your response has no relation to what I wrote.
Are you sure?
by your definition "wealth" is a fleeting thing that stops once the work has stopped.
That was your definition. In physics, we're only interested in the action principle. We aren't interested in what anything actually is. That is because what anything actually is can't be described.
That may work in ahhahaland, but it has no relevance outside of your enclave.
Outside "my enclave" you'll find the darkling plane.
In spite of your desire to redefine words, wealth is precisely the store of value resulting from "work" and it can be reflected in "things".
Marx referred to this as "material alienation", and the Existentialist philosophers picked up on it to show that pursuit of that notion of wealth ends up in slavery. I'm sure you're familiar with it. I'm sure you've observed when one of your neighbors opens their garage door, you see this mass of "wealth" piled to the ceiling that they say one day they'll surely use....
Bringing in Icahn, envy, OWS, Marx and Utopianism doesn't help in the understanding of the concept.
The four are intimately connected across the bridge of alienation.
By your definition, a slave is wealthy because he has a job that he is doing each day.
You don't know what wealth is. It isn't what you tink, but its definition is seen in the action of Ican.
If you want to argue that the definition of wealth isn't the store of value, great for you!!!!
You can't make money brooding over it.
But again, it has no meaning outside of your cloistered little world.
I'll bet I have more money than you do. |
