we first have to make clear bill!!!!!!! our understanding of productivity...to you is a poet productive?..merle
Merle, How then would you think it would be best to measure 'productivity'? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > Â you have hit it on the nail joe..wake up billllllllll.....merle > Â > 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? >
