The person creating the content (intangible product) is the one creating wealth.
For some time I haven't seen anything 'hotter' than content creation. Now it does need to avail itself of the huge, inexpensive distribution channels like internet or cable/satellite TV. It's big because we value it. People can debates the merits or philosophy of that, but it what it is.
I'm not debating that it has no value. Rather, that it does not itself create net wealth. Some supporting technologies can make some, but not much.
The wealth that the content creator gains is mostly wealth others had gained from other ventures, not unlike wealth from financial services. Even tangible goods fall into that situation, like house construction (a redistribution/spending of wealth from other sources, not creation of wealth itself).
When any meaningful amount of that entertainment wealth goes into the pockets the average American, rather than coming out of it, it might matter.
The real problem with it all is that, fundamentally, value is based on labor, and we must create more value to people in nations of lesser industrial and technical ability, than they can create for themselves, and do so over some significant period of time, if we want to get out of the mire we are in by means that don't completely tear our economy apart. We have the means to develop, create, and manage better (for now). We don't have the means to provide services better (on a large enough scale), since they will be limited by cultural divides, language divides, laws, and simple physical distance.
Being primarily concerned with the plight of my own country, of course, I have no problem with the entertainment industry selling abroad, and bringing those profits back here. But, when they do, those profits need to go into the hands of those doing work to create the works, not merely the erroneously-named "creators," that are typically lenders more than they are creators. If profits are not sufficiently shared with workers, they aught to be re-invested into new works (and yes, I will admit that some entertainment companies do this; no generalization is without its exceptions).
Pretty well our national problem (debt).
BTW: From what I've seen we could take all the wealth the top and distribute of give it to the US govt and it wouldn't make a dent.
There isn't one single easy solution. We need to increase taxes, implement tariffs, spend less, and invest in wealth-creating and wealth-maintaining infrastructure. Even then, it will take 5-10 years just to make dents, and it will not lead us into an age of prosperity. We don't have a choice of not being screwed over. It's too late for that. As it is, we can choose along the range from peasantly screwed to royally screwed.
Cannot agree. You seem to discount the value of intangible goods/wealth.
Intangible goods are only valuable until others don't need them, which occurs all the time. Our 'service economy'
is intangible goods, and other nations can provide those for themselves and others just as well as we can, and we often outsource as training.
Intangibles are not without value, but they are much more a way to retain sanity, and redistribute wealth, than to create/export more in the long run than is consumed/imported.
Perhaps, really depends. I just heard Kodack was going bankrupt. They made tangible widgets (film). Nobody needs/wants it anymore. Things change.
Yes, things do change, and Kodak sat twiddling their thumbs. Other companies, that followed the times, are doing OK. I don't see Canon shutting their doors any time soon. People need cars in the US. People need shelter. People need clothes. People need appliances. Some of us use cookware and tableware. We all use lightbulbs. We are beginning to need smartphones to get/keep decent jobs. And so on.
We need to reduce debt, public and private, and provide for those needs, which invariably means producing more, and thus employing more.
Obviously some tangible products are necessary. But I think it equally obvious that intangible products (medicine, technology/science) are very important.
Much of medicine is tangible, along with technology, and yes, they are important. But, unless we can use domestic ones to saturation, and then also export excess, they aren't sufficiently good for our economy. If we can export excess, we will need to be able to do so at a rate cheaper than others can provide said services for themselves. As it is, we have trouble paying for own services; who else in the world is going to pay for them?
Basically, it may be possible to create comparative advantage (it is not innate!) for some areas, where we are eroding ours, but services/intangibles are not an area where country A can provide for country B better than country B can provide for itself. R&D (no actual goods at all) and production of quality goods are areas where the developed Western world still retains comparative advantages, should we be willing to fully exploit them, instead of trying to get rid of them for the sake of next quarter's profits.
