Let's change your mental experiment a little.
Hell, no! Here and now is what matters.
Outside of the fact that there is already a definition for the word "wealth",
Definition of wealth as we normally see it is ambiguous if not outright misleading,
your definition of wealth only works within the narrow confines of your culture at this specific time.
So what? Everybody's idea of wealth whether conventional, or like that of me or our host's, is local.
Sounds to me like we need a new word, not a new definition of an old word.
The word's fine what's needed is descriptions, not definition. I appears folk don't like description – too much blood and guts and not enough abstractions.
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.
What?! The bank doesn't have title. I do. I buy the house, and the bank lends me money to do so. It has to have a lien against it in case I die or become disabled and can't pay. This isn't NINJA country – the bank makes the loan because the banker thinks I'm capable of paying and will keep my promise.
We are immensely more wealthy in my sense of the word than in previous times of much fewer opportunities when slavery, or near to it, was a real threat. Folk had to indenture themselves, and sometimes their children, as security for loans. Still goes on in some places where what people do is clearly their wealth.
|
