Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jerichothebard" data-source="post: 1780093" data-attributes="member: 4705">Another thing that seems to be forgotten about the abstract wealth system, is that included in the abstraction is the idea that your wealth bonus is liquid assets.  Meaning, that is what you could presumabley spend per month after meeting your financial obligations - rent, car payment, utilities, student loans, whatever.  Also included in this is the means to meet those obligations - to wit, a job. And, finally, it also includes a measure of financial discipline - not living beyond your means.To my mind, this irons out the question of the bum with the $100 and the sandwiches.With a wealth of 0, he is making enough money - which isn't very much - to meet his obligations - which are almost nil.  Included in his abstract 0 could be the idea that he is begging for change at the pier, but also taking his meals at the soup kitchen.The $100 he finds in the alleyway is a windfall for him, because it is above and beyond his normal level of maintenaince.  So, yes, he could stretch that $100 a long way - buy a sandwich at subway every day for a while.  Does it represent a permanent change?  No.  Because at some point, he will buy two sandwiches, or decide to have a coke with it, or buy a fifth of whisky, and his new wealth score will drop. In other words, he will live beyond his meager means.On the other hand, maybe that +1 will represent a change in his lifestyle - he will use it to buy a clean shirt at the thrift store, and a shower at the Y, and get a job as a laborer or something.  So, his means go up a little. With discipline, he could maintain that level, but still, he couldn't go overboard.I realize this isn't a great answer - there's lots of justifications and hypotheticals in there, though it hangs together nicely, I think.In the end, it's an abstract system, and it is a little sketchy at the extremes - as all abstract systems are.Even the real-life credit rating system, which boils all your financial history into one single, abstract number, suffers at the extremes.  I recently read an article noting that people like JLo and Ben Affleck and Larry Ellison have, on the face of it, terrible credit rating scores.  So does our friend the bum.  Because the abstract system that was designed to deal with the financial history of normal people can't cope with the extremes of hyper-wealth and hyper-poverty.  It wasn't designed to handle that much financial solvency or that much financial drain.  Basically, my point is, don't over-think it.jtb</blockquote>

Verification