OP here. The most common argument against this type of thing is what Paul Graham calls "The Pie Fallacy" [1]. But I think that argument is fundamentally flawed. While wealth can be created from nothing, one typically requires a certain amount of wealth to get to the level where they can start creating wealth.
I think that you confused wealth with money. pg's article you quoted makes this distinction pretty clearly:
If you want to create wealth, it will help to understand what it is. Wealth is not the same thing as money. [3] Wealth is as old as human history. Far older, in fact; ants have wealth. Money is a comparatively recent invention.
Wealth is the fundamental thing. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that could on command make you a car or cook you dinner or do your laundry, or do anything else you wanted, you wouldn't need money. Whereas if you were in the middle of Antarctica, where there is nothing to buy, it wouldn't matter how much money you had.
Later there's an example of creating wealth:
Suppose you own a beat-up old car. Instead of sitting on your butt next summer, you could spend the time restoring your car to pristine condition. In doing so you create wealth. The world is-- and you specifically are-- one pristine old car the richer. And not just in some metaphorical way. If you sell your car, you'll get more for it.
[1]http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
reply