Should a rich person help a poor person just because they're rich?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman "Skill" is not a cost. I don't lose skill by producing the TV, on the contrary, I gain it. By developing my "skill" (R&D, Industrial Engineering), I am increasing my ability to create wealth. This comes at a cost to noone, and increases the absolute amount of wealth in the world.

Skill is something that can be created and destroyed, obviously as people can learn and forget at their pleasure.

However, it cost you the time to learn the skills and to use the skill to make the TV (assuming that you just had the materials lying around and it didn't cost you any time to obtain them). It also cost you time to market the TV for trade.

The amount of wealth in a system is constant. It's only ever being shifted around into different forms.

You could, if you wanted, also claim that the potential wealth + the physical wealth of a system = a constant amount. IE, there is still a lot of material in our system (the earth) that can be turned into different forms of matter and traded.

You can't create or destoy wealth just like you can't create or destroy time or matter.

If neither of us gained anything, then why did the trade take place? Please. Tell me.

To increase your pleasure.

As I'm responding to posts today in the this thread, I get the idea that a lot of people include pleasure inside their definition for wealth.

I view this as false.

The reason I view this as false is because pleasure can be created and destroyed. Also, pleasure is completely subjective. One grouping of wealth can cause more or less pleasure depending on the person.


So I choose to define wealth without pleasure. Thus, I speculate that the reason for all trade in the world is to increase pleasure, whatever that may be to you.

To you, your pleasure would increase if you had the raw value of the TV instead of having the TV itself.

Absolute nonsense. The value of the television is whatever I am willing to pay for it. So if I'm willing to pay $350, then that is the value of the television to me. So when I buy it for $300, I have gained $50 worth of value.

I believe that to be incorrect. I believe that "perceived wealth" is a fallacy of the human brain.

For example, lets say that you own a house that you purchased for $100000. Then, you ask an agent to put it on the market for you. The agent estimates that you'll be able to sell it for $200000; a $100000 gain relative to your purchase of the house.

However, soon after your house goes on the market, the next door neighboor is murdered. Not many people come to see the house which causes the agent to lower the asking price to $150000. The house is then sold.

BUT, because the agent had given you the original estimate of $200000, most people would see the sale of this house as a $50000 loss instead of a $50000 gain relative to the original purchase!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is completely incomprehensible to me.

The house has a value of $150000. End of story. It is worth what you could trade it for. End of story.

The icing on the cake is that if the agent had never given you the original estimate, you'd never have thought of it as a loss.


This why I consider "percieved value" to be outside the definition of wealth, because it can be created and destroyed.

There's no such thing as a "$300 TV". $300 is the selling price. There's nothing inherent in the television that makes it $300.

Now you're getting it!

Indeed, any TV at any time can be worth any value. Value is completely dependant upon the trade agreement.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Skill is something that can be created and destroyed, obviously as people can learn and forget at their pleasure.

New technologies and industrial processes aren't "forgotten". They are a permanent increase to our wealth-producing capabilities. And even if you're talking about individual skill, so what if I lose it? While I had it, I was producing wealth -- without any continued "cost". Development of "skill" is an initial, sunk cost, and almost always produces magnitudes of dividents.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 However, it cost you the time to learn the skills and to use the skill to make the TV (assuming that you just had the materials lying around and it didn't cost you any time to obtain them). It also cost you time to market the TV for trade.

All of which I wouldnt do unless I stood to make a net gain from the process.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You can't create or destoy wealth just like you can't create or destroy time or matter.

This is totally incoherent. Your definition of "wealth" is utterly useless.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 As I'm responding to posts today in the this thread, I get the idea that a lot of people include pleasure inside their definition for wealth.

Pleasure is a pretty good way of looking at it, actually. Greater pleasure = greater wealth.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Also, pleasure is completely subjective. One grouping of wealth can cause more or less pleasure depending on the person.

That's exactly the point. Wealth is subjective.
As someone pointed out, in the desert, a weight of water is more valuable than an equal weight of gold.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So I choose to define wealth without pleasure.

Then you've produced a totally useless definition.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 To you, your pleasure would increase if you had the raw value of the TV instead of having the TV itself.

And that's what I call an increase in wealth.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I believe that to be incorrect. I believe that "perceived wealth" is a fallacy of the human brain.

This is just ridiculous. You seem to be saying that "wealth" exists anywhere but in the human mind. That it exists in some "absolute" sense? :eek:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 BUT, because the agent had given you the original estimate of $200000, most people would see the sale of this house as a $50000 loss instead of a $50000 gain relative to the original purchase!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It can be looked at as a loss if you think of the value of the house as liquidity. This is how the stock market works (ever heard of it)? I had a house that was valued at $200,000 -- at one point of time, I could have sold it, and recieved that amount of money. But I waited, and the market fell. It's not a net loss, no. It's a short-term loss -- but a loss nonetheless.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That is completely incomprehensible to me.

Yes, you obviously have zero understanding of commerce.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The house has a value of $150000. End of story. It is worth what you could trade it for.

As I said, "value" has meaning only in the sense of "what you are willing to pay for it". Prices are determined based on what people are willing to pay for them. Since both buyer and seller have to benefit from a transaction, the price inevitably falls above what the seller is willing to sell it for, and below what the buyer is willing to buy it for. Hence, both parties gain value from the transaction.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The icing on the cake is that if the agent had never given you the original estimate, you'd never have thought of it as a loss.

Ignorance is always a possibility. This is why the more perfect information you have about a market (appraisals, etc), the more wealth you stand to gain.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This why I consider "percieved value" to be outside the definition of wealth, because it can be created and destroyed.

You began with the ridiculous axiom that wealth is constant, so the rest of your arguments are incoherent.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman New technologies and industrial processes aren't "forgotten". They are a permanent increase to our wealth-producing capabilities. And even if you're talking about individual skill, so what if I lose it? While I had it, I was producing wealth -- without any continued "cost". Development of "skill" is an initial, sunk cost, and almost always produces magnitudes of dividents.

Like I said, skill itself is outside my definition for wealth since it can be created or destoyed. And yes, it is destroyed all the time. Just like you said, new technologies require the creation of new skills to be learned. And what of the skills for operating the new obsolete technology that has just been replaced? In the garbage can, along with the time spent to learn those skills.

All of which I wouldnt do unless I stood to make a net gain from the process.

People do many things that might be deemed "crazy" to increase their pleasure.

Pleasure is a pretty good way of looking at it, actually. Greater pleasure = greater wealth.

Except that pleasure can be created or destoryed at whim and is never consistant. So, no, it's really warped way to look at it.

That's exactly the point. Wealth is subjective. As someone pointed out, in the desert, a weight of water is more valuable than an equal weight of gold.

Value is subjective, wealth is constant.

And that's what I call an increase in wealth.

Wealth is constant, it can't be created or destoyed in a system.

That it exists in some "absolute" sense?

Correct.

It can be looked at as a loss if you think of the value of the house as liquidity. This is how the stock market works (ever heard of it)? I had a house that was valued at $200,000 -- at one point of time, I could have sold it, and recieved that amount of money. But I waited, and the market fell. It's not a net loss, no. It's a short-term loss -- but a loss nonetheless.

It's never a loss except in an abstract sense. Just like "i" is only in our minds, there are only real numbers.

As I said, "value" has meaning only in the sense of "what you are willing to pay for it". Prices are determined based on what people are willing to pay for them.

What you're willing to pay for something is completely irrelevent. What you're willing to sell something for is completely irrelevent.

Only when there is an agreement between TWO parties can value be established.


I would be willing to pay $5 for a brand new 65" HDTV. The store would be willing to sell me it for $50000. However, the value of the TV (probably around $6000 for a DLP projection) can only be established if we both agree on an amount.

Since both buyer and seller have to benefit from a transaction, the price inevitably falls above what the seller is willing to sell it for, and below what the buyer is willing to buy it for. Hence, both parties gain value from the transaction.

Willingness is irrelevent, like I just said. Only when an agreement is reached is value established.

Ignorance is always a possibility. This is why the more perfect information you have about a market (appraisals, etc), the more wealth you stand to gain.

In an abstract sense, you could always look at different points in time where you stoof to gain more or less value for an item you bought or sold. But only in an abstract sense.

The item only has a value that is established at the moment of agreement between the two parties.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Like I said, skill itself is outside my definition for wealth since it can be created or destoyed.

Which is irrelevant until you prove your assertion that wealth is constant.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 And what of the skills for operating the new obsolete technology that has just been replaced? In the garbage can, along with the time spent to learn those skills.

Since they're being replaced (upgraded), it is net increase in "skill".

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 People do many things that might be deemed "crazy" to increase their pleasure.

How is this relevant?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Except that pleasure can be created or destoryed at whim and is never consistant. So, no, it's really warped way to look at it.

Again, this is meaningless until you prove your assertion that wealth is constant.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Wealth is constant, it can't be created or destoyed in a system.

Are you just going to keep parroting this, or are you going to explain it?
What possible utility is there in a definition of wealth that makes it "constant"?
What does it mean to say that wealth exists "absolutely"?
Please, tell us.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's never a loss except in an abstract sense. Just like "i" is only in our minds, there are only real numbers.

Then the majority of commerce is what you would call "abstract".

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What you're willing to pay for something is completely irrelevent. What you're willing to sell something for is completely irrelevent.

If it's "irrelevant", then how could you ever come to a decision on the selling price?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Only when there is an agreement between TWO parties can value be established.

So the CD I have here is worthless until it changes hands? Nonsense. I can pop it into a CD player at any time and hear music. That's wealth.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I would be willing to pay $5 for a brand new 65" HDTV. The store would be willing to sell me it for $50000. However, the value of the TV (probably around $6000 for a DLP projection) can only be established if we both agree on an amount.

If you're only willing to pay $5 then you will never buy the TV. The store values the TV much more than you do.

Don't you see how incoherent your argument is? Somehow, the TV has no value until I've purchased it? If go to the store, sit down, and watch the TV, I'm not benefitting from the value of the TV?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Willingness is irrelevent, like I just said. Only when an agreement is reached is value established.

Yes, I'm well aware that you have begun with this as an axiom.
Now are you actually going to back it up?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 In an abstract sense, you could always look at different points in time where you stoof to gain more or less value for an item you bought or sold. But only in an abstract sense.

So I guess the traders on Wall Street are only making "abstract" money when they invest in stocks and futures?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The item only has a value that is established at the moment of agreement between the two parties.

So if I build myself a TV to keep and use, I haven't gained value?

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 ... If you wanted to defined "wealth" in terms of pleasure, then yes, you could say that wealth was created. However, I personally like to define wealth only to physical quanities that can't be created or destroyed: time, materials, and value (aka money). ... To synthisize a diamond from carbon atoms, it costs you a great deal of wealth. First, it costs you time. A lot of time. Time spend gathering materials, time spent learning skill, time spent preparing materials, time spent synthisizing the diamonds, and time spent advertizing the diamonds for trade. That is quite a bit (probably 90% of the cost) of wealth right there. ... Unfortunately, the diamonds are worth $0 sitting in your living room. So then you must spend time and value to market them for trade. ... The diamonds and the water take on the same value if the trade is made. Anything is only ever worth what you can trade it for.

I can understand your point of view but it seems to be too limited a view to serve a useful purpose.

I see being a wealthy individual as someone who has few physical needs and wants unfulfilled. Wealth is related to physical things in how well they supply the needs and desires of people. Calling a person who had a pound of diamonds wealthy is only true to the extent that those diamonds fullfil some needs or wants of that person (or could be rather easily exchanged for such). I view myself wealthy to some extent, not that I have a lot of physical wealth but that I am able to assure an adequate supply of free time to pursue my personal interests.

Some people prefer diamonds, some prefer free time. The wealth of a person depends on how well they can supply their needs for each of these, and is a subjective matter that depends on each individual.

It wouldn't seem invalid to consider a person who lived in a tropical rainforest with fruit hanging from the trees, ready to be plucked, wealthy. It depends on the person viewing this as to what extent they would value such a scenario.

However, I personally like to define wealth only to physical quanities that can't be created or destroyed: time, materials, and value (aka money).

I'd call those someones resources, but by your definition, wealth would be something that couldn't be created or destroyed but that would mean a person could have their home burned down and they wouldn't lose any wealth.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Since they're being replaced (upgraded), it is net increase in "skill".

Incorrect.

The old skills are destoyed and new skills are created. Overall, skill stays the same.

Skill is not a part of an overall definition for wealth, though, since it can be created or destoryed at your pleasure.

The important thing to realize is that once you destoy those skills that you created, you lose that time that you've spent forever. This is why, overall, time is always lost which in turn causes wealth to remain constant.

If you could create extra time, then you could add to the overall wealth of a system. But as we all know you can't.

How is this relevant?

You asked me to explain to you why people trade. They trade to increase their pleasure. However, since pleasure is relative from one person to another, one person might not generally agree that a certain trade would increase pleasure.

Are you just going to keep parroting this, or are you going to explain it? What possible utility is there in a definition of wealth that makes it "constant"? What does it mean to say that wealth exists "absolutely"? Please, tell us.

My definition is really nothing more than the realization that all time and materials are conserved in a system. If you choose your system to be our solar system and pretend (for the sake of idealness) that nothing ever enters or leaves then it's true that all matter and all time is conserved. IE, time and matter are never destroyed, they're simply shifting around from one form to another. So, if you add up all those forms, you always have the same constant magnitude.

Utility is another abstract definition that can be created or destoyed at will. Really, in my definition, utility and pleasure are the same thing.

Trade exists because people are constantly looking to increase their pleasure. If that weren't the case, there would be no incentive for anyone to ever do anything. We'd simply sit in the same place, never moving until we died (and quickly became extinct). Our brains give us pleasure in order to incent us into, essentially, living.

Then the majority of commerce is what you would call "abstract".

The act of trading and the items being traded are quite real. As are the two fundamental elements that make wealth: time and material.

The concepts of value and pleasure are abstract. Since the majority of economics and commerce deals with analyzing and predicting value and incentive (pleasure), yes, most of it is abstract.

If it's "irrelevant", then how could you ever come to a decision on the selling price?

Like I said, it's all completely abstract.

There is no reason ever to sell or buy any thing for any price. Only because certain price ranges cause our pleasure to be maximized do we agree on prices.

For example (using the TV again), if you perceive a TV to have a certain value, then your pleasure will be maximized by agreeing to the lowest possible value under your perceived value. Likewise, for the supplier, his pleasure will be maximized by getting you to agree to the highest possible value above your preveived value.

Why do we ever do any of this? That's just life. That's who we are. Why? Who knows.

So the CD I have here is worthless until it changes hands? Nonsense. I can pop it into a CD player at any time and hear music. That's wealth.

That's pleasure.

Why should listening to patterns of different frequencies of pressure waves cause pleasure to you? No one knows, it just does.

However, all you have is a peice of plastic (materials), the time it cost you to obtain it, and the time it cost the supplier to produce it.

The value of the above elements is completely dependant on what you can get another party to agree to buy it from you.

If you're only willing to pay $5 then you will never buy the TV. The store values the TV much more than you do.

Which is why my willingness to pay for it is irrelevent. The only relevent thing is our agreement. I'll never (at least not likely) get the store to agree to sell it to me for only $5. You've got that right.

Don't you see how incoherent your argument is? Somehow, the TV has no value until I've purchased it? If go to the store, sit down, and watch the TV, I'm not benefitting from the value of the TV?

The TV has the ability to produce pleasure. This is widely agreed upon.

Why does it have this effect? Why is it that when we watch patterns of photons and pressure waves at different frequencies that it causes pleasure? I don't think I could answer that one.


However, value can only be established once the agreement has been made. It suggest otherwise would mean that you have placed a "percieved value" upon the TV. And, as we all know, perceived values are certainly outside the definition for wealth as they can be created or destoryed at will.

So I guess the traders on Wall Street are only making "abstract" money when they invest in stocks and futures?

Like I said, people will do weird things to increase their pleasure. Some people actually get pleasure from speculating on the perceived value of items. It's even a job you can hold.

Once those stocks are actually sold, then they take on the value of the trade agreement.

However, the only wealth components to consider is mostly just the time it took to research, completely the agreements, etc. Perhaps some paper materials, but unlikely.

So if I build myself a TV to keep and use, I haven't gained value?

You've gain pleasure.

Like I said, TV's cause pleasure, this is agreed upon.

But until you sell the TV, it has no value.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Nurse Sheep Agreed, especially those pathetic panhandlers on the street, show them the gutter and tell them thats where they belong, pathetic lazy vermin!

I don't think anyone deserved that, even if they are lazy.

But more than that, no one deserves to be forced to help them if they don't want to.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: SteveA I can understand your point of view but it seems to be too limited a view to serve a useful purpose. I see being a wealthy individual as someone who has few physical needs and wants unfulfilled. Wealth is related to physical things in how well they supply the needs and desires of people. Calling a person who had a pound of diamonds wealthy is only true to the extent that those diamonds fullfil some needs or wants of that person (or could be rather easily exchanged for such). I view myself wealthy to some extent, not that I have a lot of physical wealth but that I am able to assure an adequate supply of free time to pursue my personal interests. Some people prefer diamonds, some prefer free time. The wealth of a person depends on how well they can supply their needs for each of these, and is a subjective matter that depends on each individual. It wouldn't seem invalid to consider a person who lived in a tropical rainforest with fruit hanging from the trees, ready to be plucked, wealthy. It depends on the person viewing this as to what extent they would value such a scenario.

Your opinion on wealth is just as valid as mine.


I view wealth to be really just matter + time. Therefore, the wealthiest person is the one who owns the most matter and spent the least time obtaining it.

I'd call those someones resources, but by your definition, wealth would be something that couldn't be created or destroyed but that would mean a person could have their home burned down and they wouldn't lose any wealth.

They would lose quite a bit of wealth. Mostly in the form of time. All the time they spent to obtain the house would be gone forever since, by enthalpy, that exact house could never be recreated.

Also, again by enthalpy, the materials that used to be a house are now only a chared pile of rubish. That matter, even if it has the same amount of mass as the pervious house, will never be able to be exactly converted back into the house no matter how much energy and time is applied to it.

I'd consider that to be a tragic loss of wealth.


The system, by definition, wouldn't have lost any wealth. The time that was lost in obtaining the house will just be making up for time that was spent doing other things. The materials haven't been destoryed or lost by any means, they just changed form (from wood, most likely, to ash).

Now that I think about it, since we're talking about burning things, it might be much better to define wealth as energy + time. That way, not only would you be including energy with mass (matter) but also massless forms of energy (motion, light, and heat).

Or, perhaps it would be better to keep mass and massless energy seperate. That way you could say that the wealthiest person is the one who owns the most mass and spent the least time and energy.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Your opinion on wealth is just as valid as mine. I view wealth to be really just matter + time. Therefore, the wealthiest person is the one who owns the most matter and spent the least time obtaining it.

I'd agree that most people view physical objects and free time as things that provide wealth, though I still don't see how the value of these would remain constant for everyone, not all matter was created equal.

They would lose quite a bit of wealth. Mostly in the form of time. All the time they spent to obtain the house would be gone forever since, by enthalpy, that exact house could never be recreated.

But this seems to conflict with your prior definition saying that wealth can't be created or destroyed. If they lost the wealth, as you agree, then where did the wealth go? I see it as utterly destroyed, and I agree irreplaceable in reality because other costs would be created to reconstruct it.

Also, again by enthalpy, the materials that used to be a house are now only a chared pile of rubish. That matter, even if it has the same amount of mass as the pervious house, will never be able to be exactly converted back into the house no matter how much energy and time is applied to it. I'd consider that to be a tragic loss of wealth.

Ok so we agree wealth was lost in this scenario.

The system, by definition, wouldn't have lost any wealth.

Wait, we agreed twice that wealth was lost, yet now it's not? See why I'm confused?

The time that was lost in obtaining the house will just be making up for time that was spent doing other things. The materials haven't been destoryed or lost by any means, they just changed form (from wood, most likely, to ash). Now that I think about it, since we're talking about burning things, it might be much better to define wealth as energy + time. That way, not only would you be including energy with mass (matter) but also massless forms of energy (motion, light, and heat). Or, perhaps it would be better to keep mass and massless energy seperate. That way you could say that the wealthiest person is the one who owns the most mass and spent the least time and energy.

We could say wealth was equal to the speed of light, that's something that hardly changes at all either.

Now what's the purpose of trying to define wealth as a physical constant?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: SteveA I'd agree that most people view physical objects and free time as things that provide wealth, though I still don't see how the value of these would remain constant for everyone, not all matter was created equal.

The value of something is only established once a trade agreement for it is reached.

The perceived value, which is what you're talking about here, is outside the definition as it can be created or destoyed.

But this seems to conflict with your prior definition saying that wealth can't be created or destroyed. If they lost the wealth, as you agree, then where did the wealth go? I see it as utterly destroyed, and I agree irreplaceable in reality because other costs would be created to reconstruct it. Ok so we agree wealth was lost in this scenario. Wait, we agreed twice that wealth was lost, yet now it's not? See why I'm confused?

I don't believe I've said that an individual can't lose wealth. Just that the total wealth of the system remains constant.

IE, for every individual that loses wealth, that wealth is now just free floating in the system until another person gains it.

Like I've said, the potential wealth of a system + the actual wealth in the system is constant.

Now what's the purpose of trying to define wealth as a physical constant?

Because it's consistant with all our other physics definitions and wealth, to me, is purely physical.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The old skills are destoyed and new skills are created. Overall, skill stays the same.

If the skills are equivalent, then why would I bother to create the new skills in the first place? We are using "skill" to mean "wealth-producing capabilities", so "increased skill" means "increased ability to create wealth".

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Skill is not a part of an overall definition for wealth, though, since it can be created or destoryed at your pleasure.

My point was that skill is not a "cost". It's a permanent increase to our wealth-producing capacities.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 However, since pleasure is relative from one person to another, one person might not generally agree that a certain trade would increase pleasure.

If they don't agree that the trade will increase their pleasure, then they won't do it.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 My definition is really nothing more than the realization that all time and materials are conserved in a system.

If you mean "time and materials", then why don't you just say "time and materials"?
If "wealth" simply meant "time and materials", then there would have been no reason for creating the word "wealth" in the first place.

You have yet to explain how this definition is not utterly useless.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Utility is another abstract definition that can be created or destoyed at will. Really, in my definition, utility and pleasure are the same thing.

Dude.. "utility" is the same thing as "wealth".

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Trade exists because people are constantly looking to increase their pleasure.

Right, and "increasing your pleasure" is the same as "increasing your wealth".

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The concepts of value and pleasure are abstract.

So is "wealth"...

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 There is no reason ever to sell or buy any thing for any price. Only because certain price ranges cause our pleasure to be maximized do we agree on prices.

"pleasure to be maximized" = "wealth to be maximized"

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 However, all you have is a peice of plastic (materials), the time it cost you to obtain it, and the time it cost the supplier to produce it.

If that was really "all" a CD is, the industry wouldn't exist.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The value of the above elements is completely dependant on what you can get another party to agree to buy it from you.

Again, why do I have to sell it for it to have "value"? You keep ignoring this question.
If I give it to my friend, does it have zero value for him? Does it have zero value for me, sitting here at home listening to the music?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Which is why my willingness to pay for it is irrelevent. The only relevent thing is our agreement. I'll never (at least not likely) get the store to agree to sell it to me for only $5.

How is my willingness to pay "irrelevant" if it determines whether or not the trade takes place?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Once those stocks are actually sold, then they take on the value of the trade agreement. However, the only wealth components to consider is mostly just the time it took to research, completely the agreements, etc. Perhaps some paper materials, but unlikely.

The "wealth component to consider" is that the stock market directs resources to their best, most wealth-increasing uses.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I view wealth to be really just matter + time. Therefore, the wealthiest person is the one who owns the most matter and spent the least time obtaining it.

This is ridiculous. By your logic, some tribal leader in Sumatra is wealthier than Bill Gates, because the tribal leader owns vast tracts of land, and Bill just has a house on Lake Washington, and a little corporate campus in Redmond.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 They would lose quite a bit of wealth. Mostly in the form of time. All the time they spent to obtain the house would be gone forever since, by enthalpy, that exact house could never be recreated.

This is incoherent. According to your argument, all forms of labor are equivalent. So in what "objective" sense can you say that the fire is detracting, rather than adding, value to the house? Maybe the fire was just the finishing touch on its construction, and now it's perfect...

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Also, again by enthalpy, the materials that used to be a house are now only a chared pile of rubish. That matter, even if it has the same amount of mass as the pervious house, will never be able to be exactly converted back into the house no matter how much energy and time is applied to it.

But the "house" is just an abstraction in the mind of we humans. There's no "objective" sense in which the house exists -- it's just an arbitrary configuration of matter. According to your argument, I could have just sat by a pile of lumber instead of building the house, and I would end up with the same amount of "wealth".

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The value of something is only established once a trade agreement for it is reached. The perceived value, which is what you're talking about here, is outside the definition as it can be created or destoyed.

Yes, you keep parroting this, but you have yet to back it up or prove these definitions the least bit useful.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I don't believe I've said that an individual can't lose wealth. Just that the total wealth of the system remains constant. IE, for every individual that loses wealth, that wealth is now just free floating in the system until another person gains it.

You didn't answer his question -- if the person lost wealth, then where did the wealth go?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Because it's consistant with all our other physics definitions and wealth, to me, is purely physical.

And purely useless. What you're arguing is Marxian economics. I'm surprised you consider yourself a liberartian.

[SteveA]

I agree with Morgan, this type of (il)logic is how people come up with math equations that say 1+2=5 (you can seriously "prove" this if you ignore small things like division by 0 is impossible).

You agreed that wealth was destroyed when a house burned down. Most everyone would intuitively understand this as well.

To later say that destroying such a house only leaves some additional nebulous form of wealth floating around out there is space, because by your definition, such is required for it to be called wealth, seems to either say houses aren't wealth by your definition or there's some etherial form of wealth that we can't see. But that's also impossible because you say wealth is based in matter and is similar to physical constants.

Just because the universe happens to work in wierd ways like matter and energy being interchangeable, doesn't mean when someones wealth is destroyed it's magically converted into something else and also by your own statements the pleasure people receive is an entirely different matter as well, so the definition you gave doesn't have immediate correlation with the pursuit of happiness that seems to be such an important issue to many people.

I can't give an exact definition of wealth either (though maybe a dictionary would be close) but I see the amount of wealth someone has as being to what extent they are able to fulfill their physical needs and desire. A person that can't easily satisfy their physical needs is poor, while a person that can not only fulfill these needs but additional desires is wealthy, in comparison. Of course according to this view, wealth is subjective in that an ounce of gold isn't worth a fixed amount of physical satisfaction, just as an orange isn't either but both are subjected to individual evaluations in determining how much wealth one would acquire from each. From that point of view, a road that services customers by having it built close to a city, creates more wealth than building the road in the middle of nowhere where it serves no useful purpose.

I honestly think what you're thinking about is that some forms of wealth appear to be fixed in supply and tradeable between people with the overall supply remaining rather constant. Though some resources may operate in a manner similar to this, it's only an approximation and these types of wealth don't extend in a general manner to other forms of wealth.

Wealth can be created or destroyed. Let's avoid the destruction part.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman<