> -----Original Message----- > From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:22 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: What is wealth? > > Dan M wrote: > > After the discussion about money as a social construct, it occurred to > me > > that that there is something more fundamental underlying this. It is > > whether wealth is concrete or just an abstract concept. > > Dan-- > > O.K., let me try. There is such a thing as "concrete" wealth. > Wealth lets an individual do things that they want to do. So > a person's individual wealth would be roughly defined relative > to some standard as the ratio of the utility of what they can > do to what they could do in the standard state.
I think this is closest to what I think. But, I think that this is a fundamental and difficult enough concept to start slowly with some obvious examples. First, I was think of and will focus on the wealth of nations, communities, the world, more than individual wealth. Second, I see two layers of wealth, the first being more obvious than the second. I'd define wealth in terms of resources, first the resources that people absolutely need, and second, the resources that people want, but can do without. For the first, I'd argue for food, clothing, and shelter. I was thinking of medical care, but (for all practical purposes) doctors contributed minimally to the prolonging of life before the advent of modern, science based medicine. They could, for example, do virtually nothing in the face of the Black Plague. So, historically, a richer nation would have vast areas of fertile farmland that could be harvested year after year to provide food for people. That wealth could be stolen by force, but absent of that, the wealth existed there. So, Italy was far wealthier than a corresponding area in Siberia, because far more food could be grown. Second, and this is near to my heart...but I don't see it as inherently a bias, wealth is a function of knowledge and ability. The combination of the horse collar and three crop rotation tremendously increased the fundamental wealth of Europe. Why? The horse collar did because one horse could replace two oxen to plow land. Thus, the amount of food needed to be spent on feeding the plow animal decreased by more than a factor of two. This wealth, in food, was a true increase. With the same conditions, the same weather, there was far more food for people to eat. As a result, a given plot of land could support more human life. Since it didn't take more effort to use the horse than the pair of oxen (probably less), human labor was available for other endeavors. Craftsmen could exist, trading their wares for the surplus food. The nature and distribution of these wares is a subject unto itself, and the desirability of the output of this craft vs. that craft (particularly when aesthetics are involved) is somewhat arbitrary. But, the availability of human effort expended in something other than subsistence farming is not subjective; it can be objectively measured. Three crop rotation also increased wealth. In a sense, it is one of the purest forms of intellectual property, because that idea was a multiplier for the worth of the land. Far more food could be grown over decades using this technique than the older technique. This, the idea itself is seen as a significant contribution to wealth. I'll stop here for, hopefully, comments. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
