loading words...

Aug 13, 2019 16:29:33

Normative judgment on what constitutes immoral wealth is immoral 

by @abrahamKim PATRON | 500 words | 40🔥 | 337💌

Sir Abe

Current day streak: 40🔥
Total posts: 337💌
Total words: 122612 (490 pages 📄)

Jason's post is so provocative that I'm writing this. Go read it first if you haven't.

I agree with all his sentiments... so I don't need to reword them. I'm just adding one thing ontop of them. .and maybe this is where we differ... but I think based on his sentiments, this addition is actually just an abstraction of one of his sentiments, which is :

Because one man's poor is another man's rich.

Because of the relative nature of resources (currency and wealth in this case), I don't think there can be a clear-cut method of casting how much wealth is immoral. But I do consider the attempt to cast benchmarks for what constitutes immoral vs moral amounts of wealth as immoral. 

No human can embody all the lifeways that would endow them the ability to make such judgments. How can a person demarcate a number as being immoral, especially when that number and it's meaning and value is subject to change. 

I do agree one hundred percent that there are immoral ways of living, that are often enabled at different levels by progressively increasing levels of wealth, but that is not to say that the wealth is immoral.

This makes me think of guns in a way. It's not the gun that kills, but the gun assemblaged to the disturbed mind that kills. So I do not think that wealth is immoral... but it can enable immorality at mass scale. 

But truly.. wealth is not the problem here. Cause I agree with Jason that wealth is not zero-sum. However... there is the inconvenient truth of zero-sum that is very very real and relevant. And that is the dwindling of the earth's natural resources. That is zero-sum at the moment. And that is the bigger issue... and I think the actual issue.... debating about wealth is simply a symptom of that true problem.

A person doesn't truly care whether Bezos has one two or three thousand mansions. What they truly care about is that the water is becoming undrinkable, the fish uneatable, the air causing brain damage. That's what they actually fucking care about, but out of desperate frustration they want to blame things like the idea of Bezos.

Thiel often states that the real economic problem isn't distribution itself, but the lack of growth. If the pie is constantly growing, then people don't care so much about distribution. It's once the pie stops growing... or shrinks... that people start becoming conflicting over the distribution. 

So let's think about wealth. Why is wealth at certain levels immoral? It's not. What is scary though is that we are running out of resources... running out of time. And wealth is easier to blame than swallow that pill. 

And yes... wealth does exacerbate this resource depletion problem. So yes we are in a fucking mess. 

  • 💎 1
  • 1

    @abrahamKim good point about the zero sum of the Earth's resources. Wealth has got to be capped somehow by the Earth's fixed sum of resources, even if astronomically large. No wealth is gonna help when this planet becomes completely uninhabitable.

    Jason Leow avatar Jason Leow | Aug 14, 2019 20:31:19
  • 1

    @abrahamKim -- wealth ( is the accumulation of resources beyond what's required or even usable ) -- imagine I have a truck, and how up at the watering hole and take most of it - because it's free. I'm water - wealthy. I can't drink it all. I don't need it for anything. Oh, but I use it to wash my cars )

    Brian Ball avatar Brian Ball | Aug 13, 2019 09:56:33
    • 1


      and to water your plants. and also to feed yoru dog. you don't need a dog. and yoru cat. you don't need a cat. and also fish. you don't need pet fish.

      it just goes on and on

      Sir Abe avatar Sir Abe | Aug 13, 2019 20:20:46
    • 1

      @abrahamKim - it's hard to argue that I don't need a pet fish.

      Brian Ball avatar Brian Ball | Aug 13, 2019 16:00:12
contact: email - twitter / Terms / Privacy