Skip to main content

The Subjective Nature of Wealth

According to the subjective theory of value, all measures of wealth or utility spawn from the extent of the assessor's or competing assessors' personal valuations corroborated by their respective capacities to match their resources with their expected returns across their anticipated time horizons. 

For me, wealth takes many forms: spiritual, existential, personal, interpersonal, tangible, and aesthetic. I generate my wealth by cultivating purchasing power to enable a standard of living which momentarily maximizes the product of my time by granting me the power to consume the foods which I enjoy and which sustain my life but also allow me to pursue my hobbies. My current balance sheets are a modest quantifiable presentation of wealth, but the expenses are channeled to a further time horizon wherein resides an expectation of greater return and therefore an anticipatory sense of wealth. 

Wealth in modern society is a paradigm into which I can only aspire to endeavor. Societies are the sum manifestation of individual proclivities and preferences, only diluted by some social extrapolation. Fiat currency is largely the most ubiquitous and conspicuous measure by which trends and demands can be most precisely, acutely tracked. However, axiomatic assumptions in this style of analysis can no doubt risk the totality of value-based criteria upon which calculated transactions have been based at the individual level. Ultimately, one's recognition of wealth carries little significance in a world of vastly diverse definitions of this term. 


An individual living at the expense of 40 hours per week of labor, $1400 per month, may seemingly satisfy himself to an extent far greater or less than his counterpart who commits an equivalent amount of hours per week to a means of production which grants him multiples of the former's monetary compensation. There is seldom any metric which can with any degree of specificity capture the joy of one's life toils, and for this reason one cannot unequivocally declare one's standard of living superior to that of another. Any such assessment would operate from the inherent bias of perception and specific values engineered by individuals who are incapable of determining the ends of life and the significant values thereof. In the end, wealth in the Sahara might take the form of solitude, water, food, literature, or even the mere pursuit thereof. 

Wealth is constantly the subject of redefinition. The thresholds will forever progress as long as persons at large are exposed to the conveniences of ever-optimized economies of scale. However, any universal definition of wealth fails to capture the full scope of its meaning and undermines the value of the individual. It takes only one instance of human behavior to demonstrate an expression of wealth somewhere. Much of this human action, largely identifiable as erratic, trivial, or idiosyncratic, will go unrecognized, but it is significant nonetheless. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…