Re: [Pen-l] "loss of wealth" [was: Dean Baker: Getting the most bang for the stimulus buck

[Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>]

Not to gainsay your distinction about a distinction about a
distinction, Jim, the form of my observation was meant only to
emphasize a parallel in construction, not to pretend to be the last
word in definition.

It's fascinating to me how quickly a thread originally referring to a
unique, radical and particular policy proposal disposes of the
proposed topic (by side-stepping it) and soars into hair-splitting and
belly-button link picking about the relationship between abstract
"wealth" and abstract"value" etc. etc.

Perhaps this is why CarpeDiem thinks there is a "missing" $10 trillion
that needs to be made good by working harder. The Baker proposal -- as
challenging as it may be to implement and enforce -- at least dealt
with a concrete policy response to a concrete social need.

Beam me up, Scotty.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>>> So studies of the effects of
>>> housing wealth on consumption are looking at an imperfect proxy for
>>> something, not the thing itself.
>
> Sandwichman wrote:
>> Isn't also the holding of cash an "imperfect proxy" for something
>> else, namely the (subjective) "utility" provided by the goods or
>> services that the money can buy?
>
> isn't cash (or other wealth) a _means_ for attaining utility in a
> market society, rather than a proxy?
>



-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l