Decline And Fall Of The American Empire

While that is correct it is also irrelevant to this discussion.So the GDP is created by the workers, the bankers, the investors the overseas buyers...What about the parents and grandparents that stay home and watch kids?What about the teachers?How about the kids still in school learning how to be productive adults?What about the folk that served in our military but are now out and suffering from physical or mental wounds?How about the illegal migrants that come to plant and harvest the food that is produced? Do those people also contribute to the creation of the Gross Domestic Product?

I would think that in some way they do. But how could it be measured?

So if they all contribute to creating the GDP, would it be reasonable to assume they deserve some share of the GDP?For example, would it be reasonable to assume they have an equal right to use the domestic infrastructure, the roads, bridges, sidewalks, public transportation, broadcast radio & TV?

Of course. Dont people have this right?

So since you agree that they contributed to creating the Gross Domestic Product and that they deserve the right to share in what was produced by the Gross Domestic Product would it not also be reasonable to say that as a Nation we have a duty to see that they also share in some basic rights such as access to shelter, access to Health Care, access to education, access to support after they can no longer contribute to creating the GDP due to age, accident or sickness?

Who said it had to be labor on the part of the seller? The "value" is set by whatever the buyer is willing to pay and his money is generated by labor. Your example is invalid. Try another one.

The Attorney is part of society, along with the legislators and the judicial system.

That's the point. There is "value" that can not be measured directly in dollars and cents. The standard economic indicators don't include the indirect contributions.

My example is just fine for the purpose of showing that labor is not the source of all income and that other components make up GDP. Many transactions involve no labor at all.As for other examples, I've already given several. How about all income from interest as yet another. All income from any capital investment. And given that capital gains is a part of GDP, we don't have to wait until things are cashed out.Your theory is just as bankrupt as the one Phat originally stated. But at least he has the sense to figure out better.

Nope. The seller's income comes from the buyer, who gets it from labor. Where does the money for the interest come from?

The subject of money is appropriate for this thread since the science/fact/reality behind it is itself a fascinating yet disturbing sub-topic.In my opinion, the Fall Of The American Empire will be punctuated by a major economic event. I can only hope that we are still able to stay on our computers and talk with one another when this event ultimately happens.

1) Not necessarily. Buyers need not be laborers.2) The point is that the seller gets his money without his own labor. As does the trust fund baby, as does a person who sells stock in a company, as does a person who draws interest on money in a bank.

That depends on what you call a "major economic event". There have been several booms and busts in my lifetime that the pundits refer to as major revents - but none of them had any effect on me. I seem to be swimming upstream, doing well when the economy is bad and worse when the economy is better. It seems to me that it's all relative.

Even if they're not directly labourers, the money originates in labor. Jesse James didn't rob working people directly but he robbed the banks that stole the money from working people. That's not much of a point.

a major economic event is when a majority of the people are directly affected. Not just in having less disposable income but in having no income.