I really don't get the point of this, are you challenging the end logic, or picking out small, incomplete statements and replying for the sake of replying and answering the final logic with the technicalities of the minute elements of the post. For your information, I did not attempt to define wealth in it's entirety, nor human traits and their end effects in all possible outcomes. Or indeed their distinctions from other similar, or related traits, I didn't brother because it was neither relevant to the end logic nor was there any need to go posting paragraphs in case someone would leave a reply like yours.
The reply you might get from me below might be along the lines of 'I agree... but...'.
Please don't misinterpret that as being my approval of the post content in the context of the debate at hand, that's me pointing out that what you're saying is technically true, but not that I find it relevant or useful in the proper context, unless you can infer that that was my point or unless I state otherwise.
Sorry, but that -- highlighted -- is wrong. At best partially correct.
Owning a part or the entirety of something finite that is desirable by many is ONE component or measurement or gauging of 'wealth'. But what is desirable by one may not be equally desirable or even not desirable at all, make using what is desirable as a gauge of relative wealth problematic. Useful, yes, and we should use that technique, but it is often problematic. A 'classic' car is an excellent example of this difficulty. Desirable by a few and those few really do not need that 'classic' car. Want, yes, but very seldom or even never needed.
If I didn't make it clear before, I should hope to do so now. The purpose of the post it seems you've completely missed. The point was not to define wealth. The point you've not mentioned in your post as a matter of fact. Even your initial post was completely divergent of the post of mine you quoted and the general context of the discussion said post was part of. I'm not going to criticise you for trying to correct me, it's perfectly normal, though since you did, you must understand that while what you're saying is technically true, very complex behaviours/concepts like this can't be summed up into sentences, if you would like I could also nit pick the points above and below and find holes in your logic or offer a counter. But it has no purpose we'd be posting for the sake of posting and nit picking for the sake of nit picking, it's futile when you and I both understand the true nature of these complex issues but don't feel the need or have the time to write them out and then have at each other. It is futile.
Also, one small clarification here, you seem to be implying that wealth does not have as much to do with desire as you think I was implying. What is desirable is demanded, what is demanded becomes valuable, sure person A and person B might want and need different things, but their wealth is their wealth because the system in which their wealth is measured and contained, the tangible or non-tangible goods/assets etc they own are demanded. Now you could own a really nice bag of ash, you could value it, and cherish it, but in the system in which the context for it's value is provided, it has relatively little value, therefore does not contribute as much to your wealth. Now if you had a bag of Gold, and hated Gold and wished to see it removed from the face of the earth, and you did not wish for it to be used by you for it's value if not anything else, it would still be valued by others, and therefore part of the wealth you technically posses, unless of course you hide it or something strange to counter the logic.
Basic economic theory is that everything has a price, one exception to some of the basic rules can Public goods, who's supply and consumption are very different and depend on a host of other factors. But the point of this clarification in this and the above paragraph is that the part which you've said is plain wrong is not wrong at all. Sure it's a very very crude definition, has many flaws and exceptions in logic, and is way oversimplifying a very complex concept. But it is not wrong if the true context is reached, and more importantly, gauging how right or wrong it is given that it's in an arbitrary finite region of it's own definition, as long as the logic is sound and the outcome is in line with the logic and the point is not to be accurate or precise.... it is irrelevant to have this discussion over thin air.
1- Wealth is the sum of estimation of value of all things that are currently under possession.
Those things could be physically tangible and/or intangible, the latter is such as intellectual property like a brand name or a debt. Yes, owning a debt is a part of one's summed wealth. That debt can have many forms, the most well known is holding a quantity of stock of a company or even of a country.
2- The more technologically sophisticated a country, the more difficult it is to measure wealth. It is counter-intuitive but it is the truth.
Take gold for example. To a primitive culture, gold is just a beautiful shiny metal. Desirable among the members, yes, but its value is limited to how shiny it is as long as access to gold is confined to this people. But to a much more technologically sophisticated culture like the US, the value of gold goes far beyond its visual beauty and actually can be broken down into constituent appeals. Gold is valued by dentists, I have a gold molar cap and am willing to bet am not unique in this. Gold is also valued by electronics engineers for its electrical conductivity. In both situations, gold's visual appeal is quite meaningless. The dentist and the electrical engineer are members of a technologically sophisticated country and their individual attractions to gold, based upon highly unique usage of the metal, can be used as part of the gauging of how much their country desired gold. But individually, can I list my gold molar cap as part of my wealth ? Absolutely not, and the US tax agency, the Internal Revenue Service, would not go after me if I refused, not just failed, to declare my gold molar cap as part of my estimated wealth.
I agree.
Petty jealousy maybe in our nature and often expressed in individuals, but it is hardly a desirable trait.
Petty jealousy maybe used as an incentivizing tactic but it is not needed to drive for accomplishments. I doubt that Einstein was jealous of anyone when he was working on his theories of relativity. We should strive to suppress this trait in our daily lives, no matter how inseparable it is in our nature. We did it with murderous rage, so why not with petty jealousy ? We should teach our children, our best hope for the future of mankind, not to use petty jealousy in future endeavors.
Again your picking out at little flaws, holes, exceptions, over-simplification of logic.
Petty Jealousy is in my view for the proper context part of a much larger set of traits that I will for the sake of clarifying my point of view, call as being; the traits that have to do with desire. Jealousy, no matter how petty and stupid, admiration, intrigue, envy, the concept of role models, general desire to be like someone, to own something, to be somewhere and so on. All of these contribute to desire and incentive for advancement and work. Without the end result derived by the presence of these emotions, progress would be seriously hindered. If Einstein wasn't driven by petty jealousy, it was intrigue, it was admiration, desire to be like some of his own heroes, desire to be somewhere doing something, contributing etc. The end result is that similar forces drove him to do what he did, and the end result of jealousy and petty jealousy is also sometimes defined by the very morally opposite traits.
This is not a cynical approach either, I'm not saying that nothing is ever selfless or has other stranger and harder to measure regions. I am simply not mentioning it for either a lack of relevance to the point being made or the fact that I as a pathetic human being have no time, patience and desire to continue.
Partially correct.
But if I labored extraordinarily to cut two cords of wood to your one, does that mean my primary motivation for that extraordinary labor came from a desirable to create inequality between us ? Or even mostly from it ? Of course not. I want to keep warm for longer during the winter. Simple as that. My personal comfort is more valuable to me than any petty desire to make you feel inferior to me.
This is where the concept of relative/absolute poverty/inequality comes into play. Remember, most rational behaviours and emotions are based off of the most basic and primitive survival instincts. To say that you cut some wood to keep warm is so that you survive, not so that you may be warmer than the other guy, or so that you may hold pride in the idea of burning more fuel to keep warm. Perhaps that could be a motivating factor, who knows. I agree with what you're saying, but you have to realise the different between absolute and relative terms and then their implications on human behaviour, then you won't find my
partial statement about inequality to be worthwhile to call out for being
partially correct.
