HarryW

You are making the fundamental assumption that wealth is a relative thing though. I'm not. All of what you say is reasonable so long as you only think of wealth as being relative, but personally I see it as an absolute thing.
How am I making that assumption? You have consistantly failed to explain how anything has and value independant from those who give it value.

I might define my personal wealth as the total sum of the value of all the products I own.

I would define value in terms of the either the demand it would satisfy if I owned it, or the demand it does satisfy by the virtue of the fact that I already own it.

Demand is a fickle and subjective thing. Consequantly it implies that all wealth is relative (to those that would demand it).

If I am wrong here, please explain where I am making my false assumptions.
Taking the opposite side of the desert island situation:

You don't do anything. You don't make any effort and you don't have anything to eat. You are starving. You have taken up sucking stones and eating gravel to distract from your hunger.

Meanwhile, on my island (where I'm also stuck, on a different planet, still the only person) I've grown my own fruit and I'm living quite comfortably. In fact I have a little too much so some of the fruit doesn't get eaten and is wasted, but I'm not bothered because I'm quite happy.
In this example, you would be more wealthy than I. But consider another example.

Two people are stuck on a desert island. Both with access to the same natural resources. The first one being a person taken from 2000 years ago who was plucked from a hunter/gatherer lifestile. The second from modern day New York. Both take steps to harness the natural resources available on the island for food.

Who is more wealthy here?

I would say that the hunter/gatherer is much more wealthy because he is meeting all his needs where as the modern day person will miss all the modern day luxeries such as TV, music, clothe etc. His needs are greater. Therefore he is failing to meet his needs by a greater amount than the hunter/gatherer.

Now can you not see that wealth is relative?