Re: Does Debt Matter

["James R. Olson, jr." <jhavok@xxxxxxxx>]

At 01:42 PM 10/30/97 +0100, Per Gunnar Berglund wrote:

>Oh, you are mixing up the income--spending reflux rate with the
>wealth--spending turnover rate here. The former is really much more abstract
>than the latter, even if you seem to say the opposite here. Wealth can be
>exchanged for money (just changing the FORM of wealth), and money can be
>spent. Income, on the other hand, measures the rate of inflow of wealth
>(oftenmost in the form of money). Income as such cannot be spent, only the
>wealth which accrues by successively earning income. I prefer to think of
>income as the RESULT OF SPENDING, rather as the source of spending, if you
>see what I mean. Does this make sense??

Can you clear up your definitions of wealth and income?  I would think that
wealth would generally be defined as the sum of available liquid and
illiquid resources (money, non-consumed goods, and capital goods), while
income would be defined in terms of liquid acquisitions (money or easily
convertible goods), the spending (exchange for lower liquidity goods) of
which would constitute consumption.