--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > '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'. >
No, I don't think ANY of the people I hear speaking of a Loss Of Wealth in the Stock Market mean THAT when they use the word "Wealth". Do you think that that is what they are trying to convey? Nah. I have made good arguments that Market Value depends on State Of Mind, and in those same arguments I make a clear distinction between Market Value and Wealth, which I point out does NOT change merely because someone changes his mind - which, if true, would mean that people could gain Wealth just by THINKING. Look again at the argument about a Free Trade instantly making people MATERIALLY BETTER OFF - which, as I prove, would if true result in two men being MATERIALLY BETTER OFF after a couple of trades at the conclusion of which they had EXACTLY what they had before! "Materially Better Off" is a good description of what most people (including me) mean by "having more Wealth" - and Total Wealth in that sense does not increase in an instant when someone Trades Freely, nor does it come about in an instant when someone Changes His Mind. Yes, perhaps Economists and asylum inhabitants may use the word Wealth to include Internal Mental States, but I have proved that such use implies a situation that no normal person would agree with (increase in Total Wealth just by Thinking). It is important to use an agreed-upon definition of a word, at least for the duration of a discussion. If there is some disagreement, then we can make up new words (Wealth-0, Wealth-9) on which we CAN agree for purposes of discussion. When Hugh Hewett says that "Americans lost a trillion dollars of WEALTH yesterday", he really truly means to claim that (some?) people now have fewer assets at their disposal - they can buy fewer yachts and hire fewer and uglier whores than they could the day before. And I am certain that, for SOME people, he is correct. SOME people will have trouble making the payments on their MRI machines. But since (as I have proved) Total Wealth (USING HIS DEFINITION) cannot have changed, then perforce for every dollar one man no longer has, some other man must have one more dollar than the day before. My original gripe was that Hugh Hewitt implied that i a few hours there were only Losses of Wealth, not balanced by equal Gains in Wealth (again, Wealth as he uses the word). That cannot be.
