13-2010, 09:28 PM
It's like the income of lawyers, it sucks wealth from the society, necessary for proper function of the society to preserve laws and fair play, but still a sort of tax and maintenance cost. The wealth of the lawyering profession is entropic in nature.

Uhh, but without the rule of law, who would be able to accumulate wealth? It's corruption and weak legal institutions that keep so many countries from getting their economies off the ground in the first place. This is why your question can't be answered. It's an interesting thing to think about, but it ultimately boils down to what sector of the economy you value more.

Whatfur
05-14-2010, 08:54 PM
Others are looking at the same thing. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/you_cut.html)

wreaver
05-14-2010, 11:51 PM
Uhh, but without the rule of law, who would be able to accumulate wealth? It's corruption and weak legal institutions that keep so many countries from getting their economies off the ground in the first place. This is why your question can't be answered. It's an interesting thing to think about, but it ultimately boils down to what sector of the economy you value more.

@kezboard is correct in that value is subjective. I.e., there is no objective measure of value. Only what value each person (subjectively) has for each thing.

However, the "rule of law" is not necessary for the accumulation of wealth.

kezboard
05-15-2010, 12:23 PM
However, the "rule of law" is not necessary for the accumulation of wealth.

OK, but it's necessary to keep you from getting it all stolen, or having to spend it all paying off the mafia.

wreaver
05-15-2010, 01:59 PM
However, the "rule of law" is not necessary for the accumulation of wealth. OK, but it's necessary to keep you from getting it all stolen, or having to spend it all paying off the mafia.

No, the "rule of law" is not necessary to "to keep you from getting it all stolen".

Something that is necessary always must be so. Since there are situations where the "rule of law" is absent and one could have their property not stolen, we see that it is not necessary.

Perhaps if you said "probably sufficient" instead of "necessary" your claim would be more likely to be true. (Although, one would have to ignore taxation to even accept even a "probably sufficient" claim, since on a level of the actions, taxation is theft. It's only when one accepts a moral authority that they might consider taxation not to be theft.)

(Note that by "rule of law" I am assuming you mean: a state.)

kezboard
05-16-2010, 11:33 PM
Something that is necessary always must be so. Since there are situations where the "rule of law" is absent and one could have their property not stolen, we see that it is not necessary.

The point is this: go to, I don't know, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or some other place with incredibly weak state and legal institutions, and see how easy it is to accumulate wealth.

(Note that by "rule of law" I am assuming you mean: a state.)

No I don't, although I think a democratic state is probably the best way to operate some sort of system of laws in modern society.

wreaver
05-17-2010, 01:10 AM
Something that is necessary always must be so. Since there are situations where the "rule of law" is absent and one could have their property not stolen, we see that it is not necessary. The point is this: go to, I don't know, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or some other place with incredibly weak state and legal institutions, and see how easy it is to accumulate wealth.

One example is not sufficient to prove your argument. You claimed it as a necessary condition. Thus you need to prove that if there is no "rule of law" then you always get your property stolen.

(Just to bring extra attention to it. The important thing to focus on here is what a "necessary condition" is. And what one must do to prove a necessary condition.)

kezboard
05-17-2010, 11:09 AM
One example is not sufficient to prove your argument. You claimed it as a necessary condition. Thus you need to prove that if there is no "rule of law" then you always get your property stolen.

Fine, I guess it's possible that you could bribe enough people, hire enough guards, etc., to keep some of your wealth. Without some sort of legal structure, though, it's quite hard for a country to create a stable economy, by which I mean one that at least provides most of its citizens with some opportunity to make money.