Ultimately real wealth is all about enhancing the well-being of individuals in society by way of an exchange of assets.

All we have done is become more elaborate and sophisticated in this stuff but at the core, its been the same throughout much of time.

Wow, that's a massive blind spot you've got there.

The value comes from doing the thing. Fixing the tractor creates value. Growing and harvesting the potatoes creates value.

Trading the potatoes for something you value more, yes, also creates additional value. But notice that potatoes have value to you even if you don't trade them for anything.

If you choke on a grape and a helpful volunteer saves your life, they create value. Nothing was exchanged, but they sure as hell generated wealth right there.

Labour and voluntary trade both create value. I wonder what sort of mindset one must have to forget that labour exists.

> The value comes from doing the thing. Fixing the tractor creates value. Growing and harvesting the potatoes creates value.

The value from value doesn't come by default; it's not a given.

Neither of those things create value unless they are actually used.

Fixing a tractor you neither use nor trade does not create value.

Growing potatoes you will never eat does not create value.

So, sure, labour can create value, but it's not a guarantee. Trade, OTOH, always creates value.

Also wrong. You can always destroy value by making a mistake. Trading and then realizing you made a mistake, just like investing labour and then realizing you made a mistake, does not create value. Trading is not special in this regard.

Value can be created either way: through labour or trade.

Regardless, your statement that all wealth is created by trade is false.

There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. They see commerce as a zero-sum game.

> There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option.

It's not a deficit if the value they assign to what they get is higher than the value they assign to what they give.

If they are giving away something they value highly for something they value less highly, then it's not a voluntary trade, now is it?

Yes, but people don't always make voluntary trades. Like staying in a job they hate, because they believe they will find it difficult/impossible to find a better option.

> Yes, but people don't always make voluntary trades. Like staying in a job they hate, because they believe they will find it difficult/impossible to find a better option.

That's still a value assignment: they value eating and paying rent more highly than job satisfaction.

If they work themselves to death, do they still receive more value than they give?