4 ms·
> They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well – so it makes little sense to claim that they were poor. His argument is tha
by huffmsa 8y ago
> They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well – so it makes little sense to claim that they were poor.
His argument is that you can't be poor if you don't have a concept of money, like in an agrarian society. You overlooked it because your brain knows it's not true.
Quality of life is not a dollar amount. It's all of those graphs Gates shared. Not just the first one.
- almost_usual 8y agoIf quality of life isn’t a dollar amount then why aren’t more people comfortable distributing dollars amongst the public?
- huffmsa 8y agoI'll rephrase. It's not purely a dollar amount. It's what's available for you to do and buy with those dollars. Eventually we will just give everyone dollars. I firmly believe Pixar's WALL-E is our Marxist ideal future. But we're not there yet. Need better robots.
- benj111 8y ago$1 a day if you're a factory worker needs to pay your rent, and your food, and your fuel, then your support network has gone, so grandparents cant look after kids etc, etc. $1 a day for a farmer means they don't have those costs. Social networks are still in place, etc, etc. As you say, Quality of life is not a dollar amount.
- huffmsa 8y agoSo let's address that. Do you believe that quality of life for a randomly chosen person has improved since 1820? My reading of Hinkel is that he does not believe it.
- benj111 8y agoOf course life has improved since 1820. My reading of Hinkel was that comparing a farmer to a factory worker is an apples and oranges comparison, because its doesn't take into account the non monetary benefits the farmer has. I would rather be a farmer on $1 a day than a factory worker on $1 a day, because the factory workers $ has to buy so much more stuff.