What is wealth.........?

[marv]

What is wealth?

There are several threads discussing tax policy, corporate and individual taxes, incomes, the distribution of wealth, consumerism, and other subjects related to wealth. But most posts seem to approach wealth with different concepts of just exactly what wealth is.
I don't think that everybody can come to a consensus as to what wealth is or how it should be created and distributed, but if we could get a better understanding of what wealth is, maybe we could understand each other in a more constructive way.
What I'm starting is a thread where each of us can describe our individual concept of what wealth is and how it should, or can, be created and distributed.
In my next post, I'll give you my take on wealth, its creation and distribution.
Meanwhile, here are some dictionary definitions of wealth from Webster's New World Dictionary and others:
1.A large aggregate of real and personal property;...
2. ... an abundance of those things that men desire;...
3. All material objects having economic utility;...
4. ...material possessions in all their variety,...
5. ...all and only such objects that have utility and can be appropriated in exclusive possession, and therefore exchanged.
6. Any valuable thing or things.

[marv]

For me wealth can be either physical or intellectual property that has value to others. It can also be the potential for creating physical or intellectual property which can be transferred to others. Therefore, I have to say that wealth can only be created with labor or the potential for labor.

Some examples:
1. A fence constructed to restrain horses to a particular pasture may have value to me if I am in the business of raising horses. It also increases the value of my pasture if I sell it to someone else who needs a fenced pasture. To that degree the construction of the fence is the creation of wealth for me.
2. Since I don't know anything about building fences, I ask a man who does to design one for me. The fence designer has the potential for wealth in his intellectual property which he then converts to real wealth when he puts the design on paper and exchanges it with me for some of my wealth - usually money.
3. Since the construction of that fence requires some amount of physical labor, I hire a man to build it. When I hire the man, I try to judge his ability to build the fence in order to arrive at some equitable rate of exchange of my wealth to him. The man I hire has potential wealth in his ability to use his labor to build the fence. He has the ability, through his potential to provide labor, to create his own wealth.

There are also some things that are not wealth. Some things that wouldn't be wealth might be a very large diamond or a vein of gold buried in the ground and unknown to anyone. Only when labor is expended and they are discovered and extracted do they acquire value and become wealth.

A new device existing in the mind of an inventor is only potential wealth but acquires value and becomes wealth only after it's built. The same is true for writers and artists. Even a psychiatrist must transfer his intellectual skills and knowledge to someone else before it can become wealth to the psychiatrist.

[gopman]

"aggregate of real and personal property"

That's basically the economists' viewpoint. This is a good definition in my opinion, because it includes human capital. Human capital covers physical and intellectual health. It also covers all the material things one owns.

[up2date]

Wealth is going to be difficult to define. The person who has everything he/she wants might very well be considered wealthy even if those "wants" are fairly modest. Wealth as applied to our discussions, I will have to weigh in on that one a little later...

[marv]

up2date,Wealth is going to be difficult to define. The person who has everything he/she wants might very well be considered wealthy even if those "wants" are fairly modest.This is the problem I see in many of the discussions. But, to the contrary, I'm of the opinion that wealth is easy to define.

What I see in other discussions seems to be a blurring between "wealth" and "want". If my neighbor drives two Cadillacs and I have only one Chevrolet, somehow either my neighbor is wealthy or I am poor.

If a person's practical needs are met, they aren't poor. But if they feel "poor" because they see someone with better clothes, car, house, etc., though their needs are met, they've confused "want" with "need". Wealth per se then has little meaning.

[up2date]

Originally posted by marv
up2date,This is the problem I see in many of the discussions. But, to the contrary, I'm of the opinion that wealth is easy to define.

What I see in other discussions seems to be a blurring between "wealth" and "want". If my neighbor drives two Cadillacs and I have only one Chevrolet, somehow either my neighbor is wealthy or I am poor. If only transportation is needed and the Chevrolet satisfies the practical (if not the emotional) need, they are equally wealthy.

If a person's practical needs are met and they have everything they need, they aren't poor. But if they feel "poor" because the see someone with better clothes, car, house, etc., though their needs are met, they've confused "want" with "need".

This is a very real social problem because of the envy and anger it can generate. I think that things would be better if people could accept a more mechanical definition of wealth. The problem of delineation between "have" and have not" and who the "wealthy" are would become easier to understand. I agree, Marv. There's a certain degree of envy in the definition for many people. Many people would like to use tax policy (and other methods) to "get what the other guy has." If a person is sufficiently talented, sufficiently hardworking, sufficiently lucky, made good choices, etc, than there's nothing wrong with that person having more than his/her neighbor. Nothing should be done "even things out." When I refer to wealth in these threads, I am generally referring to the very, very top.

[Blueangel]

I consider myself to be wealthy when I can do the essential household shopping without having to mentally calculate the cost of everything as I go, and knowing that I have more than enough cash in the bank to cover it.

Anything more than that is pleasurable fluff.

[marv]

up2date,Nothing should be done "even things out."...and that's the next step; economics.When I refer to wealth in these threads, I am generally referring to the very, very top.Did you mean "wealth" or "the wealthy"? Also, sorry about the quote; I went back and edited part of that post out because I thought I might be straying too far from the topic.

Blueangel, I'm in complete agreement with your post. A house that keeps us warm in the winter and cool in the summer, clothes on our backs, food in our bellies, and an adequate health insurance. We're happy.