Wtf? O.o Did I miss something on another thread? I'm still just wondering why trophic cascades, ecosystem services, and island biogeography are considered wealth, as opposed to natural resources or theories that can be used to generate wealth.
And also wondering wtf any of this nature stuff has to do with FY,GM. If it like, "Fuck you, dolphin. I got my fish"

I'm not getting defensive, because I am not planning on any such businesses. It was all just hypothetical, so I hypothetically got defensive about your hypothetical accusation. It's all good though 

FYI, If I was thinking of setting up some business that may or may not be legal, it would not be illegal due to being a scam, it would be illegal due to not following one specific country's regulations on investments and securities. Hypothetically.

Who owned the Brazilian Atlantic forest when it was being destroyed?

+1

I guess except Onionland

You mean trophic cascades, ecosystem services, and island biogeography? How much does each of those cost?

How much is a color spectrum worth? How much is a range of 1 mile to 100 miles worth? How much does acceleration from 1mph to 10mph worth? Biodiversity is a diversity of bio organisms. It doesn't say what kind of organisms, how they are related, or anything like that. It's a descriptive concept, not a thing. I know you are trying to pin a value on the ecosystem, or something like that, but that's also not something that is quantifiable. It's waaaaay tooooo vaaaaague. 5,000 salmon are worth something. Clean water to sustain them is worth something. Food to feed them is worth something. One lifeform containing data is worth something. A nebulous square meter of space with some living things in it are not worth anything. Not until we calculate the sum of their individual parts, anyway.

Besides, if your entire point is "Don't focus on profits, because you'll ignore and thus destroy the environment," that point is moot. If people want a clean and vibrant "biodiversity," that is exactly what they will pay for, whatever it may be, because "wealth" is not accumulation of green papers or bitcoins, wealth is accumulation of what people want. A lot of people on the socialist side, with bad images of fat cats in top hats, tend to miss that point.

^^ TL,DR:  Dumbasses got propelled into the propellers of the Bitcoin capitalist engine. *Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

OK, fine, how would one hypothetically start, or more specifically bootstrap, a venture that would be variously called either a business in some countries, or an illegal venture in others? Kinda like how Silk Road is only illegal where drugs are illegal. The issue is that some countries regulate some businesses, others don't, and the Internet, along with Bitcoin, sorta doesn't care about jurisdictions.

That would be, "Come at me bro! And bring a lawyer."

Judging by this statement, we were a MUCH richer place when we burned wood for heat and used steam and horses for locomotion. I would tend to disagree.

I'm... not quite sure you're using the concepts correctly. Each individual specimen is possible wealth, and areas that contain a diversity of species in a sustainable manner are quite literally areas with abundant natural/biological resources, but I don't think "biodiversity" is specifically the word to use here. All it really means is variety of life. So, in my mind, vast untapped resources can potentially become wealth. Whether they are varied or not doesn't really matter.
Obtaining that wealth in a sustainable manner is another entirely different matter, and really doesn't depend on whether capitalism or something else is involved.

Libertarians would not have limited BP's liability to the small amount Obama has (mind you, I was for Obama this past election). Instead, they could continue to sue and demand money until BP put enough resources into the problem to get it fixed. If BP kept avoiding payment, libertarians would attack BP more directly, possibly at the sources, without there being a US military (paid by those living in the gulf I might add) around to protect BP's assets. BP would have to hire its own security, the expenses of which would be directly proportional to how much they've pissed the world off. BP would be made an example of, and other oil companies would see how much of a liability it is to drill in the Gulf; a liability that currently doesn't exist because spills result in a slap on the wrist, and the government doing the cleanup. More so, the fine that BP paid comes out of the company profits, which come directly out of shareholders' stocks. Most of those shareholders are just people with mutual funds in their retirement accounts who had nothing to do with what happened. Libertarians wouldn't go after the corporate entity, they would go after those responsible directly. Again, no socialist government to stop them. Other companies, seeing the liability of drilling in the gulf (and having to pay for their own protection instead of making us do it) would raise their gas prices, making people rely on things like bicycles, public transportation, and electric trains and vehicles much more. As a result, there will be fewer emissions and destructive urban sprawl, since living 45 minute's drive from your job would be considered too expensive. And the gulf would be left alone, or at least very carefully maintained.

TL;DR You know how the trailer trash right-wingers vote against their own self interests, such as universal healthcare and fair wages, by voting for the republican party? That weird disconnect exists within environmentalists socialists (not using socialist in a derogatory way mind you) by voting for government that provides oil companies with free military protections, shelters the CEOs with corporate liability protections, and pays to clean up their messes.

Thanks guys. Great help!

But, back to the OP topic, does anyone *coughPeter Ugslycough* have any issues with my list of FY,GM examples that seem to cross both socialist and capitalist economic sides, or has anything more to add to the topic? Like, maybe, why are libertarians lab led with the FY,GM label, when the FY portion suggests they would keep something from others, when all they ask for is a fair price?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. By wealth, I meant possession or access to different physical things and specific services. That wealth doesn't go up because we have more resources, it goes up because we invent new ways of using those resources in more economical and optimized ways. My whole point on this stupid wealth argument is that our brains, and the inventions we use them to come up with, are our biggest resource, and it's virtually unlimited. Thus the comparison between poor nations that rely mostly on their natural resources, and wealthy nations that have service-based economies. What did you mean?

Wealth can be comprised of resources. Biodiversity is a variety of life forms. Since I don't know what wealth there is in a concept of "variety," please enlighten me.

I did. The reason the “when to stop rule” doesn't seem like it applies is because whenever we seemingly reach the point where rising marginal cost equals declining marginal benefit, someone comes out with an invention that greatly increases marginal benefits again, and so we keep rising.
In trade, there is no real difference between a city, a nation, or a planet. So there's really no difference between capital being mobile within nations and capital being within planet earth. In deregulated international commerce, it's not nations that do the trade, it's individuals. A person in one place is selling their labor, time, skills, and at times health and the health of their surrounding environment, for the wealth of another person in another location. It doesn't matter if the other person is in China, France, or US.
And it's true that trade may not be voluntary, but the price you charge is. If it costs you more to avoid polluting your home, charge more for your product. If you can't avoid it, transition to another kind of specialization. Or move. Stop putting value in "place where I grew up," and put value in your own health, well being, and capabilities.

There is no wealth in biodiversity. It's an ecological and biological system, not a financial one. True, you can ruin it by recklessly pursuing financial wealth, and you can likewise ruin your wealth by not managing the biodiversity properly, but they are two separate systems, so don't conflate them.
(It's like asking, "Do you know what wealth exists in a waterfall?" It's a nonsensical question)

That's actually specifically my point: they make money on trade, by providing a service, not by using and exploiting natural resources.