4 ms·
The fundamental definition of wealth is time. Wealthy people can purpose far more of their time. Accumulating capital works like you say, bit we have work to
by ddingus 7y ago
The fundamental definition of wealth is time.
Wealthy people can purpose far more of their time.
Accumulating capital works like you say, bit we have work to do otherwise.
Improving basic wealth is possible, and does not impact capital much. Some, but not to a degree many, if not most will be concerned about.
It should be OK for ordinary people to be a bit wealthy. Arts, research, even just play are all rewarding, important.
For a reasonable amount of our time, yes. People can and should do what they want. It is not necessary we tighten this all up to some totalitarian optimum.
- hueving 7y agoThis is false. Homeless people without jobs have just as much time as billionaires without jobs. Guess which ones are considered wealthy.
- scotty79 7y agoMaybe wealth is the time that's left after you provide yourself with sustained health by buying food, shelter, energy and medicine you need?
- colechristensen 7y agoTwo separate definitions: * Wealth is the measure of ability to buy people's time and scarce resources * Wealth is the measure of the ability to do things for their own purpose
- ddingus 7y agoI would argue the first one is capital.
- ddingus 7y agoThere is a difference, and that is being able to purpose time. The homeless person is driven by basic needs and wants. The billionaire is not. A person of modest means, who works very little to meet them has significant wealth. Off grid type people, who are successful in their investments get the return of time, as another example.