From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The definition of Wealth
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:03:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug23.013230.18550@newshost.anu.edu.au> Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au writes:
>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.

Ah, I see the problem. You think utility is something that is the function
of a particular economic system instead of a thing in and of itself regardless
of the system of monetary distribution. That's a false assumption. Utility
is at a different level of abstraction from economics. At the economic
level, wealth is the measure of the ability to command utility, whatever
that utility may be. Another word for utility that would be equally valid
is whim. Personal utility is equivalent to personal whim. Now some whims
are generally thought more important than others. It's generally felt
that the whim of wanting to stay alive as long as possible is of high
value. Thus that whim, or utility, may command a high price and cause the
great expenditure of wealth. Other whims, such as the desire to watch a
rabbit on the lawn, may have less value and thus command less expenditure
of wealth. Wealth, as I said before, is a measure of the command over
your personal environment that you have in order to satisfy your personal
utilities, or whims.

>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.

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.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment