This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hoom, a one-click way to register an NPOV dispute might be nice, yes, it might lead to hastiness, but, better that, than this hasty Wikipedia:revert and Wikipedia:delete based on ad hominem and such. Truly a month is too long to go without an article on such an important subject, and, it seemed, the only writing that was going on was some feeble retrieval of this older version, by someone not knowing how to satisfy the reverter, having no guidance. Thus this way of handling the dispute is a minor edit, and a better policy than all this hasty hiding of text. EofT
I have edited this article for NPOV and accuracy, but it still needs work. mydogategodshat 11:03, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why is the ecological region relevant to the potlatch social use of wealth? Yes, I know the custom is regional, but that is not related to the wealth. SEWilco 19:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm looking for a map like this one.. but instead of people.. with money http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0303/peopleearth94_usda_big.gif
I would like to offer new definitions - perhaps inserted in a new section called "Other Definitions"
Money: A psychological creation; a concept; the mental image of that which is used as a medium of exchange.
Currency: That which circulates as a medium of exchange; anything that is in immediate, continuous and widespread use as money.
In other words, nobody can physically touch money, no more than they can touch a pound or an inch or a second. Money is conceptual in nature. Currency, however, the thing that represents money, can be touched. Just as a person can touch a scale to measure weight, a ruler to measure distance, or a clock to measure time.
Wealth is ownership of labor, and of anything upon which labor has been expended, whether material or immaterial, which can directly satisfy human wants, needs or tastes. Wealth is goods and services (property) owned.
Some people might argue that wealth can be created without labor. For example, a fruit tree growing in the back yard might represent wealth when the fruit is ripe. Notice, however, that as long as the fruit is not harvested, the fruit is not wealth. Labor must be expended to receive any benefit from the fruit.
Taken from the Nesara Institute.
inigmatus 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
How about the air you breathe? It's a free good in most situations, but it still satisfies human needs. Wouldn't that be wealth that can be created without labor?Ziiv (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please cite the source on the 10 richest nations in the world? - 222.153.250.252 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
For those who are interested in contributing to this article, here are some free information sources:
"Wealth and being a member of the upper class requires significant prior preparation and familiarization. If not trained correctly children may easily squander immense wealth, though this rarely happens."
This seems to be somewhat unfounded. There should be some sort of evidence that children rarely squander their wealth or else it should be removed as not being objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.160.252 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Did the "spoiled brat" archetype originate in England, and did the "wealthy person" music originate there as well? --User:Angie Y.
"The concept of wealth is relative and not only varies between societies, but will often vary between different sections or regions in the same society. For example, a personal net worth of US $1,000,000 in most parts of the United States Midwest would certainly place a person among the wealthiest citizens, yet the same net wealth would be considered quite modest on New York City's Upper East Side or in the Connecticut suburbs."
There are many millionaires, and billionaires in the Midwest. I mean look at cook county, with over 160,000 residents having over one million dollars. That should be reconstructed, comparing affluent areas to actual impoverished areas, such as Appalachia.
DDavis092 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The purported distinction between wealth and "richness" is nonsense. The statement that "wealth relates more to the flow of resources whilst richness relates more to the static absolute value" is simply wrong. The meaning of wealth is precisely that it is a static value, as distinct from income, which is the flow of resources received over time. I am unaware of any basis or foundation for the assertion that "the opposite of wealth is scarcity, the opposite of richness is poverty."
The article also repeatedly confuses the notion of wealth itself, as an abstract concept, with the degree of wealth possessed by an individual or society. Whether a person with a net worth of $1,000,000 should be considered "wealthy" has nothing whatever to do with the meaning of wealth itself as an economic concept. Wealth is the amount of goods or resources a person possesses. Period. A poor man with nothing but the shirt on his back still possesses some wealth—just not very much of it.
A list of "some of the wealthiest countries in the world" is irrelevant to the subject, as is the reference to the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
On the whole, this article is virtually worthless and should be scrapped and rewritten, in its entirety, by someone else.
Dodiad 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
From the article: "The application of human ingenuity to raw materials can transform these to more valuable forms, but, even if human ingenuity is infinite, entropy may eventually put an absolute limit on the amount of wealth that can be created."
I have a pretty good understanding of entropy, but I have no clue how wealth could possibly be limited by it. Anyone want to enlighten me? johnpseudo 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, constantly increasing entropy means the universe will eventually become a 'cold soup' which is incapable of supporting life. So at that point, wealth creation will, I assume, be restricted. It's an utterly meaningless statement to put in the article. But then the rest of the article varies from the contentless to the just plain wrong. Can we bin it and start again? (unsigned)
This article really does need work. And the entropy sentence is ridiculous. It's like inserting into the article the observation that we can't generate wealth if we all die. Very out there and irrelevant. ~ Rollo44 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I interpret the author's comments on entrophy in a different way. Imagine the hypothetical situation in which human life could be continued on indefinitely on planet Earth or some other place in space. In such a situation, wealth, as defined as the ownership of good or services which have value (functionality) and are made of harvested resources, would eventually succomb to entropy, because the resources themselves would dwindle and eventually succomb to entropy. Does this make sense? And the article does suck. 71.198.35.217 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading through the section Wealth#Anthropological views of wealth, I noticed that the concept of personal relationships is not emphasized enough. I know that from studying Africa in the 1800s, personal relationships were of the utmost importance. That is: who you know, who can take care of you, who you can call upon to do a favor, etc. (Since land was in abundance it was not always highly valued.) I think this aspect could be touched upon more. Thoughts? ~ Rollo44 02:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
remove my email from your data base immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.133.102 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was discussion redundant. Financial freedom has since been redirected to wealth following AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Financial_freedom. -- Debate 木 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a proposal to merge Financial freedom with wealth. I suspect that most information from the page will be reduntant, so should the page survive AfD, the merger will amount to basically a redirect with the edit history maintained. That is just my opinion on the matter, consensus may form to treat this merger differently. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion closed in July 2008 with no action taken and no later discussion. I appreciate the careful discussion and caution in taking action. The caution will I believe result in a better outcome overall.
Incidentally, history of the merged article would be lost in the Wealth article, because of the overlap in Edit histories.
I'd like to propose suspending consideration of merger for 6 months to allow for further improvements on the article proposed for merger, at least working the References and "See also"s into the text and otherwise expanding it to bring it more in line with other sections of Wealth. Right now the article in question serves as a convenient one for economics and business Wiki links and is more likely to receive attention for improvement than if it is "swallowed" in a much bigger article. If there is no consensus against it, the merge banner could be removed in a few days (though someone could put it back of course). Thank you for your consideration. If the above modest improvements are done before that time, merger would be okay, although I'd hope that the originator of the marged article would be given the opportunity to do the actual marge. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not add a section on the morality of wealth as discussed by different religions/philosophies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.237.64 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wealth is ownership of labor, and of anything upon which labor has been expended, whether material or immaterial, which can directly satisfy human wants, needs or tastes. Wealth is goods and services (property) owned.
I find this definition to be consistent with the reality of wealth - in that for example an apple on a tree is not wealth (since it can not be directly consumed) unless labor is expended to make it available for consumption. I suggest we remove the "at its simplest" reference and source a definition for wealth based on this reality. I propose Dr. Barnard's definition be used since it is verifiable, and accurate. inigmatus (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Do any of you know how the benin measured wealth, Land Money etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.90.208 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Prosperity redirects here. I propose creating a separate page on these grounds:
On these grounds I propose creating a separate page for prosperity. Cazort (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I deleted this entire section and I feel such a bold move requires justification. This section:
On these grounds I deleted the entire section. This has greatly reduced the size of the page and hopefully will make it much less intimidating to edit. Cazort (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no real apparent contradiction, however a tag was placed in the article. That specific section does need citation. If you still feel a contradiction tag is needed, please explain the tag here for future reference to make it easier for others to fix the problem, or better yet, fix the problem. Thanks. Kjnelan (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
An anon editor has been changing:
to
I don't see the benefit of unwikilinking, nor of changing the lede from a definition to a discussion of the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
See http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/03/10/forbes.list/index.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8560731.stm. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In the USA wealth may be highly correlated with class, but it needn't be in other parts of the world. For example in Britain, the social classes lie on a different dimension to wealth. You can be working class but rich, e.g. Sir Alan Sugar; or upper class but poor, e.g. someone born into the aristocracy but bankrupted by gambling debts. Essentially one's class is determined at birth, and social mobility is much harder than in the US. [[2]]
--88.108.226.118 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I came here from a redirect from "Well to-do" which is not the same as wealth i.e. being "Well off" instead there is a muddling between economically well off and somethings that historically those who were monied did and had. They were socially well off too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi also needs putting in context re this. I think the confusion happens due to someone trying to make an article that works for all times and places, while at the same time looking at financial status and society hierarchies - class. So Edwardian Britain as seen in the Manor House TV series is not the same as contemporary America or some third world country which still are tribal in nature. The article needs to be rewritten to take into account cultural differences and class - whether or not you like these facets, like racism or sexism or "moneyism" they do exist and similarly "well to-do" and "Well off" should be put in context in the western world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Financial world dominated by a few deep pockets -- Economic “superentity” controls more than one-third of global wealth by Rachel Ehrenberg Science News Monday, August 15th, 2011, related to Talk:Global financial system. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Diagramming the relationships between more than 43,000 corporations reveals a tightly connected core of top economic actors. In 2007, a mere 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations, researchers report in a paper published online July 28 at arXiv.org.
Add Stern Review estimate for the Earth entire wealth value, with the Total's decline due to global warming/climate change's wealth destruction. (The "pie" is getting smaller) 99.181.146.24 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)