From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The definition of Wealth
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:54:15 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug25.231509.8722@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>
>I almost find myself agreeing with Mr. Coffman, but a serious flaw
>asserts itself instead. Mr. Coffman admits that "whims" or "utilities"
>are situational, whereas "wealth" is objective. He does not appear, in
>this post at least, to grant that one of the situational factors
>affecting the widespread existence of certain "whims" or "utilities"
>is the economic system. An economic system with long distance
>distribution in place, monetary exchange, investment banking and mail
>order is going to create quite different utilities than one based on
>local agriculture, barter, and cohesive familial structures. This has
>been seen quite clearly when new technology is introduced to various
>cultures around the world - often they can see no use for it, even
>when its function is explained to them. However, as other changes take
>effect, the utility of the item sometimes increases, and ultimately,
>it can become something with more utility to them than to the
>introducer. 

I not only admit, I assert, that utilities are situational. I also
agree that the complexity of the economic, technological, and social
systems determine what utilities are satisfiable. Indeed I assert
that, since utilities are situational, some will be of more value
than others to persons living under different social, political,
and technological structures.

>Some contributors to this thread have claimed that wealth is somehow
>determined by your ability to control scarce resources. I disagree,
>somewhat. I would claim that we (whoever that is) have *defined*
>wealth in this way, precisely so that is hard to come by. What
>motivation would be left if wealth was actually things that we already
>have ? If you want to rephrase, and say that such control is a
>motivator, I'll agree, but it is not unambiguously wealth, which I
>claim is culturally determined.

I disagree. Wealth is a measure of power over a person's personal
environment. It's a measure of the ability to change that environment
to meet the utility demands of the person. Wealth is power, economic
power in the usual case. In some cases, other forms of power are also
wealth. Military or political power are wealth if they allow you to
shape your environment to meet your personal whims, or utilities,
whatever form they may take.

>A culture that placed little value on material adornment, but instead
>focused on health through diet, exercise and ritual, that saw a simple
>diet as a sacred one, and lived in a suitable climate, would not
>define wealth in this way, I think. They would focus on skills
>relating the commonplace, the insightful and the humorous.
>
>Unfortunately, the only such culture of which I am aware exists only
>in the pages of a book ("Island" by Aldous Huxley).

Such a culture might be called content, because their set of utilities
are cheap to meet, but not wealthy. One can be content if one's utilities
are simple and fully met. One can be wealthy and not content because
one's utilities are complex and cannot all be met at any price. Wealth and 
utility are related by price and cost mechanisms, but perfect contentment 
is not guaranteed by wealth alone. It also requires finite achievable
utilities. Most people and cultures have infinite wants and finite
wealth. Therefore they cannot be content.

Gary