[FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

[Steve Smith]

I think Merle's request for us to start with "what is wealth?" before we
go on to "what is it for" was not pedantic... it rather reflected that
likelihood that we don't all share the same idea of what wealth is, even
at the broadest scale.  I also think they are inextricably tied.

I admit to thinking this group would be unable/willing to talk much
outside the most obvious definition ($USD or private control of
resources) but I have been pleased to see that the question has lead to
a broader apprehension of the idea.    The most recent tangent on
education (implying knowledge, skill, credential building/acquiring) is
a good example. Kudos particularly to Cordingly for making a stab at a
more elaborated taxonomy (part of what i wanted to provoke with the
question).

I particularly like Glen's introduction (in support of Gil's anecdotes)
of *access* to resources vs *control* of them which reflects on the
ideas of public/private, commons, synergy and leverage, and re-use (does
every person need to haul their own toilet, coffee maker and bed around
with them everywhere they go?  Just the RV crowd).  Temporary custodial
access/control (the public toilet while you are using it, a book from
the public library while you are reading it, a park bench or a few
square feet of public beach, etc.) also implies "custodial
responsibility" to leave those items "no worse for wear" and in some
cases improved (e.g. pick up some trash).  There are good reasons for "a
commons" and even more better good reasons for maintaining them, yet we
so often fail (the tragedy of "the tragedy of the commons) for what feel
like mundane if not dysfunctional reasons.

Discussions of "wealth", especially in the context of free markets and
communalism usually include some idea of how "wealth builds" which can
range from autopoetic virtuous cycles of production (organic farming,
Rep Rap 3D printing factories, nanotech grey-goo) to expanding
exploration for exploitation (mining, unsustainable agriculture,
timbering, etc.) to enhanced efficiency/utilization of existing
resources...   Merle would probably introduce ideas of circular (and
toroidal?) economies and many would acknowledge the tension between
economies of scale/globalism and locally (partially) closed systems. 

I'm a fan of limiting intergenerational wealth-transfer, though I don't
know how to effect it except for myself in a free-market context with my
own progeny.   I don't begrudge my children a little hit of "wealth"
when I die, but I don't feel obligated to provide it, and definitely
don't want the expectation of it to be an enabling thing, not that they
are at much risk (like Don, Eric, Ivanka for example).   I wouldn't
resent them inheriting my "farm" if I had one and they were farmers or
my smithy or my cobbler's shop if they had followed my footsteps, and in
fact since they would likely have joined me IN those enterprises decades
ago, they would have been *naturally* and *organically* theirs as much
or more than *mine* by that time anyway.  I also would feel fully
righteous to go help my children build a house or raise their kids as my
"legacy" to them...   much healthier than handing them a pile of cash
(no matter how small or large) one day.

"Inheritance" made more sense (IMO) in these intergenerational
continuation contexts, not in the government-subsidized mortgage and
speculative markets context we now live in.  My daughters know I'm
looking to repatriate the land I live on which was "bought" from the San
Ildefonso Pueblo 50 years ago and while I'm sure *they* might like to
have the cash equivalent in their bank accounts (or pay down *their*
mortgages), they actually understand and support the concept.  If
anything, my continuing to live on the land is perpetuating the original
wrong (I can't find what PNM paid them for the chunk, nor the
"developer" who bought it from PNM 10 years later, but I'm sure it was a
pittance). 

Nobody who lives in the Americas doesn't in some sense live on land
stolen from the Native Americans.  The paradox of the 40
acres-and-a-mule reparations that was never realized during
reconstruction... *whose* 40 acres were we going to give to the freed
slaves?   While something like this is true around the world (who WERE
the original peoples in any given locale?  All of Eurasia stolen from
the Neanderthals/Denovisians/Peking-Man by Homo Sapiens?  Yup!   And ALL
that and more stolen from the megafauna?   Ad infinitum, ad absurdum.  

While Glen may be right that these long-winded personal anecdotes serve
the anecdotalizer's ego (Glen made the point in the context of SW
development) I don't believe it *only* serves that purpose.   Jon and
Glen have pointed out the utility of grounding abstractions in
particulars, so I trust that balances it somewhat.

mumble,

 - Steve


On 3/16/21 9:22 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> Well, going back to the topic SteveS tried to discuss, I reject the semantic pedantry around settling on a crisp definition of "wealth" before being able to have a discussion. The dictionary definition is fine. But 1 component of being affluent or having a hoard of valuable artifacts is, as Gillian makes clear, the breadth of one's repertoire. Being poor is very difficult and time consuming. The specious Puritan rhetoric that even if you're poor, all you need do is spend all your free time working, forgets that you tire out (in short-) and burn out (in long-term), physically, mentally, emotionally.
>
> And the primary detriment to that exhaustion is that the curiosity and energy you pour into various parts of your repertoire is drastically limited. Nobody's going to, say, read Ulysses after the night shift of their third job, especially if they have a kid, or have to pay bills with money they don't have.
>
> So all these ways of knowing infinity sound like toys for wealthy people to me. Getting psilocybin into the hands of *public health* psychiatry would be fantastic. But the core problems won't be solved as long as we're living under individualist neoliberal capitalism. A basic income, public health, and reliable infrastructure will do more to help your everyday yahoo know infinity better than a few one-off indulgences by a few already wealthy dudes.
>
> As Nick and Robert suggest, having the time and energy to explore and expand one's repertoire. That's what wealth allows, even if it seems like most of the celebrities squander it.
>
> On 3/15/21 9:15 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Totally different item: I sure would like to take some of you (especially you glen)  the places I have been where I intellectually, viscerally, emotionally, somatically, and kinesthetically experienced and understood really cool things like infinity.