Why is Wealth Important LO8087

Ben Compton (BCOMPTON@novell.com)
Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:29:58 -0600

Replying to LO8067 --

Michael has made some good points:

> My 1890 Scottish dictionary (supported by more
> modern English sources) says that wealth is "great
> accumulation" and comes from the root word "weal" or
> well-being. So, wealth is that accumulation which is
> sufficient for well-being. This might be money,
> knowledge, property - anything that one can be said to
> "possess".

> Before anyone leaps off down the road of "you can't
> possess knowledge", I would say that in the old
> materialist world view, the possession of knowledge is
> quite limited. In the contemporary view of a world of
> information-energy, possession is not exclusive and
> therefor completely consistent with knowledge as wealth.

Knowledge as wealth? Yes, I'd agree. I've already written a few
impassioned posts on this topic, but I thought I'd finish my thoughts in
context (hopefully) of what Michael has said. Actually, I've debated all
day long whether I should reply; it is difficult to know how people will
take what I say, especially when I can't see the faces behind the
monitors!

Knowledge is wealth because it is actionable -- it can be used to create
advantage or comfort. Whoever discovered fire in pre-historic times was
certainly more wealthy for the knowledge he/she developed. And, that
knowledge benefited the society in which that person (or people) lived.

I'm going to make a broad generalization and say that the people
participating (and reading) in this mailing list are fairly intelligent
people -- and this gives us the ability to produce the results we want to
achieve (another good definition of wealth?). I'm also going to assume
that most of us make a fairly comfortable living (given the fact that we
have access to the Internet, many accessing the Internet from private
accounts instead of accounts available at work). Because of this the way
we view money and wealth can be more abstract, or perhaps, even more
meaningful than those who do not enjoy our standard of living. Literally,
our knowledge has made us wealthy.

What about those who do not have the knowledge (or the education) that we
have? How do they perceive wealth and money? Do they have the luxury of
separating the two words, and exploring their philosophical meaning when
they can barely feed themselves and their children? Too often I see men
and women who are bereft of both money and the skills needed to earn money
turn to violence and crime for survival. It is all they know.

If we have learned anything from history and experience, perhaps we should
have learned that neither socialism nor capitalism work well; they both
have too many weaknesses. So what will work? I've thought about an
economic structure that is based on two pretty solid principles:

1- Individual responsibility
2- Voluntary service

By individual responsibility I mean a person who accepts responsibility
for the destiny of the community in which they live. They realize that
while they can't control the ultimate destiny of the community, they can
influence it, and help other people around them learn to influence it.

By voluntary service I mean those who have greater wealth (be that money,
relationships, lifestyle, etc.) voluntarily help those who are not as
wealthy learn to expand their abilities so they can produce the results in
life they truly want.

What I've seen over and over is a deliberate segregation in our society,
where people who begin to develop wealth move to a neighborhood that is
more conducive to their financial position. This has a couple of
consequences, from my viewpoint: It leaves the poor with very few living
models of success; and it impedes our ability to have compassion for the
poor, making government mandated compassion a requirement (thus giving
birth to socialism). I see a system dynamic here, but I haven't thought it
through enough to document. I'll get back on that.

And so I will ask, and answer from my perspective, a couple of questions:
Why do I value money and wealth? Because I've seen what happens to people
who don't have either. Why should organizations seek wealth? So they can
help individuals reach their fullest potential. Why should we, the more
wealthy people of society, voluntarily separate ourselves from the poor? I
don't know; I can't think of a good reason. I think it is healthy for a
society to integrate the economic diversity that naturally emerges over
time. That is the only way, IMHO, to keep socialism from ruining the
economy, and capitalism from creating a socialist revolution!

-- 

Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell GroupWare Technical Engineer | fax: (801) 222-6991

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>