system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Economists: Is wealth a finite resource?

I have no training in economics outside of Micro/Macro 100 level classes I took 15 years ago.  But I've been pondering this for a while and I'm sure there is an answer (or two). 

Here's what I'm thinking, tell me where I'm wrong:

* money is essentially a representation of work.  
* There are a finite amount of people to do said work.
* if we want to raise the standing of the poor, more affluent people must necessarily be less affluent, or productivity must increase accordingly.

I've been mulling this over in the context of the US presidential election and wanted to get my ideas checked. Is this correct or can we just "Grow the economy" and have everyone do better?

Thanks.
gpt
Well, let's start with the easy stuff.

1. In 1800, everyone was poor.
2. Now, in 2012, about a billion people are extremely rich, five billion are in economies that are growing, and one billion are still around 1800 levels.

Clearly, something happened. If wealth were strictly finite, then there's no way we could have gotten here from there.

Incomes rise over time, due to the accumulation of knowledge, capital, technology, innovation, and education. Economies grow over time due to the accumulation of knowledge.  "Wealth" is only as finite as our engineers make it to be.