Talk:Wealth/Archives/2011

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

---

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

---

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)

---

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

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)

How about the air you breathe? It's a free good in most situations, but it still satisfies human needs. Wouldn't that be wealth that can be created without labor?Ziiv (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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:

• The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective, Berkeley.edu

"Wealth and being a member of the upper class requires significant prior preparation and familiarization. If not trained correctly children may easily squander immense wealth, though this rarely happens." This seems to be somewhat unfounded. There should be some sort of evidence that children rarely squander their wealth or else it should be removed as not being objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.160.252 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. MAN, this article is a total mess. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some confusions

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

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. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the midwest is a good example because it's somewhere that has large, culturally-vibrant cities that have a very low cost of living. Perhaps the south would be a good example of this too, in the U.S. It's true your money will go farther in, say, Appalacia or the rural interior northwest. But in a city like Cleveland, Ohio you can rent a nice apartment in a walkable area for under $500/mo, have access to a world-class orchestra and art museum, vibrant chinatown, all sorts of ethnic eats. And for the wealthier residents, those mansions-on-the-lake sell for the price of a bungalow in San Diego or a tiny condo in New York City. Cazort (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was discussion redundant. Financial freedom has since been redirected to wealth following AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Financial_freedom. -- Debate 木 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a proposal to merge Financial freedom with wealth. I suspect that most information from the page will be reduntant, so should the page survive AfD, the merger will amount to basically a redirect with the edit history maintained. That is just my opinion on the matter, consensus may form to treat this merger differently. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion duplicates the AFD discussion in which merger is an open option. I am removing the tag to suspend this unnecessary fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that. the place to discuss the merger is here. When the AfD is closed (and if it is 'keep'), relevant comments may be transcluded or linked to here. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this merger proposal. Like prosperity, financial freedom is redundant to wealth and should be merged here. Plrk (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If the current AFD does not result in delete, the merger proposal makes sense and I would support it. Debate 木 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to suspend Merger proposal

The above discussion closed in July 2008 with no action taken and no later discussion. I appreciate the careful discussion and caution in taking action. The caution will I believe result in a better outcome overall.

Incidentally, history of the merged article would be lost in the Wealth article, because of the overlap in Edit histories.

I'd like to propose suspending consideration of merger for 6 months to allow for further improvements on the article proposed for merger, at least working the References and "See also"s into the text and otherwise expanding it to bring it more in line with other sections of Wealth. Right now the article in question serves as a convenient one for economics and business Wiki links and is more likely to receive attention for improvement than if it is "swallowed" in a much bigger article. If there is no consensus against it, the merge banner could be removed in a few days (though someone could put it back of course). Thank you for your consideration. If the above modest improvements are done before that time, merger would be okay, although I'd hope that the originator of the marged article would be given the opportunity to do the actual marge. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal template removed per above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Morality

Why not add a section on the morality of wealth as discussed by different religions/philosophies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.237.64 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wealth Definition

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.

I find this definition to be consistent with the reality of wealth - in that for example an apple on a tree is not wealth (since it can not be directly consumed) unless labor is expended to make it available for consumption. I suggest we remove the "at its simplest" reference and source a definition for wealth based on this reality. I propose Dr. Barnard's definition be used since it is verifiable, and accurate. inigmatus (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wealth" is one of those things which barely needs defining in an encyclopedia article because most people have a similar idea of what it means. The definition you've used is an unusual one, and so inappropriate. I'm not thrilled with the "at its simplest" definition either, but it better matches the common notion. If we want a verifiable definition, can always turn to a dictionary, [1]. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend we verify even what "most people have a similar idea of what it means." I disagree, in that I've asked people what the definition for wealth is, and I get a range of answers. Sources to this article can only help to clarify the answer. The only universal constant is that "which is owned" but such a definition fails to answer several questions: who owns what, and what is it that is owned? Even asking people what things constitute wealth yields different answers. I disagree we should turn to a dictionary on the issue, however, I think it might be appropriate to cite the dictionary reference - perhaps one from an economist point of view. I proposed Barnard's because I think his def fits the best and clearest of all - in that all other people's definition for wealth are included in his. inigmatus (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bernard is not a reliable source, and there is no rational association with "labor" from a credible economist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He is a reliable source. Surely you agree that wealth is anything that directly satisfies human needs, tastes, and wants. I am interested in knowing how anything that directly satisfies human needs, tastes, and wants is unrelated to labor. Thus Barnard includes the ownership of labor, and the expense of labor on a good or service, as associated to the definition for wealth. After all, when you labor for an employer, are you not providing him with a good and service that directly satisfies his needs, tastes, or wants? So then all things that directly satisfy human needs, tastes, and wants require labor in order to exist as capable of providing that direct satisfaction. An apple on a tree is not wealth (able to directly satisfy human needs, tastes, or wants), until it is harvested. What good is owning an orchard with apples still on the trees, if you can't harvest it? Unless you use the orchard for sitting under and enjoying its shade, or marveling at its beauty, it does not directly satisfy human needs, tastes, or wants without the ownership of labor. inigmatus (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly not a reliable source — in fact, he wasn't even an economist, as (then) recognized. You wrote, "Surely you agree that wealth is anything that directly satisfies human needs, tastes, and wants." No, I don't agree. I don't think you can find an economist who agrees. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Benin

Do any of you know how the benin measured wealth, Land Money etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.90.208 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Prosperity redirect

Prosperity redirects here. I propose creating a separate page on these grounds:

• The word Prosperity or any other variants prosperous or prosper, are not even mentioned once on this page, outside the redirect notice at the top.
• The word Wealth has a strong economic connotation, and nearly all of the discussion on this page centers around economic considerations: resources, property, assets.
• Prosperity is a much more general term; one can discuss prosperity relative to different standards, and wealth is only one such standard...whereas happiness, fame, health are others. Prosperity seems more holistic.

On these grounds I propose creating a separate page for prosperity. Cazort (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no opposition nor any discussion so I just created a separate page for prosperity. Please contribute! The relationship between economic prosperity and other forms of prosperity is a rich subject that has extensive sources in peer-reviewed journals. There's a wealth of information just waiting to be incorporated into that page, and I would love to see other authors participate in editing the page instead of it just being me. Cazort (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for deleting "Other Concepts" section

I deleted this entire section and I feel such a bold move requires justification. This section:

• Has been tagged as original research for over a year and has seen no real improvement. There were citation-needed tags in the text that were much older than that as well.
• Really looks like original research to me...contains bold and sweeping assertions with little reasoning or connecting to other topics.
• Contains links that look like they may be little more than promotion, such as to "differworld.com" "rwgrayprojects.com" / "synergetics".
• Almost no sources: there are couple mentions paraphrasing different author's definitions of wealth, but without providing actual citations for these sources. Only one source is properly cited, but it seems esoteric and used to support WP:OR.

On these grounds I deleted the entire section. This has greatly reduced the size of the page and hopefully will make it much less intimidating to edit. Cazort (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

There is no real apparent contradiction, however a tag was placed in the article. That specific section does need citation. If you still feel a contradiction tag is needed, please explain the tag here for future reference to make it easier for others to fix the problem, or better yet, fix the problem. Thanks. Kjnelan (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lede

An anon editor has been changing:

Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions or the control of such assets.

to

Wealth is a cultural concept that implies having an abundance of something that others want. Material possessions which are not desired do not make you wealthy, only those things desired by others do. Undesired material possessions are known as junk or waste production, and they lower the value of economies due to taking up space or damaging the health of the environment both in producing and in discarding.

I don't see the benefit of unwikilinking, nor of changing the lede from a definition to a discussion of the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gates is no longer the richest

See http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/03/10/forbes.list/index.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8560731.stm. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Class

In the USA wealth may be highly correlated with class, but it needn't be in other parts of the world. For example in Britain, the social classes lie on a different dimension to wealth. You can be working class but rich, e.g. Sir Alan Sugar; or upper class but poor, e.g. someone born into the aristocracy but bankrupted by gambling debts. Essentially one's class is determined at birth, and social mobility is much harder than in the US. [[2]]

--88.108.226.118 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoi Polloi

I came here from a redirect from "Well to-do" which is not the same as wealth i.e. being "Well off" instead there is a muddling between economically well off and somethings that historically those who were monied did and had. They were socially well off too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi also needs putting in context re this. I think the confusion happens due to someone trying to make an article that works for all times and places, while at the same time looking at financial status and society hierarchies - class. So Edwardian Britain as seen in the Manor House TV series is not the same as contemporary America or some third world country which still are tribal in nature. The article needs to be rewritten to take into account cultural differences and class - whether or not you like these facets, like racism or sexism or "moneyism" they do exist and similarly "well to-do" and "Well off" should be put in context in the western world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rich or wealthy is not the same as Wealth also. This article needs focus. 99.181.138.132 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This article confuses money with wealth. Money is similar to an IOU ("I owe you"), a simple way not to barter valuable objects. Paper money or coins have the potential to be devalued to their physical worth of paper and metal; wealth does not. Wealth has inherent value, not assigned variable value (think of currency exchanges). 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nothing has fixed inherent value. Things may have inherent value, but "works of art" are only valued (noun, 3) as wealth if they are valued (noun, 1). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Art finds to be "nonsnese", but I'd agree with the example that paper money would always have worth as paper, but not always be able to be used for an "IOU" to replace bartering. 99.181.128.152 (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly shown in the devaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar for example. Just read about the history of money. Money and Wealth are very much not the same. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource ...

Financial world dominated by a few deep pockets -- Economic “superentity” controls more than one-third of global wealth by Rachel Ehrenberg Science News Monday, August 15th, 2011, related to Talk:Global financial system. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your link says ...

Diagramming the relationships between more than 43,000 corporations reveals a tightly connected core of top economic actors. In 2007, a mere 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations, researchers report in a paper published online July 28 at arXiv.org.

What is arXiv.org? 64.27.194.74 (talk)

arXiv is a start. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Add Stern Review estimate for the Earth entire wealth value, with the Total's decline due to global warming/climate change's wealth destruction.

Add Stern Review estimate for the Earth entire wealth value, with the Total's decline due to global warming/climate change's wealth destruction. (The "pie" is getting smaller) 99.181.146.24 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are any number of estimates of the total wealth of the world. Why choose that one? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please list some more ... 99.181.148.116 (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, it's appropriate as a reference, rather than merely in the "See also" section. If you don't get in the way, I'll take care of that, within a few hours. If you do place it incorrectly again, it will take longer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You had been warned. What you need to do is to write something like:

• The Stern Review estimates the total wealth of the world is declining because of global warming(ref)((cite||title=Stern Review|url=???|pages=???|...))(/ref)

But I'm no longer willing to do the research to report something which I don't think helps the article. Look up the URL, chapter name, page numbers, and other indicia of publication, and I'll add it for you, a few hours after you stop adding the inappropriate "See also" wikilink. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you (or your extensions) lock this article, why would you add it"? 99.109.124.16 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So that the link is correct. Although I don't think it adds significantly to the article, a correct reference wouldn't significantly detract from the article, so I'd put it in to make sure it's in the correct format and location within the article, rather than your scattershot attempts to add links to what you consider relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, is this to what you allude in your comment <redacted comment on what the Elephant really is> regarding at Talk:Nitrogen_cycle#Resource_for_Planetary_boundaries regarding Planetary boundaries, the decreasing pie? 99.181.153.128 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. But since you're referring about a comment I made on another talk page in reply to a comment which you made which should have been on yet another talk page, this is not the place for discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Does William Nordhaus present a total wealth of the world number, or are they a third party's numbers? 99.119.129.32 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting WP:SYN, Art? 99.190.85.220 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. More a matter of complete irrelevance to the article where you post comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What dictionary are you looking at for irrelevance? Is it right side-up?  :-P 99.112.212.108 (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say this comment was irrelevant here — I said it didn't add to the article. What I was referring to as the "Elephant" is that almost all of your comments are irrelevant where they were placed, and you often then point to them from another article to which the comment is also irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify, Art. What? 99.181.142.6 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be understandable to anyone with a high school knowledge of English. I'm afraid I can't do better, other than justified insults. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility, Art. 99.190.86.55 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, Art! Time for a time-out. 144.230.82.41 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adminitis? 99.190.84.66 (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)