Nope, if what you say were true, you couldn’t have a good economy with for instance slavery. Which I agree that morally you can’t, but economy is not moral, unless we make it so.
The economy doing well is pretty objective, whether it’s distributed properly is not.
It’s very obvious in for instance USA, that some people are perfectly fine with people starving and not having health care, they find that proper and all is well, because they believe if people were given food shelter and healthcare, it would be at the cost of their own wealth.
Less selfish people may believe something along the lines of the maximization of the welfare of everybody.
if what you say were true, you couldn’t have a good economy with for instance slavery.
Begging the question. What I say is true, and no, you can not have a good economy with slavery. High GDP? For sure. But good economy? No. Why? Because there isn’t a healthy distribution of wealth.
The economy doing well is pretty objective, whether it’s distributed properly is not.
Wealth distribution isn’t some abstract concept. Plenty of frameworks have been developed to create (or at least attempt to create) a healthy distribution of wealth. The Kuznets curve and Pareto distribution have helped with economic planning across many European countries that don’t seem to have nearly the severity of income inequality or living unaffordability as the US.
I don’t even see how your last bit is relevant to my comment. Where does welfare fall into my main point that the economy is only doing great if you equate “the economy” to GDP?
Economy is measured on money, not quality of life or social justice. For that there are other measurements, like HDI.
There are zero classic economic models that agree with your claim, you are free to have your opinion, but opinions aren’t facts. And the fact is that unfortunately, you CAN have a good economy disregarding the morals of it are bad.
You may call whatever you want good or bad based on your own judgement, but saying a good economy needs to be moral, doesn’t even make any sense, because morality isn’t objective.
Your claim is simply factually wrong, no matter how much we may wish it were true.
No, it’s an example of economy having absolutely no morals, unless we apply it specifically, by making illegal things that are economically beneficial but immoral.
Nope, if what you say were true, you couldn’t have a good economy with for instance slavery. Which I agree that morally you can’t, but economy is not moral, unless we make it so.
The economy doing well is pretty objective, whether it’s distributed properly is not.
It’s very obvious in for instance USA, that some people are perfectly fine with people starving and not having health care, they find that proper and all is well, because they believe if people were given food shelter and healthcare, it would be at the cost of their own wealth.
Less selfish people may believe something along the lines of the maximization of the welfare of everybody.
You’re literally just repeating yourself.
Begging the question. What I say is true, and no, you can not have a good economy with slavery. High GDP? For sure. But good economy? No. Why? Because there isn’t a healthy distribution of wealth.
Wealth distribution isn’t some abstract concept. Plenty of frameworks have been developed to create (or at least attempt to create) a healthy distribution of wealth. The Kuznets curve and Pareto distribution have helped with economic planning across many European countries that don’t seem to have nearly the severity of income inequality or living unaffordability as the US.
I don’t even see how your last bit is relevant to my comment. Where does welfare fall into my main point that the economy is only doing great if you equate “the economy” to GDP?
Economy is measured on money, not quality of life or social justice. For that there are other measurements, like HDI.
There are zero classic economic models that agree with your claim, you are free to have your opinion, but opinions aren’t facts. And the fact is that unfortunately, you CAN have a good economy disregarding the morals of it are bad.
You may call whatever you want good or bad based on your own judgement, but saying a good economy needs to be moral, doesn’t even make any sense, because morality isn’t objective.
Your claim is simply factually wrong, no matter how much we may wish it were true.
what kind of nightmare am I reading? You want fucking slavery?
No, it’s an example of economy having absolutely no morals, unless we apply it specifically, by making illegal things that are economically beneficial but immoral.
I think its just your idea of what a good economy should be having no morals.