I tell people stories and they give me money. With that I buy food, shelter and stuff. My home is full of books, recorded music, some art, a bit of furniture, a few other odds and ends, and I have a car. I own a few stocks and have some money in the bank. That's it. So....
Mental experiment: Let's suppose my home burnt down, stuff's gone, government scoops my stocks and bank account, somebody steals my car. Have I lost my wealth? Nope. I can tell stories and folk give me money: I still have my capability. What I lost was a bunch of stuff
Same thing for our host's example, Carl Icahn, or the Starbucks barrista, or a mechanic. Our wealth is our capabilities.
Let's change your mental experiment a little.
Scenario #1 - you are dropped into the middle of the amazonian jungle with a few things that you acquired through the telling of your stories. You have a gun, bullets, a backpack, rain gear, food, gold coins, jewelry, canoe & paddle and a bunch of t-shirts.
Scenario #2 - you are dropped into the middle of the amazonian jungle with your capability to tell stories.
In which scenario are you most likely to survive? I'm guessing that the locals don't speak your language, or vice versa. I would also guess that your stories would be of little interest to the indigenous people even if you did speak their language.
Now let's put Carl Icahn in the same situation. I'm going to guess that his financial resources are a little bit greater than yours, so we can give him a bunch more stuff to bring into the jungle. And then we can toss him in the jungle with nothing.
Outside of the fact that there is already a definition for the word "wealth", your definition of wealth only works within the narrow confines of your culture at this specific time.
Since we can make a representation or symbol of stuff, which is therefore metaphysical, it could be a lie, or misattribution - could be product of an ancestor's capability, or luck. The stuff itself is the product of capability found in the person, which is the real wealth.
Sounds to me like we need a new word, not a new definition of an old word.
Wealth is a person's capability. Do they keep a promise? Do they act with honour? When I buy a house with mortgage I get title and lien the house to the bank as security for my promise to pay off the loan. But the bank never wants to own the house - they make the loan based on my real wealth - my capability both to pay and keep the promise.
If that were true, then they wouldn't retain title of the house. Your capabilities and promise would be enough. The quality of your capabilities and promise will dictate the amount of risk the bank is willing to take, but your "wealth", by your definition, isn't enough for the bank to hand over the title. |
