you have hit it on the nail joe..wake up billllllllll.....merle Bill!, Merle,
I think that wealth has mostly to do with Inheritance, not production. This is the traditional passing down of wealth within families, as a windfall to each succeeding generation which obviates -- even discourages -- production. I don't think that the truly wealthy are productive in any sense, not even as consumers. ;-) Well, when they feel an urge toward philanthropy, and fund the building of libraries, research-trusts, and medical facilities, there is production, but only funded by them: they do not dirty their hands to do the actual work to build these productive places, and don't have skills. Now, from the point of view of INCOME, and not of WEALTH, I can say that, as an academic scientist, my salaries have always been extremely small, yet I consider my productivity to have been extremely high (I work in a society that features a Capitalist economic system). I also feel this way in my present role as a Yoga teacher, and beginning-meditation instructor and Dharma teacher. It's not measured by income, neither by me nor by society, my clientele. Bill!, the artists -- Painters -- who painted in France and lived impoverished lives during their times... many died paupers. Were they "productive"?: They had nothing to show for it in their times, if they were (and, how about Mozart?). Now, some of their paintings sell for a quarter BILLION dollars US: are they productive? In what sense, Bill!? --Joe PS Was Mother Theresa productive? She worked in Capitalist India. > "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > In a society with a capitalistic economic system isn't wealth the measure of > how productive each member is? If that's the case then aren't wealthy people > by definition more productive than poor people?
