> It is clear you cannot envision any scenario where the poor are given the
> same opportunities to require wealth as the rich.

> On Feb 10, 1:15 pm, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>> It is clear you cannot envision any scenario where the poor are given the
>> same opportunities to require wealth as the rich.

>
> That's your narrow minded interpretation, using "equal" opportunity to
> defuse the fact that the resources are limited. So we should allow the
> rich to marry unlimited number of women by promising better lives than
> the poor can offer, because "the poor are given the same opportunities
> to require wealth as the rich?" Why? You missed the key point
> completely -- it's not about equal opportunity, it's about limited
> supply.

> It has a lot mote to do what how you define wealth, and more specifically
> quality of life. You are limited your view of it to merely products
> available to obtain. There is a lot more to wealth in the broader
> definition used to define quality of life. For instance, ease of access to
> goods, quality of labor require to obtain such goods...etc, all of which is
> constantly and steadily improving.

> Yet here you are, defining a "time frame" that would suit your purpose. If
> your point is to suggest that you can find a timeframe in history, no matter
> how short, that wealth did not grow, then fine, but that is hardly evidence
> to support that wealth is limited. That would be like suggesting a car does
> not work because it had been parked for a while.

> On Feb 10, 3:28 pm, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>> It has a lot mote to do what how you define wealth, and more
>> specifically
>> quality of life. You are limited your view of it to merely products
>> available to obtain. There is a lot more to wealth in the broader
>> definition used to define quality of life. For instance, ease of access
>> to
>> goods, quality of labor require to obtain such goods...etc, all of which
>> is
>> constantly and steadily improving.

>
> This is an economic forum, and we are discussing economics here, not
> metaphysics or aesthetics. According to dictionary.com, the "wealth"
> in economic sense is "All things that have a monetary...

> tcq.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9d07f959-2ca9-4999-b155-5ef3c679de42@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>> On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>>> tcq.net> wrote in message

>

>>>news:a6131e7d-141a-4f46-ac5f-41893dd0239e@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>

>>>> On Feb 9, 7:16 am, Democracy Highlander yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> Marcello wrote:

>>>>>> I don't know how you can say there was no government intervention
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> government permits the Fed to print its money as well as set the
>>>>>> prime ...

> And yet your whole basis of reasoning that wealth is limited is because it
> has only grown at a certain rate. That says nothing about its ability to
> grow indefinitely, or lack thereof.

> "Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:13qu3t1oe401d40@corp.supernews.com...
>

>>Marcello wrote:
>>

>>>yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:91cf3e9a-03bb-477f-a86b-0f379fac5a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>

>>>>On Feb 9, 11:15 pm, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>> So when we discuss "government," we need to recognize what kind of
>>>>>>government we are talking about.

>>>>>
>>>>> The kind that looks after itself and then gets guys like you to
>>>>>blame others when it goes wrong. In other words the usual kind.

>>>>
>>>>It's the libertarians that got it wrong. If the libertarians have ...

> On Feb 10, 5:47 pm, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>> And yet your whole basis of reasoning that wealth is limited is because
>> it
>> has only grown at a certain rate. That says nothing about its ability to
>> grow indefinitely, or lack thereof.

>
> The growth of wealth from year one to year two is limited, thus the
> distribution of wealth in this period of time should also be
> regulated. The growth of wealth from era one to era two is also
> limited, thus the distribution of wealth in this period of time should
> also be regulated so that a few individuals cannot exhaust the overall
> wealth.
>
> Unless one argues with a time frame fallacy to say that because in an
> indefinite time frame wealth can grow indefinitely, thus in one's
> limited timespan (less than 100 years) one should also be entitled to
> "unlimited" amount of wealth. A time frame fallcy is probably the only
> way to justify the entitlement to "unlimited amount of wealth." ...

> Marcello wrote:

>> "Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:13qu3t1oe401d40@corp.supernews.com...
>>

>>>Marcello wrote:
>>>

>>>>yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:91cf3e9a-03bb-477f-a86b-0f379fac5a10@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>On Feb 9, 11:15 pm, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>> So when we discuss "government," we need to recognize what kind of
>>>>>>>government we are talking about.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> The kind that looks after itself and then gets guys like you to
>>>>>>blame others when it goes wrong. In other words the usual kind. ...

>
> no, what we have is a private sector that in almost all area's can
> create money out of thin air. general electric does it. the
> unregulated, outside of the government banking, and federal reserve
> banking regulations mortgage brokers did it, big time. the stock
> market does it, car loan companies do it. so our government allows any
> looney tune in the private sector can issue credit, which equals
> money.