5 ms·

But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn

But the comment I replied to basically posited "wealth" as the one and only universal good by suggesting that if the government strives for something that doesn't eventually yield wealth, there's no point. An overused example: Fascism has at times lead to incredible economic growth, creating wealth that did measurable good in most citizen's lives (by ending terrible depressions). But there was more that came along with that, which mostly wasn't cutting into the country's wealth (maybe it squanders some human capital, but so does 30% unemployment, which the Nazis completely reversed in around 5 years). Despite the positive implications of fascism on "wealth", there's a lot that the Nazis did that most would be inclined to call bad. On the other hand, Scandanavian socialist democracy may not be optimal for wealth creation, but it has a lot of benefits that help people lead enjoyable lives that are free from the risk of various kinds of terrible suffering (eg. homelessness). There are no universal goods, but when pushed, very few people are actually willing to eschew all goods except wealth. And if you are, what's so special about wealth that makes it a good you're willing to quasi-universalize?

venus 13y ago
I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich. But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything. Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  > long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe. But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
  - lloeki 13y ago
    > Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle). Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki. Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.
chrischen 13y ago
I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.

venus 13y ago

I used the word wealth because I was replying to another post which used it when trying to set up a false dichotomy between political freedom on one side and "wealth" on the other, as if they're opposites and you can have one or the other, not both. I wasn't trying to say that the sole goal of government is to get everyone rich. But I did say long term - long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. For that matter the nordic social experiment cannot be said to have succeeded yet. Really, none of this has been around long enough to make any final conclusions about anything. Anyway. Instead of "wealth" you might want to read "social wealth" - the ability of a society to provide good jobs, education, social mobility, health care, long term satisfaction, security of state and person, those kinds things.

flyinRyan 13y ago
> long term the Nazi "wealth" turned to ash. Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. Germany is the exporting powerhouse of Europe. But just to be clear, you would be ok with the whole holocaust thing if Germany now had the GDP (or whatever metric you want to use for "social wealth") of the US as a result?
- lloeki 13y ago
  > Mercedes is still doing quite well, actually. I think you meant Volkswagen Group, created in 1937 by the Nazis and backed by Hitler to create the Type 1 (a.k.a Beetle). Today, Volkswagen owns Audi, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Porsche, Ducati, Seat, Skoda, and has a majority of shares in Suzuki. Mercedes is small fry compared do VG.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Mercedes was just off the top of my head. There are many businesses that did well under Hitler and still do well today.

chrischen 13y ago

I'm sure venus meant "wealth" as "well-being." GDP is one potential way to measure it... but it may or may not be flawed. We're just referring to "wealth" as a theoretical concept we can't perfectly measure.