Zee Spencer (He/They)
Wealth is generated when:
1. Socioeconomic power is widely distributed
2. The baseline of personal and collective self-actualization and autonomy is increased
It is destroyed when:
1. Socioeconomic power becomes concentrated
2. Personal and collective autonomy is decreased
Corruption and authoritarianism result in reduced wealth.
Not only is it just to remove political figures who engage in corruption and push authoritarianism, it is necessary for a healthy and wealthy society.
pettter
@Zee How do you count 'wealth'?
pettter
@Zee Counting wealth in a relative sense seems counterproductive, to me. Using free time as a proxy is decent, though that moves the definitional question from 'what is wealth' to 'what counts as "free" time'? Is time spent caring for children 'free'? For elderly? For friends?
Zee Spencer (He/They)
In a wealthy society, the median per-capita annual time directed to staving off hunger and homelessness is below the global median.
In a poor society, it is above the global median.
Zee Spencer (He/They)
@pettter Well, there are several ways:
1. Assets and Income, i.e. "I am upper-middle class, because my income exceeds median + 20% and my assets exceed median
2. Distribution of time between labor necessary to survive vs in self-directed activities (i.e. I do income-generating work 20 hour week, speculative work 8 hours a week, and pro-bono work 4 hours per week)
pettter
@Zee But you didn't start out talking about wealth in relative terms, you started out talking about how to 'increase wealth' and achieve a 'wealthy' society? Surely you had some kind of definition of what you meant by that?
Like, I agree that a more equal society is better in many ways, I'm just curious why you'd necessarily frame it in terms of 'wealth'?
Zee Spencer (He/They)
All definitions are dependent upon utility. For personal and collective decision making, *relative comparisons* are more useful than objective ones.
GDP, for example, attempts to be an objective measure of "Wealth" of a country; however it falls apart when you begin evaluating quality of life.
And what counts as uncoerced distribution of time will vary. I am not here to be the arbiter or enforcer of any of these ideas; but rather am offering them to people who wish to learn and grow
pettter
@Zee Sure, so am I. Looking for interesting conversation I guess? Agree that material conditions and control over resources matters a great deal, I'm just not sure if wealth, and particularly one specific society ('ours') having more of it than another is the best way to frame reaching a better society globally. Does that make sense?
Zee Spencer (He/They)
@pettter I I don't really know what you're looking for here; but I'm not your personal philosopher; I'm just a rando posting my thoughts on the Internet.
Zee Spencer (He/They)
@pettter I choose wealth because wealth is a critical component of inequity. When we pretend that oppression is primarily about unpleasant or uncomfortable social interaction, rather than the socioeconomic disenfranchisement we create space for disengenuity.
Zee Spencer (He/They)
@pettter Increase and decrease are relative terms.
pettter
@Zee I don't think this is going anywhere. Sorry to bother you
Zee Spencer (He/They)
@pettter I think you're projecting quite a bit onto my statements if you think I am in any way advocating for one society to have "more" wealth than any other.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.