Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually the island has just the amount of "wealth" as it had when the two individuals found themselves stranded on it. Island Native #1 has created many useful things, but their use only has value to him.
It absolutely does not. The island now has more wealth, because it now provides more value to humans. Wealth is anything that is of any value to anyone. This is subjective based on context obviously but in this context the island is more wealthy.
Essentially you're saying that natural resources can not be stretched to an increased value. The only logical conclusion to draw from that is that all of the technology we have developed in the last thousand years has done us no good.
A car is worth more than the scrap metal it contains. It is the fusion of resources and engineering. Not just resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinny Puppy
wealth is not static, but natural resources are limited. There is only so much oil and gold in the world. You can't build more of it.
But resources have no static relation to wealth. The multiplier may be at the moment constrained by our current knowledge and technology, but there is no quantifiable limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Well this could lead to a very complex philosophical debate. Does wealth have permanence? If it does then one could argue that wealth can be created, but if wealth is transient then whatever wealth is created eventually is lost within a closed system. For example, we have accounts of ancient civilizations creating great cities, and massive "wealth" but for the most part that "wealth" has returned to the dust that it was created from. If what is created returns to its original state, in a sense wealth is static since there is a finite amount of resources from which to create it.
This only reinforces the point that wealth is not static. You have demonstrated how resources can be stretched into more wealth than the dust they were created from. The subsequent destruction of said wealth only goes to show that resources were only one side of the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik
I was just pointing out that any recourse is finite but wealth is infinite especially if you consider knowledge wealth.
Exactly. Resources are obviously limited but there is no limit to the wealth that can be created from them. If anybody has that multiplier let me know.
Of course resources in their natural form equal a certain amount of wealth but that does not constitute an upper limit to the wealth they can be created from.
Wealth = Resources * Ingenuinity
Resources are limited. Ingenuity has no quantifiable limit. Say an ingenuity of 1 is the ingenuity to do absolutely nothing but utilize the resources and you have an equation. Likewise, an ingenuity of 0 or resources of 0 will result in an outcome of 0 wealth, because there are either no resources to work with or no ingenuity to utilize those resources in even the most basic of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
That's a pretty good description. Here's an example of abundant wealth that is neither created, or earned. You are a tribal society of hunter gathers, living in the midst of a rich area abundant with edible vegetation and wildlife. You don't own it because you don't recognize the concept of property rights you just live where you live. Who wouldn't argue that such a group isn't wealthy even though the have neither created wealth nor own it.
I may or may not consider them wealthy but that does not support the theory that there is a limit on the wealth they could create. Their ingenuity is only the most basic, so their wealth will be on a 1:1 ratio with their resources. With more ingenuity, they could be wealthier.
Nobody is saying that wealth must necessarily be created (lower constraint). It can come directly from resources. Wealth does not however have an upper constraint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
A simple question: Is there an infinite amount of land?
All questions regarding whether wealth is infinite or not can be answered by answering that question above since material things come from this planet.
That's not true at all since resources such as land are only one side of the equation. The initial amount of land is obviously static but the wealth that can be created from it does not exists on a 1:1 basis. Who is wealthier? The guy with 10 acres of land but not even the basic knowledge to farm it or the guy with 1 acre of land and the knowledge required to utilize that land to grow piles and piles of crops?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
You are completely wrong. Take housing for example, houses increased world wide due to the housing bubble, and it didnt involve a transfer of wealth, it involved borrowing. The increase in wealth doesnt take place until AFTER the increase in values take place.
If I own 10 homes at $100K each, my wealth is $1M, but if I own that house and the values increase to $200,000 each, I'm now worth $2M.
I do not need to transfer anyone elses money to increase my networth, nor did I need to sell those houses to realize its gain.
That's not quite valid in the context of the question that was asked. You didn't create any wealth in that scenario. You increased your personal fortune, but you created nothing. You simply leveraged the resources that others needed.
-
This was all demonstrated when the first caveman realized he could sharpen a blunt piece of rock and use it to acquire more food.
Gold doesn't renew itself but can we literally run out of gold?
You sure can when you figure out a way to mine that last milligram from the planet. But before that you would get to a point where mining it would be ridiculously expensive and cost prohibitive.
You can use up the supply you were able to mine in making the biggest baddest loudest most efficient stereo on the planet, too. Not exactly the best allocation of that resources but it's gotta be better than it sitting in some vault and watching people fawn over it.
That's not true at all since resources such as land are only one side of the equation. The initial amount of land is obviously static but the wealth that can be created from it does not exists on a 1:1 basis. Who is wealthier? The guy with 10 acres of land but not even the basic knowledge to farm it or the guy with 1 acre of land and the knowledge required to utilize that land to grow piles and piles of crops?
That's true'ish. But what happens when you get to the point where you've built 300 story farms at 99.9% efficiency rates?
You've run out.
What I'm saying, and maybe I'm not being articulate enough, but you eventually run out of something. That could be electricity to run the 300 story farm.
You could become ridiculously efficient where the planet could support 60 billion people but there is a breaking point. It doesn't matter how meticulous you get, you'll still reach it and not even 1/googolplex-sigma would help you out then.
You sure can when you figure out a way to mine that last milligram from the planet. But before that you would get to a point where mining it would be ridiculously expensive and cost prohibitive.
You can use up the supply you were able to mine in making the biggest baddest loudest most efficient stereo on the planet, too. Not exactly the best allocation of that resources but it's gotta be better than it sitting in some vault and watching people fawn over it.
That means we'll always have that finite amount of gold on this planet unless aliens steal it from us.
By the way aluminium used to be more valuable than gold what happened?
That's true'ish. But what happens when you get to the point where you've built 300 story farms at 99.9% efficiency rates?
You've run out.
What I'm saying, and maybe I'm not being articulate enough, but you eventually run out of something. That could be electricity to run the 300 story farm.
You could become ridiculously efficient where the planet could support 60 billion people but there is a breaking point. It doesn't matter how meticulous you get, you'll still reach it and not even 1/googolplex-sigma would help you out then.
That is also true'ish. I do think however that in most cases it would simply be a matter of timing. The demand may be too quick for the supply of ingenuity to catch up.
If I may backtrack a bit, perhaps "infinite" is not the right word, but the ratio between wealth and resources is unimaginably far from 1:1.
Come to think of it though, food is in itself a resource which obviously has limits. Other types of wealth could still be created.
Whether or not such a trade occurred, it wouldn't change the amount of wealth in existence. Either way, one of you would have the Mona Lisa, while the other would have a blank canvas and a supply of oil and paint. Wealth would be transferred (or not), but the amount of wealth would remain constant, a zero-sum game.
Would you say there was less or the same amount of wealth in the world right before Mona Lisa was created by Leonardo Da Vinci?
There's still a finite amount of gold on this planet and nothing you or I can say or do can change that short of bringing more from another planet, another solar system, another galaxy and/or another universe (it's very possible there's an infinite number of universes).
Imagine the demand for gold with 60 billion people on the planet. We didn't change the amount of gold we just fractionated it to a point where it might be worth $1 billion dollars an ounce.
At that point though $1 billion dollars wouldn't be worth anything near what it is today. You'd be buying bread for $3,000 a loaf (fictional made up number just to prove the point).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
