3 ms·
>"Wealth" is a measure of relative living standards. No, it is not. This is like saying wealth is a measure of how fancy your car is. Correlated, sure, but cal
by fnovd 7y ago
>"Wealth" is a measure of relative living standards.
No, it is not. This is like saying wealth is a measure of how fancy your car is. Correlated, sure, but calling it a measure is inaccurate at best and at worst an attempt to eschew nuance in favor of ideological conformity.
- itiri83njd 7y agoYou emotionally qualify it isn’t and that’s it. If you have something quantifiable to peddle here that never brushes up against human ideology, go for it. Otherwise your reply is no different than mine. See politically I can label it with as much nuance as I want. So can anyone. There is no “one way” to view things. There’s very meticulous and nuanced ways, but I don’t have to adopt them as part of my political tool belt. Any ideas and nuance we hold onto in our head outside of what physics and chemistry say the structure of matter looks like at various speeds relative to light, is subjective human ideology. Whichever ideology holds official power “wins.” Largely by saying some other ideology is deficient we’re picking this one instead. So... quantify it with something other than a human ideology then? Pure math economics models are invalid. Human biology doesn’t need to conform to the behaviors within. It’s academic economists trying to find a causative conclusion from physics to wealth accumulation to defend political ideology.