From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The definition of Wealth
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug20.013625.24541@newshost.anu.edu.au> Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au writes:
>It took me so long to think of a reply for Gary that the original thread
>disappeared from our files.  Tsk.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, Gary, but the position you stated most recently was
>that we could effectively equate wealth with utility - that is, the more we are
>able to do, the more wealthy we are.  You went on to describe money as being a
>sort of unnecessary and possibly insufficient condition for wealth.  I think
>that what _you_ said is an excellent definition, and I hope that I have done it
>justice here.

Wealth and utility are two ways of looking at the same thing. That's 
true. Wealth only exists in as far as it confers the ability to manipulate 
the environment more to our liking. Money is the counter typically used in 
measuring wealth. Money, as in coinage, is not strictly a necessary 
requirement for wealth, but some sort of counter is required if we are to 
rise above simple barter. Money adequately serves that purpose.

>However, I am concerned about the attempted comparison of wealth generation
>between economic systems.  How can we trade off wealth when it's defined as
>utility?  I shall deliberately choose a trite example - am I more wealthy than
>you because I saw a kangaroo in the bush two mornings ago as I walked to work? 
>Or am I less wealthy than you because I can't trip over [insert your local
>cuddly here] under the same circumstances?  To be truly comparable, the wealth
>created by one system must be a subset of the wealth created by another,
>otherwise there will be overlap but there will also be fringes which either has
>that the other doesn't, and who is to say whose fringes are better?  I suppose
>this is where my comment about the economic systems defining wealth could come
>in again.  I think that to say that our system is better at generating wealth
>than another where there is some overlap but also fringes is to apply a
>subjective value judgement to those fringes.

The scenic value of wildlife spotting is a recreational utility. It's
cheaper to enjoy the grass in the backyard than it is to view an exotic
in a distant area. So viewing any particular bit of wildlife is an exercise
of wealth proportional to the rarity of the event. If your backyard is
crawling with pesky kangaroos, and mine is crawling with rabbits, neither
of us is exercising any particular amount of wealth in the viewing process.
If either of us is required to exercise considerable effort, such as
purchasing a refuge, in order to view the critters, then use of wealth
is involved. To put it another way, wealth is involved when we have to
take a positive action to achieve an end. Usually that action involves
an exchange with another person such as purchasing an item to facilitate
our desires.

Looking at wealth another way, oil in the ground is not wealth. Extracting,
processing, transporting, and marketing oil *creates* wealth by increasing
the utility of the resource.

Gary