Talk:Wealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] NPOV issues

Hoom, a one-click way to register an NPOV dispute might be nice, yes, it might lead to hastiness, but, better that, than this hasty Wikipedia:revert and Wikipedia:delete based on ad hominem and such. Truly a month is too long to go without an article on such an important subject, and, it seemed, the only writing that was going on was some feeble retrieval of this older version, by someone not knowing how to satisfy the reverter, having no guidance. Thus this way of handling the dispute is a minor edit, and a better policy than all this hasty hiding of text. EofT

[edit] Needs work

I have edited this article for NPOV and accuracy, but it still needs work. mydogategodshat 11:03, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The end of the article is getting rather tangled up, I think due to POV trying to prove something about ecological economics. For whatever reason, needs work down there to make it more coherent and informative. SEWilco

[edit] Region relevance

Why is the ecological region relevant to the potlatch social use of wealth? Yes, I know the custom is regional, but that is not related to the wealth. SEWilco 19:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think what the author is saying is these institutionalized redistribution schemes occurred primarily in resource rich areas. Anthropology is not my area of expertise so I don't know if that is true or not, but it seems reasonable.
Thanks for the good work on improving this article. I have finnished editing (including a couple of minor changes to your contributions), and I think we can take the NPOV warning off. What do you think?
Just one recommendation: where you say "The value of the wealth is dependent on many things, but its existence is separate from its value.", I think that requires elaboration. It poses more questions than it answers. mydogategodshat 02:42, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's not really needed. SEWilco 12:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV warning. mydogategodshat 18:54, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Money density map

I'm looking for a map like this one.. but instead of people.. with money http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0303/peopleearth94_usda_big.gif

[edit] New Definition of Wealth

I would like to offer new definitions - perhaps inserted in a new section called "Other Definitions"

Money: A psychological creation; a concept; the mental image of that which is used as a medium of exchange.

Currency: That which circulates as a medium of exchange; anything that is in immediate, continuous and widespread use as money.

In other words, nobody can physically touch money, no more than they can touch a pound or an inch or a second. Money is conceptual in nature. Currency, however, the thing that represents money, can be touched. Just as a person can touch a scale to measure weight, a ruler to measure distance, or a clock to measure time.

Wealth is ownership of labor, and of anything upon which labor has been expended, whether material or immaterial, which can directly satisfy human wants, needs or tastes. Wealth is goods and services (property) owned.

Some people might argue that wealth can be created without labor. For example, a fruit tree growing in the back yard might represent wealth when the fruit is ripe. Notice, however, that as long as the fruit is not harvested, the fruit is not wealth. Labor must be expended to receive any benefit from the fruit.

Taken from the Nesara Institute.


inigmatus 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Can someone please cite the source on the 10 richest nations in the world? - 222.153.250.252 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


For those who are interested in contributing to this article, here are some free information sources:

[edit] Some confusions

Did the "spoiled brat" archetype originate in England, and did the "wealthy person" music originate there as well? --User:Angie Y.

[edit] Why the Midwest?

"The concept of wealth is relative and not only varies between societies, but will often vary between different sections or regions in the same society. For example, a personal net worth of US $1,000,000 in most parts of the United States Midwest would certainly place a person among the wealthiest citizens, yet the same net wealth would be considered quite modest on New York City's Upper East Side or in the Connecticut suburbs."

There are many millionaires, and billionaires in the Midwest. I mean look at cook county, with over 160,000 residents having over one million dollars. That should be reconstructed, comparing affluent areas to actual impoverished areas, such as Appalachia.


DDavis092 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

True, Chicago and other big mid-western cities have quite a few millionaires. But the cost of lviving is much lower than in, say, costal California. In the SF Bay Area you can get a 2 bedroom, 900 sq. ft. fixer upper for half a million (if you're lucky). For the same price you get a quite stately 4 or 5 or even 6 bedroom home in Naperville or Lake County (North Chicago metro). A million dollars in the mid-west goes a lot further than CA or NYC; thus millionaires there may have more conspicous life-styles than here (SF), where 1 million is barely enough for a middle class home. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balderdash

The purported distinction between wealth and "richness" is nonsense. The statement that "wealth relates more to the flow of resources whilst richness relates more to the static absolute value" is simply wrong. The meaning of wealth is precisely that it is a static value, as distinct from income, which is the flow of resources received over time. I am unaware of any basis or foundation for the assertion that "the opposite of wealth is scarcity, the opposite of richness is poverty."

The article also repeatedly confuses the notion of wealth itself, as an abstract concept, with the degree of wealth possessed by an individual or society. Whether a person with a net worth of $1,000,000 should be considered "wealthy" has nothing whatever to do with the meaning of wealth itself as an economic concept. Wealth is the amount of goods or resources a person possesses. Period. A poor man with nothing but the shirt on his back still possesses some wealth—just not very much of it.

A list of "some of the wealthiest countries in the world" is irrelevant to the subject, as is the reference to the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

On the whole, this article is virtually worthless and should be scrapped and rewritten, in its entirety, by someone else.

Dodiad 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entropy??

From the article: "The application of human ingenuity to raw materials can transform these to more valuable forms, but, even if human ingenuity is infinite, entropy may eventually put an absolute limit on the amount of wealth that can be created."

I have a pretty good understanding of entropy, but I have no clue how wealth could possibly be limited by it. Anyone want to enlighten me? johnpseudo 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, constantly increasing entropy means the universe will eventually become a 'cold soup' which is incapable of supporting life. So at that point, wealth creation will, I assume, be restricted. It's an utterly meaningless statement to put in the article. But then the rest of the article varies from the contentless to the just plain wrong. Can we bin it and start again? (unsigned)

This article really does need work. And the entropy sentence is ridiculous. It's like inserting into the article the observation that we can't generate wealth if we all die. Very out there and irrelevant. ~ Rollo44 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I interpret the author's comments on entrophy in a different way. Imagine the hypothetical situation in which human life could be continued on indefinitely on planet Earth or some other place in space. In such a situation, wealth, as defined as the ownership of good or services which have value (functionality) and are made of harvested resources, would eventually succomb to entropy, because the resources themselves would dwindle and eventually succomb to entropy. Does this make sense? And the article does suck. 71.198.35.217 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropological view

Reading through the section Wealth#Anthropological views of wealth, I noticed that the concept of personal relationships is not emphasized enough. I know that from studying Africa in the 1800s, personal relationships were of the utmost importance. That is: who you know, who can take care of you, who you can call upon to do a favor, etc. (Since land was in abundance it was not always highly valued.) I think this aspect could be touched upon more. Thoughts? ~ Rollo44 02:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unsubscribe

remove my email from your data base immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.133.102 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)