3 ms·

This is false. Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time

This is false. Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. Let me explain: Imagine the edge case at the very beginning of civilization. There are two families, and for illustrative purposes they both spend 100% of their time farming without tools, and live in caves. One day, someone invents the hoe. Let's imagine that this saves both families 50% of their farming time. Now they are each able to build a home, instead of living in a cave. The families use a currency to trade crops, and there is a total of $100 in the world, $50 for each family's output. One of two things happened here, but they're pretty much the same thing: - If we hold the money supply as fixed (saying wealth is zero-sum), then the price of the crops would go down, since we can now buy houses with our money too. - If we hold the price of the crops fixed, then there is now more money/wealth that exists in the world. It doesn't really make sense for the price of crops to go down -- they're the same thing that existed yesterday. It makes much more sense to say that there is more money in the world. Regardless, wealth was created. It's a lot more complicated in our currently economy because there are a lot more moving parts, but the fundamentals still apply. Take something that used to take a lot of time and make it take less time and you'll have created wealth. People can now use the extra time they have to go be productive elsewhere in a way that benefits people. Going back to your comparison about rich/comfortable/poor, you're not arguing that wealth is zero-sum, you're arguing that there has always been wealth inequality. But the presence of wealth inequality doesn't imply that wealth is zero-sum: wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians?

powertower 15y ago
> Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. If you want to go that route then boil it down even further and you'll get "well-being" and/or "self-validation". > wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians In my argument wealth has always been a relative term, never absolute. It is about what you are trying to achieve for yourself/ego, which in the human psyche is always relative to the other person. This connection cannot be disputed, you can only dispute the first part... So is wealth an extension of the ego, or is it a database entry? I'm claiming that it is the former, since so many people experience it as such. You are claiming it is the latter.
- drusenko 15y ago
  I think you are saying wealth == happiness. And from the vantage-point of someone without wealth, that may seem true. But any person with wealth will tell you that wealth does not bring happiness or ego or confidence -- all of those are only achieved from within. You can purchase more things that take a lot of time to make, and you can not worry about money issues, but you can't buy happiness. I'm not sure if there is more global happiness today than there was in Sumerian times; I would imagine there is. As you mentioned though, happiness seems to be relative, so it's pointless to complain about since it's a fundamental human limitation. "The fact that most people imagine it would be paradise to never have to work does not make the experience any more pleasant in practice." -- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/8419/?single_page=true http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...
  - powertower 15y ago
    > I think you are saying wealth == happiness. Not at all.
grinnbearit 15y ago
If we consider the money/medium of exchange as its own resource. When someone invents a hoe freeing up time for other desires, its not the value of the crops that falls. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. The new houses built have added actual value, its just that the amount of money to distribute is limited leading to the appearance of the price of crops falling. This is called monetary deflation, the value of the money itself has gone up since there are more things to buy (demand) while there is a fixed amount (supply). I would argue that the new houses add value. even though I feel that satisfaction is a good measure of wealth and not precisely quantifiable, happiness(Man with house + crops) - happiness(Man with cave + crops) > 0. In short creating wealth. (Some people might argue, his total happiness is a constant and its just dependent on more things now "Simplify Man" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Lisa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Lisa)

powertower 15y ago

> Wealth ultimately boils down to the most finite resource we all have -- our time -- and we are able to accomplish a whole lot more with our time today than we were in the past. If you want to go that route then boil it down even further and you'll get "well-being" and/or "self-validation". > wouldn't you say that even today's poor Americans are wealthier than the richest Sumerians In my argument wealth has always been a relative term, never absolute. It is about what you are trying to achieve for yourself/ego, which in the human psyche is always relative to the other person. This connection cannot be disputed, you can only dispute the first part... So is wealth an extension of the ego, or is it a database entry? I'm claiming that it is the former, since so many people experience it as such. You are claiming it is the latter.

drusenko 15y ago
I think you are saying wealth == happiness. And from the vantage-point of someone without wealth, that may seem true. But any person with wealth will tell you that wealth does not bring happiness or ego or confidence -- all of those are only achieved from within. You can purchase more things that take a lot of time to make, and you can not worry about money issues, but you can't buy happiness. I'm not sure if there is more global happiness today than there was in Sumerian times; I would imagine there is. As you mentioned though, happiness seems to be relative, so it's pointless to complain about since it's a fundamental human limitation. "The fact that most people imagine it would be paradise to never have to work does not make the experience any more pleasant in practice." -- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/8419/?single_page=true http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...
- powertower 15y ago
  > I think you are saying wealth == happiness. Not at all.

grinnbearit 15y ago

If we consider the money/medium of exchange as its own resource. When someone invents a hoe freeing up time for other desires, its not the value of the crops that falls. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. The new houses built have added actual value, its just that the amount of money to distribute is limited leading to the appearance of the price of crops falling. This is called monetary deflation, the value of the money itself has gone up since there are more things to buy (demand) while there is a fixed amount (supply). I would argue that the new houses add value. even though I feel that satisfaction is a good measure of wealth and not precisely quantifiable, happiness(Man with house + crops) - happiness(Man with cave + crops) > 0. In short creating wealth. (Some people might argue, his total happiness is a constant and its just dependent on more things now "Simplify Man" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Lisa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Lisa)