> And where did Musk's money come from?
No body (?) is contending that in a free market wealth is not created.
The contention is that when wealth is created it tends to head to other wealth.
When a bank lends capital and has a choice of lending to, say, Elon Musk or me, I think the bank will make that rational choice and lend to Elon. Thus once you have some wealth attracting more wealth is less difficult than from before you had wealth
This pattern is repeated over a d over.
See Captain Grimes' boot theory of economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Lending money is not transferring wealth, nor is it creating wealth. It nets out to zero.
This is clear when one does accounting. Accounting is based on the idea that (Equity = Assets - Liabilities). When one takes out a loan, the assets go up by the amount of the loan, and the liabilities also go up by the amount of the loan. The Equity stays the same. That this balances out is literally called "balancing the books".
BTW, banks are happy to lend out money to people that have a track record of paying it back. This includes poor people. Poor people have credit cards, too, which is how they borrow money.
This part is true, and the folks who equate new borrowings with income are liable to do some real damage if anybody ever listens to them.
Totally and utterly wrong, a complete misunderstanding of capitalism
Let me explain.
Access to capital is key. If you have it you can do business, if you do not you cannot, in general terms
There is more than one way to access capital, debt is very common.
And to get rich you have to do business
So if you are already rich getting more money, in a free market, is easier than getting started, in a free market
That is the point, and one small example,e. This pattern repeates o er and over. Once you have money getting more money is much easier than getting the first money
So in free markets the wealth divides tend to increase.
This is very elementary, stage II economics
I don't know who you're writing this to. You're not addressing any point I brought up.
> the folks who equate new borrowings with income
Ah, the boots theory.
A Ferrari costs far, far more to maintain than a Ford, and doesn't last as long. I drove my used Ford Bronco II for 32 years before giving it to a scrap yard. Best bang for the buck car ever.
Expensive shirts wear out just as fast as cheap shirts. They just look nicer (and are often less comfortable).
P.S. I still regularly wear the combat boots my dad bought me 50 years ago. The boot black on them has long since disappeared, but they still keep my feet dry and warm.
The "Boots theory" of economics is garbage, just utter nonsense. I don't understand why people keep mentioning it here without applying any critical thinking. It simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of actual consumer products. Some of most durable, longest-lasting footwear I ever bought was also among the cheapest. By contrast the expensive stuff tends to be fussy, fragile, and impossible to repair. This generally applies to apparel, electronics, automobiles, appliances, bicycles, firearms, etc.
Where do you buy shoes?
That is the exact opposite of my (and Cpt. Vines) experience