Gary F. York wrote: > > In some broader sense, wealth is how much we covet > services and stuff -- more particularly, other people's stuff. > Consider a limit case: everyone is perfectly happy with > what they have; no one wants to exchange anything at > all for something someone else controls. > Everyone is completely self-sufficient. > Market 'value' of everything is zero. >
If we do not equate Market Value with Wealth, and most people's notion of Wealth does not do that, then there is a lot of Wealth there and, as you admit, zero Market Value. Few people would say that such a situation, with everyone happy with what he has, does not contain Wealth! Only an Economist, whose livelihood depends on some notion of Active Economy, would feel uncomfortable with that. > > Now we instantly recognize that, unless this > situation came about through some technological > utopia, the society either is or is going to > rapidly become rather wretched. > Doesn't matter HOW it came about. As long as everyone has everything he wants, there is lots of Wealth. As soon as some Individual uses up what he needs or wants, and wants more, he'll be amenable to a Trade. > > Baring such a utopia, the willingness to exchange our > services and stuff with others for services and stuff > we value more than that which we hold is a very good thing. > No, it is neither a Good nor a Bad thing, it is merely what a Free Individual may or may not decide to do. > > So part of what we consider wealth > -- in this broader sense -- depends not on > how we personally value what we hold but on > how greatly others value what we hold. > And this latter valuation, the market value, > is subject to rapid change. > So you are saying that an internal mental state can produce or destroy what you call Wealth. Excuse me, I don't know anyone who uses the word Wealth in that way. > > It is tempting to consider this "market value" kind > of wealth as less real, less important and certainly > less tangible than _real_ wealth -- existing > goods and services. > Services do not exist except fleetingly. They are GONE. As I have pointed out, they are not Wealth, even though they can have Market Value. "Labor Force" might constitute a form of Wealth. The Labor itself, no. Your notion of Internal Mental States as one kind of Wealth is just bizarre. It implies that Mass Hypnosis could produce limitless amounts of Wealth in a single session. If everyone suddenly becomes interested in a Fad for Modern Art, and the Market Value increases a million times in one day, has Wealth increased? Certainly SOME people are going to suddenly gain more Wealth (assuming they actually sell their junk for the Market Value), but the exact same amount is coming from some Other people. Zero Sum in Wealth, although not in Internal Mental State (Satisfaction). Just like a Stock Trade or any other Market Trade. Yes, every Free Trade results in a Benefit (Satisfaction) to both parties, but that is not Wealth. Remember the Mutual Masturbation example. Note that I am *NOT* trying to make up a definition for Wealth, I am trying to show how a very normal concept of Wealth does not allow such bizarre definitions as yours to result in Real Wealth as most people envision Wealth.
