4 ms·
"An economy" is not the same as "the" economy. It seems like it should be possible for an economy to be able to contribute to the welfare of society as a whole
by rabidrat 7y ago
"An economy" is not the same as "the" economy. It seems like it should be possible for an economy to be able to contribute to the welfare of society as a whole, and most individuals within that society. However, "the" economy that we have, does not do so. It is a severe indictment of our economy, that pausing all nonessential activity for a few months can be catastrophic to so many people, and for no good reason. As the old joke goes, "we have enough food, it's too bad there isn't enough money to buy it all".
- jki275 7y agoI think it actually does, otherwise those people wouldn't be employed at all. And I'm curious, you say it should contribute only to "most individuals" -- which ones, specifically, in your framework, should be excluded?
- gitrog 7y agoYou're making it sound as if the economy in the abstract sense is the thing that is employing people. Those people would still definitely be employed in a "different" economy, since an economy is simply a space in which people trade goods and services. And I don't think his framework actively excludes people, it's just that economies almost never contribute to all individuals equally.
- jki275 7y agoWell, "the economy in the abstract sense" is the thing that is employing people. Claiming that those people would still definitely be employed in a different economy is simply saying it would be the same economy. And the claim was that this utopian new economy would contribute to the "welfare of society as a whole, and most individuals within that society", so I'm curious who isn't covered under that "most".