If your idea of wealth is only determined by currency then building an objective difference in wealth is quite simple but a person can be holding a briefcase of millions of dollars in the middle of the desert and his wealth has no value. That value is subjective. The arrows in your example may not have a range of quality but that doesn't mean the arrows would not have subjective value to different players based what those players need and what they can spend to achieve those arrows. Much like the person with briefcase, I bet after a day in the desert with nothing else they'd be happy to give up that entire briefcase for water. A player with lots of gold to spend and not enough arrows will spend the money to get arrows because they feel they need them.

Your inkling about societies seems to be pretty historically sound since nothing lasts forever (possibly energy, but black holes muddy that water, as far as my understanding of physics goes).

Value exist because people need things (or are made to think they need things). As for purchasing options, a wealthier nation simply needs more options to waste resources on to uphold its ruse of wealth. The true measure of wealth is subjective. Wealth is by definition the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions and as my example pointed out, money has no value unless someone else needs (or thinks they need) it.

When Africa was colonized its potential to increase it's quality of life along side other nations was lost to slavery, civil war and stagnating traditions causing cultural stagnation do to the lack of access to the necessities of life. When you're country is trying to join the global market, it's hard to win any ground when the wealth of your nation belongs to foreign interests. This is the fate of the middle east since its easy to buy a nation that can't afford to fight itself.

As for you're tangent. I'd like to see games that explore the fall of corporate empires as well. It'll be refreshing to join Star Citizen since it's story seems to be based during the decline of an empire.

I didn't say value is the same as price. You inferred scarcity reduces the value of resources, this brought the conversation to the distinction between value theories. I can assure you I understand that price and value are very different things, however price is driven by variables, one of them being subjective value. Whether you subscribe to it or not. It is a part of all markets. So long as interest rates are applied to all loans (including new money put into circulation) the drive of any employed individual will be to obtain profit. The only way to obtain profit is the sale of goods/services above and beyond their intrinsic value. Otherwise money would be dept and nothing more however so long as people can be put into a position to justify to buy high and sell low, money can change hands to pay off certain depts (always at the expense of others).

Now if you're saying you wouldn't incorporate a subjective theory of value in a game. That's fine. Not a very honest depiction of a market, but that's the nice thing about video games. The designer gets to build how the world works.

I certainly wasn't saying dying of thirst was subjective (that's asinine). I said the person's value of the money they hold as well as their value of water they crave is subjective since I'm sure they would easily trade any money they're holding for water after having spent long enough time in the desert. His opinion, matter of taste and point of view is that his money is worthless compared to water because of his state of thirst. That is a subjective theory of value.

As for Africa, where do I start? You'll have to do more self study in this area but a snippet would be. 570-525 BC is a good place to start. Greeks and Phoenicians are your first culprits. Most every colonist that came to Africa since has brought weapons and an understanding of war and economy that put them hundreds of years ahead of native African tribes. In a 2005 IRIN report about 82% of South African arable land is owned by those with European descent (foreign interests) indicating one of the most important resources in the hands of none native interests. Although $500 billion (U.S) has been sent to African nations in the form of direct aid huge sums are spent back to developed nations in the purchase of weapons in civil conflicts, leaving only dept and destruction. The "lack of necessities of life" I spoke of are the social services like education and medical care that developed nations are accustomed to because most newly democratic nations in Africa are left with huge depts. The flaw of most of the nations is spending large sums of money on fruitless mega projects. Lastly and most obviously really is the corruption that exists. Since the wealth gap is so wide many individuals in a position of authority allow high level crime to go unpunished and overlooked with even small bribes.

We should probably keep these tangents a little more focused on topic.