4 ms·

comments like this drive me stark raving mad. its just nonsense that somehow is taken, unexamined, into the psyche of a whole generation. 1) there is not a con

comments like this drive me stark raving mad. its just nonsense that somehow is taken, unexamined, into the psyche of a whole generation. 1) there is not a consensus as to what an optimal economy looks like for reasons so numerous its unimaginable someone would make such a claim, but include things like: globalism vs nationalism, hedonism vs utilitarianism, militarism vs pacifism, importance of a problem vs tractability of a problem, etc ad infinitum. 2) even if there was somehow a consensus on what an optimal economy is, its a floating target. economics is based on intangibles like demand and peoples feelings. if such a thing were to exist, it couldnt exist for long and would require constant change. 3) what an optimal economy could even theoretically be requires knowledge of the future. if earth becomes uninhabitable in 1 year due to meteor impact, the optimal economy certainly doesnt involve anything but meteor detection and defense. or from volcanic eruption. or solor flare/ejection. or nuclear war. do you bemoan a suboptimal economy when people buy 50 sneakers? or candy and soda? or have 5 TVs? or 3 computers? what does wealth inequality have to do with anything? what are you even talking about?

Miner49er 5y ago
We have generally accepted metrics we use to measure how the economy is doing. Things like GDP, productivity, or even more proxy-like things like life expectancy and happiness. Sure, maybe this type of activity counts towards the GDP in the short term, but long term a giant yacht isn't capital that is going to give a return on the investment. For other metrics it is useless as well. It makes 1 person (and maybe his friends) a bit happier for an extreme cost. I think by most metrics this is a poor allocation of resources in the medium or long term. It's just an ultra rich guy spending a ton of capital to make himself happy.
kiliantics 5y ago
Sure, you won't be able to get consensus on what an optimal economy should be. But I think we could agree on a few simple universal requirements like, how about everyone has dignified living conditions -- in terms of shelter, food, health, safety. We actually kind of already agreed on these things in the UN human rights charter. And the current economic model is failing about half of all humans on these points. Maybe this can help you to see how comments like yours in discussions about examples of extreme displays of wealth inequality might be the ones that actually drive people mad.

Miner49er 5y ago

We have generally accepted metrics we use to measure how the economy is doing. Things like GDP, productivity, or even more proxy-like things like life expectancy and happiness. Sure, maybe this type of activity counts towards the GDP in the short term, but long term a giant yacht isn't capital that is going to give a return on the investment. For other metrics it is useless as well. It makes 1 person (and maybe his friends) a bit happier for an extreme cost. I think by most metrics this is a poor allocation of resources in the medium or long term. It's just an ultra rich guy spending a ton of capital to make himself happy.

kiliantics 5y ago

Sure, you won't be able to get consensus on what an optimal economy should be. But I think we could agree on a few simple universal requirements like, how about everyone has dignified living conditions -- in terms of shelter, food, health, safety. We actually kind of already agreed on these things in the UN human rights charter. And the current economic model is failing about half of all humans on these points. Maybe this can help you to see how comments like yours in discussions about examples of extreme displays of wealth inequality might be the ones that actually drive people mad.