Zack, (First let me say I share your opinion of 'modern art'.)
I really am trying to understand "where you're coming from." Do please have patience if I get it wrong. You seem to want to draw a 'bright line' somewhere, such that on one side of that line lies 'wealth' or 'TRUE WEALTH' and on the other side, stuff that others falsely consider wealth. (Are we ok so far? Is this actually what you're shooting for?) If so, we have established our true disagreement. I would contend not only that such a line does not exist; but that such a line cannot _possibly_ exist. I claim that "wealth" however construed, is entirely a matter of 'consideration'. I've hinted at that at least, when I suggested that there are various definitions of wealth and the none is 'entirely correct' but neither is any entirely false. This is the reason, at heart, that I consider it entirely fruitless to attempt to define wealth. However someone defines it -- it may be true _for them_. A number of folks consider gold a valuable commodity and consider themselves 'wealthy' if they have a lot of it. Some such would continue to believe themselves 'wealthy' even if the gold had no market value at all. They want it; if they ceased to want it and no one else wanted it, they would no longer consider themselves 'wealthy' because of their gold holdings regardless of how much they possessed. They same would be true regardless of the commodity involved. No factory has any sort of absolute value. It produces stuff. It's valuable largely to the extent, and only so long, as it can continue to produce stuff that people want. ( I say 'largely' to avoid the quibble that someone could 'want' the factory itself as a piece of art, etc.) That is, its value depends on the consideration of individuals -- how much they value the stuff produced. 'Wealth', however construed, is entirely a psychological phenomena that happens in the mind of individuals. It is _highly_ related to 'want' and, in particular, to unsatisfied wants. That is, if no one wants X, none consider X valuable and, regardless of the plenitude or scarcity of X, the possession of no amount of X will make a person feel 'wealthy'. Further, if everyone wants X, but everyone can have as much X as they want, no one will likely feel 'wealthy' because they possess some specific quantity of X. Hence, for the vast majority of people, 'wealth' happens because of scarcity. Consider how few people today feel wealthy because they have wonderfully transparent glass windows in their homes. I do agree, that at any given time there is so much 'stuff' in the world. No amount of financial market hanky panky or jingle jangle will change that instantly. What can change, instantly, is how well people regard that 'stuff'. But I've been speaking largely of individuals. Perhaps it's different for a society taken as a whole. Or for Beverly Hills. I don't quite see it; but perhaps, if you believe it to be so, you will persuade me. G. Zack Bass wrote: > Gary F. York wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > > Oh lookie, you DID state that Market Value is part of Total Wealth. > > But it is not. > If the Market Value of what you have increases, then it is possible, > even likely, that YOU - JUST YOU - may be better off. We do not know > until you actually TRADE what you have. So let's say you do that: > Say your 1,000 shares of Frannistans Unlimited (representing 1% of the > total Stock of Frannistans Unlimited) went from $1.00 per share > yesterday to $10,000 per share today, and you sell them. Now you may > (OR MAY NOT) have more Wealth than you did before - you now have > $10,000,000 in cash instead of 1% of the total Stock of Frannistans > Unlimited. But the guy who BOUGHT that Stock from you now has 1% of > the total Stock of Frannistans Unlimited and has SPENT $10,000,000 - > Wealth that HE no longer has. > Zero Sum in Global Wealth, even if a great increase in Local Wealth > for one guy - and a great decrease in Local Wealth for another guy > (who does "feel" better about it). Note that I am not stating which > of you actually has more Wealth now... but however we decide to value > the Stock, the Trade did not produce any more Stock or Cash than > existed before. > > Your statement above, that Market Value is part of Total Wealth (which > you sometimes want to claim that's not what you are saying, and if it > is not then let's agree that I am correct here, and if you do not > agree that I am correct here about Market Value then please do NOT say > that the above is not what you mean to say), is just plain Wrong. > Modern Art can be traded at higher and higher (or lower and lower) > prices every day, and the Total Area of walls you can fill up is the > same. For every pumped-up price one guy gets, another guy PAYS that > exact same amount for the exact same "objet d'art". Only when someone > PRODUCES more of the crap does Total Wealth increase. > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
