From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: The definition of Wealth
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:15:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.170314.2177@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Economic systems regulate the creation and consumption of wealth, a thing
>separate from but related to utility. Wealth is objective, but utility is
>situational. For example, I wouldn't pay more than $1 for a 1000 gallons
>of water for my lawn, but I might pay $1000 for a glass of water if I were
>thirsty enough. The two utilities are of different value. If an economic 
>system allows me to get and retain $1001, then both of my utilities can be 
>satisfied. If the economic system only allows me to get and retain $0.99 then 
>neither of my utilities can be satisfied. Thus it is the measure of the ability
>to get and retain wealth, as commonly, but not necessarily, measured by money,
>that determines the usefulness of an economic system. That can be objectively
>quantified across different economic systems. Utility may vary from one
>culture to another, but wealth cares not which *particular* utility that
>you wish to exercise, only your ability to command it.

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. 

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.

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).

-- paul
-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.