Sorry, are you responding to the first question or the second? [edit] If the first, why does it matter what his intentions were, or whether he hired professional labor? I would measure the increase in his wealth as the increase in the value of his home minus the total cost of the improvements. If that is a positive number then his wealth increased by that amount. If the second, then who lost wealth?
I wouldn't want to distract you from Hazlitt. b_b said he bought a foreclosed condo. If we assume that it originally had floors and walls which were destroyed or ruined, someone could make a flawed broken-window argument that b_b's repairs compensate "the economy" for the destruction. But I was taking his condo purchased "as is" as a given. Maybe the developer simply never finished construction. My point is that b_b can create his own wealth simply by investing his time and effort, without necessarily harming or taking from anyone else. I am not sure if anyone disagrees with this, but he seems to imply that people at "the bottom" are necessarily harmed somehow when the wealthy increase their wealth.
No no I was agreeing with you. He's only costing someone wealth when he does home repair on his own if he would otherwise have bought the repairs -- more likely that if he couldn't afford repairs he would've simply lived without them, I think.
Ah, I see, the alternative to the "Only if" was not doing the repairs at all. That costs the carpenter, but he can still spend the money on candy or whiskey. Perhaps best of all is if he does the work himself, since it brought him satisfaction, and then he can spend the money he saved on other things, bringing more satisfaction.
Like I said before, the economy isn't a zero sum game. There's money to be made by everyone in some circumstances. However, in the last several years, corporate profits have increased to record levels, while revenues have stayed flat. The difference has been made up by cutting costs, mainly worker pay. That is taking from the bottom. The net share of wealth held by the very top has increased much faster than the total net wealth in the world. Upward transfer of wealth has undeniably occurred.My point is that b_b can create his own wealth simply by investing his time and effort, without necessarily harming or taking from anyone else. I am not sure if anyone disagrees with this, but he seems to imply that people at "the bottom" are necessarily harmed somehow when the wealthy increase their wealth.