[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I’d say that exchange is not required to obtain wealth.
[/quote]
OK.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I think a caveat of “at the time” should be added. One is free to change his mind later on, but he can’t undo the past.
[/quote]
Makes sense.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
For example, an individual could have a strong aversion to producing things that others value, while at the same time be strongly present-oriented. The “best method” for such an individual could very well be to simply (try to) take what he wants.
[/quote]
Does this change the definition of “wealth”, at least for this individual?
Jeah, wealth is the amount of stuff you can afford. I don’t see why that would contradict subjective value. It’s not like productivity is somehow objective. What makes some piece of material a product is that we subjectively value it. The materials in my cell phone would be utterly useless to me in a slightly different configuration. The reason someone built it is that I value it. Productivity is our ability to put the universe into the state we want it to be. Money is a way to make it happen, a technology like the alphabet or spreadsheets.
I’m using “products” in a very broad sense here. Spending time with your kids is a product, in that you have to expend scarce resources, which you could have used for something else, to produce it.
[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
I’m using “products” in a very broad sense here. Spending time with your kids is a product, in that you have to expend scarce resources, which you could have used for something else, to produce it.
[/quote]
I see. My question was based upon a much more literalistic interpretation of “products”. That’s I saw a contradiction vis a vis STV. What if you don’t particularly value “stuff”, you know?
[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
I don’t think so, but what do you mean?
[/quote]
That seems to be the argument we all make vis a vis socialism, or neoliberalism, etc.
“If only we left the market alone, we would all be rich!”
[EDIT]: Looking back at your post, you also seem to be conflating “products” with “stuff” in almost that entire first paragraph. It’s only that last sentence, where you treat “product” as not necessarily “stuff” IMO. I think my question about the contradiction with STV is fair.
Wealth is the ability of an individual to satisfy their least important desires.
So wealth is based upon individual preference and has nothing to do with money and things. To say a person is wealthier than another would be to say that one person is satisfying desires that the other person is unable to do. The problem is that outside of basic desires: food, clothing, shelter, sex, etc two individuals living in an economy with a complex division of labor can be remarkably different in their desires.
Yup. The conventional wisdom is that there’s economic goods and “extra-economic” goods. But that is not the case, everything we want has to be produced expending scarce resources that have alternative uses.
What I meant by allocation mechanism wan’t the entire economic system, but particular pricing signals. As in “this loaf of bread costs two Dollars”. Socialists think that we can make physical goods less scarce by changing what the pricing signal says. If we declare that bread should cost one Dollar then two people can afford one. The extra bread apparently appears out of thin air. For example, many people still believe that if we make health care free somehow it would be abundant enough for everyone to get it. So now there’s not enough cancer treatments for everyone (which is why they are priced at a point where a portion of those who want them can’t afford them), now we declared that they should be free, and now there are enough cancer treatments for everyone? Where do these additional resources come from? People believe “money causes us to not be able to pay for stuff, thus if you take away the need to pay for stuff it will appear out of thin air”. I call these ‘free lunch theories’.
Communism/The Venus Project is the hardcore version of this, featuring the belief that we can create superabundance by just abolishing money altogether. Most modern socialists believe in a more mitigated version that’s just about a few industries, which makes it easier to disguise the ‘free lunch fallacy’. All of demand-side economics commits this fallacy.
Supply-side economics is the specific rejection of the free lunch notion, we are saying that there is no way to trick the economy into releasing free resources by tinkering with market signals, you actually have to produce stuff to get it. We are proposing a particular economic system, but one that leaves market allocation alone.
Oh, and if you want a response to that resource thread, I can do one. I kinda wrote a response but then forgot about it.
Does one necessarily require exchange for wealth? Or money?
[/quote]
No, one does not. in primitive societies with limited concepts of money and exchange it would be entirely possible to become considered wealthy on the basis purely of your own labor. Having many wives and children and livestock was considered wealth. Among Hawaiians, a fat belly was wealth, etc.
[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
I call these ‘free lunch theories’.
[/quote]
LOL, now that’s the pot calling the kettle black! I read some pretty hardcore magical thinking in that Jevon’s Paradox thread!
Not to beat a dead horse, but what is the endgame of a free market, then? Isn’t superabundance of material goods the goal?
[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
Supply-side economics is the specific rejection of the free lunch notion, we are saying that there is no way to trick the economy into releasing free resources by tinkering with market signals, you actually have to produce stuff to get it. We are proposing a particular economic system, but one that leaves market allocation alone.
[/quote]
I don’t really understand how this jibes. I though the market worked to satisfy want. Production eventually drives all prices to zero, no?
[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
Oh, and if you want a response to that resource thread, I can do one. I kinda wrote a response but then forgot about it.
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“Anemone”]
No, one does not. in primitive societies with limited concepts of money and exchange it would be entirely possible to become considered wealthy on the basis purely of your own labor. Having many wives and children and livestock was considered wealth. Among Hawaiians, a fat belly was wealth, etc.
[/quote]
You’ve lost me, Jackson. Also, you didn’t explain how you think my earlier statements change the definition of “wealth”, at least for the individual I mentioned.
So, wealth is still always material, then?
[/quote]
That’s an interesting question. I’d have to say no. It might serve one’s values to be able to give away money and by that purchase whatever intangible thing he desires thereby, be it self-satisfaction or the like. That too can be wealth. In that sense, you’d be gaining wealth by reducing your physical goods and moneys by gifting it away, but that would still be wealth to that person via serving the value that inspired that action, that outcome they wanted. In fact we often see the very wealthy doing exactly this.
But, does this mean it’s not physical anymore? I doubt it, since it’s now material goods for someone else, just not you. Wealth is a satisfaction, which is innately ‘spiritual’ (meaning non-physical) yet it’s achieved by physical means, as all things must be in this world.
Wealth could be anything someone values. Thus, wealth to one person could also be time to think, a sunset to view, etc. But this ends up being achieved via money, money purchasing free time, money purchasing property with a sunset view.
So perhaps we could say that while wealth isn’t always material, it’s attainment always is.
