[fantasus]

Something about what I see as questionable comparisons of wealth and statistics, especially at world level. What I miss is following up by comparing different forms of what is necessary for human life and well-being, since it is obvious that there is very great differences regarding what we need to live - and I hope -live well. But official statistics usually only mentions per capita income, or "Gross National Income" or something similar. But is it not an error to translate this to "wealth" or "standard of living"? Perhaps some "rich" parts of the world only seems so because higher needs for clothing, housing, warming and a high-nutrition diet is ignored. I guess there must be big regional differences too in larger countries like U.S.of A, Russia, China, Europe. Some parts of the world may appear to be more "materialistic" - simply out of necessity?

[Amie]

Ok... I think first you should define the differnt types of wealth you are talking about.. and then compare them between states. When "they" run wealth statistics.. they have defining variables in which they base their statisics on... If you want to define wealth in a differnt way.. you would have to change your variables.. in which i'm sure noone would disagree with you that your definition of wealth may be differnt relative to your variables.. as long as they were accurate. There really is no debate to your question though. Only differnt definitions. They stated theirs. What is yours?

[Dr House]

Well first off this is in the wrong sub-forum. (Nets?)

Second, per capita income generally refers to how much a country produces in goods and services in a given year. By general rule a country with a high per capita income has all its material necessities covered (food, clothing, etc.) which is why it falls into the category of highly industrialized. Thus GNI and GDP are generally good rough indicators of quality of life in a country. Of course a better indicator is a statistic which is sometimes a little harder to obtain, which is median household income.

And Amie, wealth is not relative at all. Wealth, simply put, is the sum of everything you own minus what you owe. A lot of people, especially when speaking about economics, mistake wealth for income.

[Amie]

And Amie, wealth is not relative at all.


I tottally disagree... If you state that... A + B = Wealth

Then you apply that equation to EVERYONE.. then relative to everyone.. A + B = W

But of bobert says that noooooo A + C is -MY- definition of wealth.. then in his definition.. A + C is wealth.. relative to his definition, relative to everyone.





besides... i dont even know why im arugieng this.. that wasnt even my point.. my point was.. there are differnt definitions for wealth. but i like to be right.. so ill argue it anyways

[Dr House]

Amie, the definition of wealth is not a matter of opinion. Economists already established it.

And the fact of the matter is that there is but one economic definition of wealth: The total worth of your assets (what you own), net liabilities (what you owe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_(economics)

[Amie]

So what happens when you have a wealth of knoledge... or a wealth of popularity.

I'm pretty sure the OP isnt talking about the "official" definiton of wealth. I think he is talking about.. the general definition. The debatable one.

[Holding]

Wealth of knowledge = what you know right - what you know wrong
Wealth of popularity = amount that people like you - amount that people hate you

[Nets]

Moved to the Economics subforum

[Amie]

Nets, lets try to keep it on topic please or i'll report you kthnx

[Amie]

Wealth of knowledge = what you know right - what you know wrong
Wealth of popularity = amount that people like you - amount that people hate you

Totally beside the point!

[albionfagan]

So what it is wealth? Material wealth? Or the ability to have material wealth

[hannigaholic]

But is it not an error to translate [income] to "wealth" or "standard of living"? Perhaps some "rich" parts of the world only seems so because higher needs for clothing, housing, warming and a high-nutrition diet is ignored. I guess there must be big regional differences too in larger countries like U.S.of A, Russia, China, Europe. Some parts of the world may appear to be more "materialistic" - simply out of necessity?

You're dealing with three very different things here. Income, as you so rightly point out, is not the same thing as wealth, and neither are the same thing as standard of living. Measures of income and their different varieties (GDP, GNP, per capita, purchasing power parity, inflation-adjusted...) are not intended to be measures of wealth, nor as measures of standard of living. That's why we have things like the Human Development Index

[Dr House]

So what it is wealth? Material wealth? Or the ability to have material wealth

I just explained it. It's what you own minus what you owe.

In other words yeah, it refers to material wealth.

[fantasus]

I admit I should perhaps have used the words "affluence" and "scarcity" from the start. Secondly: I do not think that the simple definition of "wealth" (what You own - what You owe) really is very informative. What is the worth of all assets one own? Often You only know the moment You sell it(say a piece of land or a house. The difference between expected "value" and actual price may be significant).

[Holding]

Well that depends on if you want to use book value, market value or some other system of determination. Personally, I like market value. You could use regression analysis to estimate the value of something without having to sell it. It's very common in econometrics.

[Michaeluj]

You don't compare wealth. The idea is socialist nonsense which accuses the entire world of buying stuff--wasting THEIR OWN money--on toys which mean nothing to them except as a method to look cool. How many middle-class people do you see buying things that are clearly above their reach? How many kids do you see getting into a fad AFTER it has become popular, when many purchased the toys because they look cool? Having different amounts of money means nothing except that the rich can have an excuse to outright gloat and poor people would wish to have some awesome stuff that exists around them; it does not create consumerism.

[Holding]

What if you're looking to raise funds by liquidating your assets and want to know which ones to liquidate, Michaeluj? Hardly sounds socialist.

[Michaeluj]

No, that's not comparing wealth: that's calculating the value of your own.