: Only within a system of divivision of Labour, but yes, its vital, but not valorizing- anotehr way of looking at it is that women's work in the home (traditionally) was vital to teh production process, but was not valorizing.This strict "did you hand touch it?" view of valorizing does an injustice to that which makes the product and thus the opportunity to add labor possible.
: The incentive then is to hand down something to society as a whole.
The desire of parents to specifically cater for their particular offspring is not a casual social 'meme', the fact that people discriminate between their valuation of others and then seek to act upon those valuations is the dynamic here.
: No, a profitable firm is one that has found a lucrative market- not quite the same thing in terms of useful deployment of resources (arms firms for teh example par excellance). Profitability is dictated by effective demand, and thus follows wealth not social needs.
I think thats what I said, and to add ofcourse that what is "useful" is a subjective opinion.
: Exactly, no work involved, and thus no return is earned- and the skill is negligable often enough, you look for a firm thats making profits and looks steady or reliable. Certainly less skill than a welder.
But more value adding in terms of wealth creation. creation not re-juggling.
: : Someone who has been saving in a private pension and decides to retire and live of the returns, giving him/her the opportunity to pursue other interests.
: Only works for a tiny few, but most of that is earned wealth.
Incidently its not a tiny minority, observe the amount of personal and company pensions. The reason many are left underfunded is that they could not spare the income after shelling a third of it out in income tax, nearly 17.5% in vat and then some more on every item which receives special taxes. A lot of which was spent desperately trying to keep that ponzi scheme called state pensions alive.
: Runs somewhat counter to the entrepeurial spirit (some rich folks refuse, famously, I forget who) to give their children money- let them go off make their own way...
It does, but whatever I think of some of them personally I wouldnt seek to force them.
: Well, at the point at which he can stop working himself, and at the point where he is no longer investing to meet his own personal expenses (house, food, etc.)
These two situations could be independant, ie he could stop working but live on investments (luxury house, meals out)
: but investing to just make more money, and accumulate it.
For the welfare of *his* children whom he naturally values over other peoples children.
: No, but what it does show is that the myth of entrenepreuneurial capitalism is largely that, that modern capitalism was not built on quick wits and thrift and acunmen, but rather on sharking and brutality.
Modern capitalism was built upon what people did with the resources they had, ie new techs, new ways to poduce, greater abundance, creation of more capital - not the original ways in which a proportion of that static pre-capitalist capital was acquired.
