Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?
From: Mark Monson (m_monson_at_ztech.com)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: Chief: "Re: What happened to Japan?"
- Previous message: Don Zimmerman: "Re: What do you think of this loan?"
- In reply to: cantueso: "Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Next in thread: cantueso: "Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Reply: cantueso: "Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Reply: cantueso: "Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:55:08 -0400
"cantueso" <cantueso@dieznet.com> wrote in message
news:a76725c6.0407142250.60d7b32e@posting.google.com...
> Once I thought that maybe wealth was reserves and could be measured
> as the time somebody (or even a country) could live without doing
> anything.
>
> In the past, wealth was in land. Many people thought wealth was gold,
> too.
>
> Yet a completely different definition would be based on power: on the
> number of people or maybe even the amount of things I can control
> with my means.
>
> Is there a standard definition?
The classical economists define wealth as man made consumable goods suitable for
exchange. This definition works well because it does not include land, money,
IOU's, and intangibles like knowledge and talent.
MM
- Next message: Chief: "Re: What happened to Japan?"
- Previous message: Don Zimmerman: "Re: What do you think of this loan?"
- In reply to: cantueso: "Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Next in thread: cantueso: "Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Reply: cantueso: "Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Reply: cantueso: "Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|