3 ms·

Two comments: 1. "Smart" is not a scalar; "rich" is. 2. True that hard work alone will not make you rich, but [extreme] hard work coupled with working-on-th

Two comments: 1. "Smart" is not a scalar; "rich" is. 2. True that hard work alone will not make you rich, but [extreme] hard work coupled with working-on-the-right-thing has a very high chance of making you rich.

mmt 17y ago
I don't believe "rich" is a scalar, either. When I look for a firm definition, it appears to be, in effect, accumulated wealth (however one might define it). However, especially in a taxation context, I hear it associated with, if not equated to, income. (Granted, this could merely be an artifact of a taxation system which relies heavily on taxing income). Let's put that aside and use the "something people want" definition of wealth. One can certainly convert to a scalar value (money) a particular form of wealth (asset) at a particular point in time (i.e. sell it). However, since the reverse is not true, (e.g. just because, if I had it, I could sell the Mona Lisa for $X does not mean there is a value of $Y for which I could buy it if I didn't have it), it seems safe to say they are of a different type. Although that doesn't mean that wealth itself is not a scalar, I contend that any additional dimension, not bidirectionally convertible to a scalar does. Risk (e.g. that people will want an item more or less) is such a dimension. Inherent depreciation is another. Scarcity is, arguably, another. Perhaps a more compelling situation is where a particular asset is worth more when concentrated, such as fissionable material or arable land. The former has what one could consider a sharp increase in value at "critical mass," whereas the latter increases more steadily due to economy of scale. Perhaps "smart" is the same kind of non-scalar, but I'll let someone else exercise that conjecture.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  I'd define "rich" as |wealth| You may define it differently, but that's language isn't it.
  - prewett 17y ago
    Although "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" is a pretty terrible book, I liked his definition of "rich": how long can you live your life without working. (Of course, a more precise definition would need to factor in standard of living)
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      Actually that was his definition of wealth, quoted from Buckminster Fuller.

mmt 17y ago

I don't believe "rich" is a scalar, either. When I look for a firm definition, it appears to be, in effect, accumulated wealth (however one might define it). However, especially in a taxation context, I hear it associated with, if not equated to, income. (Granted, this could merely be an artifact of a taxation system which relies heavily on taxing income). Let's put that aside and use the "something people want" definition of wealth. One can certainly convert to a scalar value (money) a particular form of wealth (asset) at a particular point in time (i.e. sell it). However, since the reverse is not true, (e.g. just because, if I had it, I could sell the Mona Lisa for $X does not mean there is a value of $Y for which I could buy it if I didn't have it), it seems safe to say they are of a different type. Although that doesn't mean that wealth itself is not a scalar, I contend that any additional dimension, not bidirectionally convertible to a scalar does. Risk (e.g. that people will want an item more or less) is such a dimension. Inherent depreciation is another. Scarcity is, arguably, another. Perhaps a more compelling situation is where a particular asset is worth more when concentrated, such as fissionable material or arable land. The former has what one could consider a sharp increase in value at "critical mass," whereas the latter increases more steadily due to economy of scale. Perhaps "smart" is the same kind of non-scalar, but I'll let someone else exercise that conjecture.

jpwagner 17y ago
I'd define "rich" as |wealth| You may define it differently, but that's language isn't it.
- prewett 17y ago
  Although "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" is a pretty terrible book, I liked his definition of "rich": how long can you live your life without working. (Of course, a more precise definition would need to factor in standard of living)
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    Actually that was his definition of wealth, quoted from Buckminster Fuller.