6 ms·

Based on observations I have the opposite view. A lot of human behavior would not make sense if we only measured resources and not social competition over wealt

by belorn 7y ago

Based on observations I have the opposite view. A lot of human behavior would not make sense if we only measured resources and not social competition over wealth and status. There is even biological aspects like stress which get effected by the relative status between members of a community. Resources however increases each year with more people enjoying the benefits.

godelski 7y ago
> Resources however increases each year with more people enjoying the benefits. > RESOURCES ... INCREASES EACH YEAR I wouldn't call this a zero nor negative sum game if the game is to gather resources (resources with certain value. Which I think you'd agree that more recent resources have higher value. Like an AC vs a fan).
- belorn 7y ago
  > I wouldn't call this a zero nor negative sum game if the game is to gather resources yes, that would not be a zero sum game. If the game however is about wealth there are things like status symbols which drain resources but increases perceived relative wealth. Would you agree that status symbols with no intrinsic value are a zero sum game? Could a status symbol for wealth work if everyone had it and could afford it?
  - godelski 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you are shifting to status symbols though. I'm talking about things that make people better off. Money, widgets, access to clean water, and medicine. Sure we can talk about status symbols, but it seems kinda contrived to make your point and not the one that we originally started with or have been discussing. So unless you have a good reason for that digression I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but a non sequitur.
    - belorn 7y ago
      When people use imagery to illustrate wealth, for example in a video or say the Wikipedia article for wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth), we see things like gold. Google images for wealth displays jewelry. Expensive cars. Expensive boats. Expensive mansions. Resources would be food, clean water, shelter, land, gasoline, things which purpose fulfill a specific need. I would say that the first thing, wealth, represent a zero-sum game. The value of such items goes down as more people has them, and thus the status of owning them goes down as more people has the same item. Resources however is not a zero-sum game. The value of clean water will always be high regardless of how many other people have clean water. Money in itself sits between wealth and status. It can be used for both, through at some amount it turn from resource and become just accumulated wealth.
      - godelski 7y ago
        Well I suggest reading carefully that first paragraph from Wikipedia. It does agree with me but I'll give you that it says it can be context dependent and you are talking about what it is considered "to be wealthy". In that context, I think if you considered the average person a hundred years ago to a average person today, the person today would be considered wealthy (to the person from a hundred years ago). But to quote the first sentence of the second paragraph > At the most general level, economists may define wealth as "anything of value" Which is why Saudi Arabia is "wealthy", because they are rich in oil resources. > Resources however is not a zero-sum game. Great, we're done here, right? We agree? To a person with access to clean water, having access to clean water does not make one wealthy. To someone that doesn't it does. But this is the difference between the economic term of wealth and the colloquial term of "to be wealthy". (Though we can say that all westerners are wealthy if we take the right perspective, but I won't get into that). I actually will get into that. You're taking this from a western-centric point of view. Not only that, a temporally local point of view. I'll ask you to reread my original comment now that there is added context given. Specifically that laid out in this paragraph. I'm not talking about money. The value of money is a result of the economy, not the other way around. You're conflating things that don't interact that way. Honestly I don't even understand your point. Because I'm saying things like "We have AC and good medicine. Our ancestors a thousand years ago had neither. Ipso facto, we're more wealthy". I have absolutely no idea why people with expensive things discredits this argument. I'd even argue that while off topic, if anything it helps mine. Because previously only monarchs had that kind of wealth, now we have almost 15 million millionaires in America alone. That's like the global population of 5000 years ago. You can also find my link to the world bank that shows the number of people living in extreme poverty (globally!) has been plummeting. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. Not that some rich person has a nicer house than you. But that there has been a trend where everyone everywhere is doing better than they were before (given the time scale).

by belorn 7y ago

godelski 7y ago

> Resources however increases each year with more people enjoying the benefits. > RESOURCES ... INCREASES EACH YEAR I wouldn't call this a zero nor negative sum game if the game is to gather resources (resources with certain value. Which I think you'd agree that more recent resources have higher value. Like an AC vs a fan).

belorn 7y ago
> I wouldn't call this a zero nor negative sum game if the game is to gather resources yes, that would not be a zero sum game. If the game however is about wealth there are things like status symbols which drain resources but increases perceived relative wealth. Would you agree that status symbols with no intrinsic value are a zero sum game? Could a status symbol for wealth work if everyone had it and could afford it?
- godelski 7y ago
  I'm not sure why you are shifting to status symbols though. I'm talking about things that make people better off. Money, widgets, access to clean water, and medicine. Sure we can talk about status symbols, but it seems kinda contrived to make your point and not the one that we originally started with or have been discussing. So unless you have a good reason for that digression I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything but a non sequitur.
  - belorn 7y ago
    When people use imagery to illustrate wealth, for example in a video or say the Wikipedia article for wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth), we see things like gold. Google images for wealth displays jewelry. Expensive cars. Expensive boats. Expensive mansions. Resources would be food, clean water, shelter, land, gasoline, things which purpose fulfill a specific need. I would say that the first thing, wealth, represent a zero-sum game. The value of such items goes down as more people has them, and thus the status of owning them goes down as more people has the same item. Resources however is not a zero-sum game. The value of clean water will always be high regardless of how many other people have clean water. Money in itself sits between wealth and status. It can be used for both, through at some amount it turn from resource and become just accumulated wealth.
    - godelski 7y ago
      Well I suggest reading carefully that first paragraph from Wikipedia. It does agree with me but I'll give you that it says it can be context dependent and you are talking about what it is considered "to be wealthy". In that context, I think if you considered the average person a hundred years ago to a average person today, the person today would be considered wealthy (to the person from a hundred years ago). But to quote the first sentence of the second paragraph > At the most general level, economists may define wealth as "anything of value" Which is why Saudi Arabia is "wealthy", because they are rich in oil resources. > Resources however is not a zero-sum game. Great, we're done here, right? We agree? To a person with access to clean water, having access to clean water does not make one wealthy. To someone that doesn't it does. But this is the difference between the economic term of wealth and the colloquial term of "to be wealthy". (Though we can say that all westerners are wealthy if we take the right perspective, but I won't get into that). I actually will get into that. You're taking this from a western-centric point of view. Not only that, a temporally local point of view. I'll ask you to reread my original comment now that there is added context given. Specifically that laid out in this paragraph. I'm not talking about money. The value of money is a result of the economy, not the other way around. You're conflating things that don't interact that way. Honestly I don't even understand your point. Because I'm saying things like "We have AC and good medicine. Our ancestors a thousand years ago had neither. Ipso facto, we're more wealthy". I have absolutely no idea why people with expensive things discredits this argument. I'd even argue that while off topic, if anything it helps mine. Because previously only monarchs had that kind of wealth, now we have almost 15 million millionaires in America alone. That's like the global population of 5000 years ago. You can also find my link to the world bank that shows the number of people living in extreme poverty (globally!) has been plummeting. These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. Not that some rich person has a nicer house than you. But that there has been a trend where everyone everywhere is doing better than they were before (given the time scale).