Funny, I thought this was supposed to be a science forum, requiring a certain amount of fact to back up assertions.
You thought correctly, bonsaikc.
However, except when the content is very illegal or offensive (hate speech, uncouth language, etc), appear to violate copyrights, or are spam, posts at hypography aren’t deleted or edited by our moderations. Generally, the worst that can happen in the case of posts like Mike C’s is the posts being moved to the strange claims forum (which was done with the posts), the poster receiving negative reputation from other members (which the red boxes beside his name indicate has happened quite a lot), the poster receive infractions from moderators (of which a visit to Mike’s public profile will show he’s received many), and, if none of these correct the behavior, temporary and ultimate permanent suspensions of the poster’s posting privileges (Mike’s had some of the former, but not risen to the level of requiring the latter).
Here's your greatest fallacy. While the workers assemble the widgets to the doohickies, or lay the brick, or pour the concrete, or weld the steel, do you really believe they are creating the wealth?
Suppose I wish to replace my gravel driveway with a concrete one. It's a fairly simple job but sizable, with about 75 feet of straightaway and a large circular portion. So I hire a contractor to pour my driveway. The result of this is an increase in my wealth, even though I have paid the contractor. Why? Because the value of my home has increased.
So I ask you, who created that wealth? I maintain it was be, because without my decision to build, it would never have been built. ..
A classical interpretation of Capitalism would agree with you somewhat, I think, but also credit the owner of the capital goods – the quarry, trap rock, cement factory, truck that delivered the concrete, forms for poring it, etc. - needed for the work. If your property is mortgaged, the lender could be credited with providing you some of your means of production, so also part of the created wealth.
Where I think classical capitalism and the common perception of many people diverge, is in the scenario above with the role of the property owner is replaced by a property manager, and the property owner, and an absentee landlord who had little or no role in the design, labor, or decision to do the work, yet owns a large share of the means of doing it – the property itself. In that case, only the landlord and the owners of the capital goods required for the work are credited with wealth creation, while many people would perceive the wealth-creating role of the person recast as the property manager to remain the same.
Bonsaikc also rather glosses over the role of skilled labor in the work, noting that helpers and laborers require little training, but barely mentioning the role of the finisher, and not mentioning at all that of the supervisor/foreman. These player’s actions can have a significant impact on the quality, and hence the value, of the work. If a person’s actions can subtract
value from a made thing, it’s difficult for me to accept reasoning that concluded that their actions cannot also be said to add
value, or wealth.