From: Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: The definition of Wealth
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 01:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.130722.11884@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.013625.24541@newshost.anu.edu.au>
Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au writes:
>
>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
>
Oopsie.  I can see that the example I chose obscured the intent of my post. 
Sorry about that. My concern is not at all directed to the scenic value of
wildlife but to what I have labelled socio-economic fringes.  I can visualise
the point of my argument as a Venn diagram with two interlocking circles - A
and B.  Circle A represents the utility afforded by economic system A, circle B
that of system B.  There is some overlap, so that both systems offer some
identical utilities, but there is some non-overlap, so that there is utility
which is unique to each.  My assertion is that unless either of circle A or B
is completely within the other, they are not objectively comparable because we
don't have  means by which we can compare the value of non-identical utilities
other than personal preferance, which is inevitable affected by social forces.

This brings me to rebut your original assertion : I think that no economic
system can be 'better' at creating wealth than another because 'better' is
ill-defined, and when it's boiled down it ends up being subjective.  This is
fine except that it seems to be in the nature of economic systems to create
vicious circles of supply and demand, in terms of defining and then creating
wealth.  Therefore we are taught what our system thinks is good utility and
then offered it.  So our system is naturally the best.

regardless,
Andrew

now hit d
Newsgroups: talk.environment