2 ms·

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.wi

by 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).
- belorn 7y ago
  You seem to not get my point so let me explain it in a other way. All resources can represent wealth, status and power, but only if others are excluded from it. For example clean water is not consider wealth in a west-centric point of view where water is free, but in the desert clean water can very much represent wealth. A person who can waste clean water in the desert to plant a garden is wealthy and gains status, while the same person growing the same garden with the same amount of water gain no such status if it next to a fresh water lake in say Sweden. In the absent of a zero sum game wealth does not exist. This does not mean that resources do not provide benefits. They do. Our ancestors a thousand years had less resources and thus suffered more from the effect of that. If we had a time machine and we traveled back in time we would be more wealthy because we would have resources that they do not. A easy way to deal with the terminology is to outsource our definition. Wealth is that which a wealth tax taxes. Good medicine provided by the state, for all its extremely high value to society and individual people, is not something that can be taxed through a wealth tax. The very concept would not make any sense. The only thing a wealth tax can tax is wealth. Ipso facto, good medicine provided by a well fare state is not wealth. It great, it is good, it is useful, it is valuable, but wealth it is not.

by belorn 7y ago

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).

belorn 7y ago
You seem to not get my point so let me explain it in a other way. All resources can represent wealth, status and power, but only if others are excluded from it. For example clean water is not consider wealth in a west-centric point of view where water is free, but in the desert clean water can very much represent wealth. A person who can waste clean water in the desert to plant a garden is wealthy and gains status, while the same person growing the same garden with the same amount of water gain no such status if it next to a fresh water lake in say Sweden. In the absent of a zero sum game wealth does not exist. This does not mean that resources do not provide benefits. They do. Our ancestors a thousand years had less resources and thus suffered more from the effect of that. If we had a time machine and we traveled back in time we would be more wealthy because we would have resources that they do not. A easy way to deal with the terminology is to outsource our definition. Wealth is that which a wealth tax taxes. Good medicine provided by the state, for all its extremely high value to society and individual people, is not something that can be taxed through a wealth tax. The very concept would not make any sense. The only thing a wealth tax can tax is wealth. Ipso facto, good medicine provided by a well fare state is not wealth. It great, it is good, it is useful, it is valuable, but wealth it is not.