Blog Dis
A word on wealth (Part I)
2024-03-05
I've had this on-going long-standing argument I don't know how many times with people who live on practically nothing and others who live very high on the hog: How do you define wealth? We need to ask ourselves this question on the meaning of wealth bcus it's the only logical means to frame a clear understanding on wealth's counterpart, poverty.
Wealth from any perspective must include some basic needs, that is to say: three meals a day, access to fresh water, access to health care, access to a reasonable level of security, the right to intellectual property, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to privacy. However, in this day and age of terrorism and global cyber threats, we've all seen evidence to spare on how government agencies and their growing powers are bleeding into our right to privacy.
Did you notice how I had purposely excluded the right to property?
All the wars and bloodshed and civil disputes are the result of territorial rights over property, either fighting over what is coming out of the ground or what's being built on top of the ground. So much of our wealth in modern society is built on the ownership of property. And, at this stage of the game called human civilization, it's far too late to change the rules. If all the property in the world were deemed free, it would send the entire planet into a tailspin of war. But, this brings me back to the definition of wealth and how it relates to property. In the last six thousand years, poverty and wealth have coexisted side-by-side. No one person could pinpoint even one year when there was no poverty or no wealth. There have been periods in human history when poverty had far out-weighed wealth, such as Roman times when at least 90% of the population was impoverished, and the remaining 10%, Romans, lived lives of veritable opulence and, again, during the bubonic plague outbreak in Europe, when two thirds of the population was decimated; most left alive were dirt poor with a tiny percentage that had retained some wealth.
Many economists would concur that the creation of wealth further creates a greater divide between the wealthy and the poor. No one wants to be poor. In fact, people will rob and kill to pull themselves out of poverty. If you've never lived in a state of impoverishment, day after day, you'll never fully appreciate the impetus for resorting to desperate means to survive. It's the same reason why the French revolution had broken out, bcus half of the nation was starving. Pulling oneself out of poverty is on par with the fundamental principles upon which the United States of America was built: the land of opportunity; there for the taking, there for those bold enough to seize it. Immigrants arriving into the USA after WWII, to build a new and better life often had to contend with living in areas that evolved to become more impoverished slums, rather than wealthy districts — and were compelled to create their own wealth thru any means. I'm thinking of illegitimate professions like smuggling, drug running and the illegal production and distribution of spirits. But wait, even WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) had hopped onto this train too. Think of the Kennedys. JFK's father, Joseph, during the prohibition years had amassed a fortune in excess of $300 million thru dealings with organized crime and booze running. His family's wealth had bought respectability and power.
I'm not an economist, nor do I consider myself poor. I don't own my own condo or house. I don't drive a car, nor have I ever owned a car, a condo or a house, nor do I want to, any more than I want to own a cottage or a boat. Honestly, all of the aforementioned are high-ticket items which are like a version of entrapment. I also don't wear designer clothes and drink wines that could feed a family in some developing nations for several months. Nope. I'm not wealthy by the standards that many people use today to define wealth. I heard most recently in a documentary that anyone earning less than $100,000 per year in North America is considered low income. However, I would stress that neither do I consider myself to be poor. I eat three meals a day and have access to fresh water, right out of my tap. I don't have to fret over health insurance bcus I live in Canada. I have the ability to work and invest my money, hopefully in a vehicle that will ensure my retirement years are comfortable. Let me repeat, though, I'm not wealthy. I just feel like I am bcus I'm healthy, and free, and able to live on my own, where many are forced to share accommodations to survive. I've made the observation that many of the wealthiest people I've met, are also some of the unhappiest people, dissatisfied with many things that aren't quite right in their lives. I'd like to slap these people silly, in all honesty, though the irony tickles me too in some way bcus it shows that these people are wealthy in the pocket but poor in spirit.
Certainly, I didn't expect to arrive at the end of this post with an extraordinary solution to the issue of wealth vs poverty. I can only offer my tiny piece of advice, something I've written in the cabinet of my bathroom. I see it every morning when I finish brushing my teeth and it is this: Leave the dinner table a little hungry. These words remind me that many don't have it as good as me. Many eat once every other day, never mind three times a day.
"Let them eat cake," incidentally, is an expression attributed to Marie de Antoinette, to signify the level of her corruption. She wasn't referring to actual cake, the kind that we eat today; icing, stacked in layers. In France, in her day, when bread was baked in the oven, and it rose too high, sticking to the oven's roof, what was scraped off was called 'cake.' This was what Marie was referring to when asked how are we going to feed the starving in France.
[Stay tuned for Part II]
Wealth from any perspective must include some basic needs, that is to say: three meals a day, access to fresh water, access to health care, access to a reasonable level of security, the right to intellectual property, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to privacy. However, in this day and age of terrorism and global cyber threats, we've all seen evidence to spare on how government agencies and their growing powers are bleeding into our right to privacy.
Did you notice how I had purposely excluded the right to property?
All the wars and bloodshed and civil disputes are the result of territorial rights over property, either fighting over what is coming out of the ground or what's being built on top of the ground. So much of our wealth in modern society is built on the ownership of property. And, at this stage of the game called human civilization, it's far too late to change the rules. If all the property in the world were deemed free, it would send the entire planet into a tailspin of war. But, this brings me back to the definition of wealth and how it relates to property. In the last six thousand years, poverty and wealth have coexisted side-by-side. No one person could pinpoint even one year when there was no poverty or no wealth. There have been periods in human history when poverty had far out-weighed wealth, such as Roman times when at least 90% of the population was impoverished, and the remaining 10%, Romans, lived lives of veritable opulence and, again, during the bubonic plague outbreak in Europe, when two thirds of the population was decimated; most left alive were dirt poor with a tiny percentage that had retained some wealth.
Many economists would concur that the creation of wealth further creates a greater divide between the wealthy and the poor. No one wants to be poor. In fact, people will rob and kill to pull themselves out of poverty. If you've never lived in a state of impoverishment, day after day, you'll never fully appreciate the impetus for resorting to desperate means to survive. It's the same reason why the French revolution had broken out, bcus half of the nation was starving. Pulling oneself out of poverty is on par with the fundamental principles upon which the United States of America was built: the land of opportunity; there for the taking, there for those bold enough to seize it. Immigrants arriving into the USA after WWII, to build a new and better life often had to contend with living in areas that evolved to become more impoverished slums, rather than wealthy districts — and were compelled to create their own wealth thru any means. I'm thinking of illegitimate professions like smuggling, drug running and the illegal production and distribution of spirits. But wait, even WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) had hopped onto this train too. Think of the Kennedys. JFK's father, Joseph, during the prohibition years had amassed a fortune in excess of $300 million thru dealings with organized crime and booze running. His family's wealth had bought respectability and power.
I'm not an economist, nor do I consider myself poor. I don't own my own condo or house. I don't drive a car, nor have I ever owned a car, a condo or a house, nor do I want to, any more than I want to own a cottage or a boat. Honestly, all of the aforementioned are high-ticket items which are like a version of entrapment. I also don't wear designer clothes and drink wines that could feed a family in some developing nations for several months. Nope. I'm not wealthy by the standards that many people use today to define wealth. I heard most recently in a documentary that anyone earning less than $100,000 per year in North America is considered low income. However, I would stress that neither do I consider myself to be poor. I eat three meals a day and have access to fresh water, right out of my tap. I don't have to fret over health insurance bcus I live in Canada. I have the ability to work and invest my money, hopefully in a vehicle that will ensure my retirement years are comfortable. Let me repeat, though, I'm not wealthy. I just feel like I am bcus I'm healthy, and free, and able to live on my own, where many are forced to share accommodations to survive. I've made the observation that many of the wealthiest people I've met, are also some of the unhappiest people, dissatisfied with many things that aren't quite right in their lives. I'd like to slap these people silly, in all honesty, though the irony tickles me too in some way bcus it shows that these people are wealthy in the pocket but poor in spirit.
Certainly, I didn't expect to arrive at the end of this post with an extraordinary solution to the issue of wealth vs poverty. I can only offer my tiny piece of advice, something I've written in the cabinet of my bathroom. I see it every morning when I finish brushing my teeth and it is this: Leave the dinner table a little hungry. These words remind me that many don't have it as good as me. Many eat once every other day, never mind three times a day.
"Let them eat cake," incidentally, is an expression attributed to Marie de Antoinette, to signify the level of her corruption. She wasn't referring to actual cake, the kind that we eat today; icing, stacked in layers. In France, in her day, when bread was baked in the oven, and it rose too high, sticking to the oven's roof, what was scraped off was called 'cake.' This was what Marie was referring to when asked how are we going to feed the starving in France.
[Stay tuned for Part II]
