True Wealth

[Boyou]

I have been thinking for a while now on the subject of wealth.

Not sure if this subject has been covered before ,couldn't find anything specific when I searched..


How is it measured and what actually constitutes true wealth.?..In the context of nations and ,perhaps the planet as a whole.

Can it be measured in the form of natural resources?Australia might be king there.
Or in terms of technological capability.The U.S. still has an edge..

If it was in terms of a large and cheap labour force China has to be the leader..

What prompted me to ask this is the current debt problems of many countries ,particularly focussing on Dubai.Here they have abundant oil and they have used the Foreign exchange to create what could be seen to be a Disneyland in the sand, now beset by huge debt problems.Have they been guilty of squandering their riches on the inconsequential and ephemeral?

I suppose the question really is ..If we can't measure true wealth ,how can we place a value on anything?

 

[derty]

Somethings worth is what someone else will pay for it or what you are prepared to lose to keep it.

 

[nunthewiser]

A sixpack , pizza and a romp with Tiger woods.

 

[Boyou]

I was hoping for something more cerebral than that..

 

[Julia]

When I read the thread heading, my first thought was wealth as it applies to individuals, rather than the larger, global scale you are considering.

Would have to think a bit more about countries and their wealth, but on an individual basis I'd say it encompasses a lot more than financial assets, and includes good health as a very basic criterion, then the capacity for resilience, ability to connect with others etc.

Perhaps it's even possible to extrapolate those criteria to countries, in that good health would equate to a benign landscape and climate, personal resilience would translate to a national capacity to deal positively with adverse events, and personal connections with others would obviously be an ability to interact objectively and fairly with other countries.

This might make no sense at all, just a random thought really.

 

[Boyou]

Good points ,Julia

You have taken the question to another level.I agree with your suggestions.The measure could be more intangible things like the socio/political state of a country
If you have abundant resources and labour ,but an unhappy ,unstable social environment ,then these measures might be rather irrelevent to the question.

I know wealth ,in any context, is much more than a sate of mind,but perhaps it is just a matter of perception. Wide open spaces and clean environment,like we generally have here in Aus ,might be a good measure ,too.

 

[wildkactus]

heres another view to wealth,
I see it as not just the money in the bank, that is more the score card,
but it is what you have left after all that money has gone,
so your network, your personal attitude and your understanding of money and how it works.
so to me if you have a good trusting network, the right attitude you will always be able to make or recieve money.

take mother teresa, not a rich person but in my mind a very wealthy one as she had the right network and attitude that she could just ask and she would recieve large donations of money for her causes.

I also think the same applies to some degree for countries, take a look at the USA, they have not much going at present but they have the network and the attitude to get other nations to loan it to them.

just some thoughts for you.

 

[watsonc]

Who is richer? The man who has everything and wants more, or the man who has little and is content with his life.

 

[moXJO]

Who is richer? The man who has everything and wants more, or the man who has little and is content with his life.

The first guy.

 

[jono1887]

Who is richer? The man who has everything and wants more, or the man who has little and is content with his life.

The one with the greater gross domestic product :

 

[tasmart]

I have been thinking for a while now on the subject of wealth.

Not sure if this subject has been covered before ,couldn't find anything specific when I searched..


How is it measured and what actually constitutes true wealth.?..In the context of nations and ,perhaps the planet as a whole.

I quite like the approach that Wiki takes to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

and the link to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_distribution_of_wealth

The sad part is the figures for Australia at the bottom:

0.31 % of the world population!
1.08% of the world net worth (PPP)

On the other hand I work in healthcare and wealth really does not mean a lot! Health & happiness are much more important!

 

[Judd]

....
On the other hand I work in healthcare and wealth really does not mean a lot! Health & happiness are much more important!

You tend to find this out when either yourself or your partner has a life threatening condition; various nasty cancers as an example. The only real use for money at that stage is to assist with paying the many bills! That in turn makes other people wealthy should money be your measure of wealth.

 

[gooner]

Who is richer? The man who has everything and wants more, or the man who has little and is content with his life.

The second guy.

Generally, for a country, I would say wealth is constituted by the education of its population, its health system, its social cohesiveness, measures of chronic preventable illnesses such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, pollution levels, stress levels of the population.

And obviously, traditional economic measures such as GDP measure such things very poorly.

At an individual level it's all about quality of relationships. Sure absolute financial poverty sucks, but in Australia, this is generally limited to those with disabilities and/or very poor education, given the social security system. The dole is not great money, but if it is spent carefully, it is sufficient from a financial viewpoint.

 

[lasty]

"What prompted me to ask this is the current debt problems of many countries ,particularly focussing on Dubai.Here they have abundant oil and they have used the Foreign exchange to create what could be seen to be a Disneyland in the sand, now beset by huge debt problems.Have they been guilty of squandering their riches on the inconsequential and ephemeral?"

Actually Dubai doesnt have abundant oil, hence their tactics in creating a disyneyland style tourist mecca to attract the dollars.
There are many mirages in the desert and Dubai is just one of them.
I call them mudguards .. Shiney on top and sh*t underneath..

 

[rbourne1]

but on an individual basis I'd say it encompasses a lot more than financial assets, and includes good health as a very basic criterion, then the capacity for resilience, ability to connect with others etc.

.

To me the meaning of wealth has more of a material meaning. It's an unquantifiable level reached when material possessions are no longer important.
I think a person could be desribed as wealthy without having good health or wisdom. Is Warren Buffet described as wealthy? If so, would he be any less wealthy if he was in bad health? Success is a different thing. It could encompass wealth, health and wisdom but not necessarily all. It's the same reason why Mother Teresa could be described as having had a successful life, but if she was described as wealthy. I think she'd turn in her grave.

 

[Nyden]

To me the meaning of wealth has more of a material meaning. It's an unquantifiable level reached when material possessions are no longer important.
I think a person could be desribed as wealthy without having good health or wisdom. Is Warren Buffet described as wealthy? If so, would he be any less wealthy if he was in bad health? Success is a different thing. It could encompass wealth, health and wisdom but not necessarily all. It's the same reason why Mother Teresa could be described as having had a successful life, but if she was described as wealthy. I think she'd turn in her grave.

There seems to be some confusion, and mixing of the meanings of happiness and wealth. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

By that argument, I could say that rich, poor, health, are all just unquantifiable terms. At some point, these forms/terms of measurement actually have to be measurable.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that just because someone is happy, and entirely content with their life - does not mean that they are wealthy.

My measurement for determining wealth is lifestyle. This can apply to both a country, and an individual person. A countries / individuals level of access to top-notch health care, financial security, and of course the living standard.

 

[Julia]

The dole is not great money, but if it is spent carefully, it is sufficient from a financial viewpoint.

Gooner, the dole is about $240 p.q. You'd hardly rent a 1 brm flat for that, let alone pay any other expenses.

I acknowledge, of course, that it can't be enough to make the recipient feel comfortable thus removing any incentive to look for a job, but you'd really have to share to survive.

 

[gooner]

Gooner, the dole is about $240 p.q. You'd hardly rent a 1 brm flat for that, let alone pay any other expenses.

I acknowledge, of course, that it can't be enough to make the recipient feel comfortable thus removing any incentive to look for a job, but you'd really have to share to survive.

$228 a week to be exact based on centrelink, but assuming your rent is $125 a week, you get a subsidy of $55 a week for rent. So total income of $55 plus $228, less $125 rent is $158 net income. Obviously, not a fortune but this is $23 a day for food and other expenses. If you live a simple life, do not smoke, do not have pets, then you can be OK on this much. Agree that most of us would need more to be comfortable but OK for non-materialists......

 

[rbourne1]

$228 a week to be exact based on centrelink, but assuming your rent is $125 a week, you get a subsidy of $55 a week for rent. So total income of $55 plus $228, less $125 rent is $158 net income. Obviously, not a fortune but this is $23 a day for food and other expenses. If you live a simple life, do not smoke, do not have pets, then you can be OK on this much. Agree that most of us would need more to be comfortable but OK for non-materialists......

Sounds like a good definition for the opposite to wealthy!

 

[jono1887]

$228 a week to be exact based on centrelink, but assuming your rent is $125 a week, you get a subsidy of $55 a week for rent. So total income of $55 plus $228, less $125 rent is $158 net income. Obviously, not a fortune but this is $23 a day for food and other expenses. If you live a simple life, do not smoke, do not have pets, then you can be OK on this much. Agree that most of us would need more to be comfortable but OK for non-materialists......

Thats plenty, I lived of $220/week incl rent over the last year as a student... its an ok life, not below poverty line or anything... :