4 ms·
Fair enough, but I feel that, at that point, we're getting into semantic weeds over the definition of "poor", eh? For concreteness, I'll say that I would defin
by carapace 4y ago
Fair enough, but I feel that, at that point, we're getting into semantic weeds over the definition of "poor", eh?
For concreteness, I'll say that I would define "poor" as not having the capability to satisfy the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs ) By that standard Bhutan isn't poor despite being technically a Third World nation.
- Godel_unicode 4y agoI think it’s axiomatically true that if you change definitions at will then anything can mean anything. I don’t think that’s useful for enhancing understanding.