Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1129308, member: 26302&quot;]Ok Fatima, make it simple. I have water, normally a valueless entity but lets say I bought a bottle of Aquafina for $1. I drive to a desert on my way somewhere. The cost of transporting it is minimal, if not zero. I find someone stranded without water, and being a good capitalist I charge him $100 for my bottle of water. Did the value of creating that water go up? Did Pepsico make more valuable water? No, it is the time and place utility that I provided that added $99 of value to that consumer. This is simplistic but gets the point across.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is so overlooked. People think a country with natural resources would be rich. They aren&#039;t, the real money is made, and always has been, by those who provide the time and place utility to that natural resource. A salt mine in the middle of Iran does not have much value. Traders come, though, and buy salt. They transport it to where there is no salt and sell for a high price. Yes they have some costs, but not nearly as much as the markup. They get MUCH richer, and always have, from that salt mine than the Iranians do. I am using this example since it is real history. The Sogdians who bought the salt made 100 times more profit, and added more value, than those who mined the salt. The &quot;expression&quot; of wealth, as you call it, was real wealth, gold coin. </p><p><br /></p><p>Don&#039;t know how else to explain it, real wealth is created more in time and place utility to the end consumer than mining, growing, or producing a product. Always has been, why have farmers historically not been as rich as merchants?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in