• mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re literally just repeating yourself.

    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?

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.