> >Actually the above _is_ a description of purchasing power. Being able
> >to get credit, having a good rep, etc, enhances your "purchasing power"
> >beyond the "cash in hand" you have...
>
> Sorry, I work in a business library and none of the business dictionaries I
> just consulted, The Oxford Dictionary of Economics, The Dictionary of
> Business and Management, The CCH Macquarie Dictionary of Business define
> purchasing power that way. Purchasing power is solely tied to money : (from
> The Oxford Dictionary of Economics : Purchasing power : "The amount of real
> goods and services each unit of money will buy." The rest of the definition
> just refers to fluctuations. (The three dictionaries are English, American
> and Australian).
Oh good grief, the last thing you want to do when defined a perfectly common or garden word or phrase is to ask a specialist for a "technical" definition. ;-) (Just ask Martin Laurie to define "war" sometime to see what I mean...) The OED defines the phrase as "a person's financial ability to make purchases" as its first sense (and one more akin to the one you quote as the second).
> I'm afraid the definition of wealth from HW is much broader than a banker
> would appreciate. (Though not an economist). I can just see someone telling
> a banker how good their word is when they go for their mortgage renewal.
> Just picture the banker getting a real good chuckle. (I can however see how
> important it can be in a less contract bound society though).
Even modern bankers factor some moderately "fuzzy" factors into their calculations. Certainly collateral and income affect your credit, for example...
> We need to equate more than just cows to wealth. How much is keeping my
> word all the time worth? How much is always repaying my loans worth. What
> if I'm a generous guy does that make it more likely people will lend me
> money? It might in some societies.
Perhaps. But relating it to "cows" is a damn good start, since it's easier to judge how many cows someone's word, credit, etc, is worth, than it is to fudge ungrounded rating in those terms.
If you want to directly _model_ these intangibles, then you might as will bin the wealth mechanic entirely, since its specific purpose is to abstract away from them. And I say that in criticism of neither approach -- de gustibus, horses for courses, etc.
Powered by hypermail