nika & david wealth p5
18 min video – What is wealth? part 5 – march 2019 – of nika and david on wealth
if economist here would say .. can’t have equality because some goods aren’t necessarily comparative.. like .. who gets a house in the best neighborhood.. and to me.. the measure of equality is a kind of a false start.. equality just means that everybody is the same in some quality that you think is important.. because obviously you’re not going to have everybody the same everything.. who would want that.. you don’t want everybody to have the same possessions.. people don’t want the same stuff.. but on the other hand i wouldn’t want a system where we could say everybody has stuff equiv to the same amt of value.. because that means you’re opposing a single value.. i don’t want to do that either.. i mean in a way.. you could say the ultimate equal society would be one where you can’t measure anybody’s wealth.. because people’s things are just so completely diff.. the things people are pursuing are just so completely diff.. that there’s no possible way to say that one is wealthier than another
huge – let’s do that.. ie: let’s stop measuring things,, any form of m\a\p
nika: on idea of not being able to compare.. and would not come up w stuff like ubi
3 min – frank: money same as notions like poor/rich/wealth.. not one function of money et al.. doesn’t make sense to even speak about money.. but for capitalist society the primary function of money is it becomes a universal measure and its qualifying social relation.. and first of all it’s quantifying the elements to produce wealth which is quantifiable.. so whatever you think about what is real wealth.. what is important for me in capitalist society.. it’s possible to measure the productivity of the elements to produce goods.. i think this is what makes capitalism universal.. universal measures of social relations.. and make it incredibly productive to use these precise measures.. we get out of the productive process to see.. ok.. it’s more productive to produce a care in this/that way.. so.. yeah.. the idea of communism has to do w universal ideas of everyone equal.. no classes/power/diff’s.. religions et al.. so capitalism only able to have these universal systems by quantifying social/natural relations.. and i don’t know how to get out of this universalism to a higher universalism.. so i think it’s worse to think these categories.. interesting how society can be incredibly productive but how incredibly productive can turn into its own opposite.. not only total ineq.. but going to war and dysfunction.. ideological effects.. et al.. i think this is problem we are most stuck in .. universal ness as productive but also biggest disaster
norton productivity law et al
6 min – girl on left: this idea that you can have objective/universal measures.. comes from classical econ.. some hopes.. experiments show people don’t act like that.. they actually are always ie: leaving resource unused.. with no reason.. but the air is diff in those terms.. and i think there’s some kind of hope.. children behave as rational.. but w socialization.. we.. (don’t?)
8 min – q: because entropy must increase
girl: yeah.. entropy is dominating the universe.. it’s interesting to think that life is against entropy.. if you are alive.. what is the defn of life.. and some people it works against entropy.. you reverse this..
i think we don’t get entropy.. ie: carhart-harris entropy law et al
universe has not gotten less organized since big bang
9 min – q: dominant in this question has been measurement.. i wonder it isn’t as much a question of measurement as of ingenuity.. in the sense that.. having a lobster is great but if you don’t know that you can eat it then it’s useless.. in a real sense.. the lack of wealth is ignorance.. the sense of not knowing that we can resource share to feed the 9b on this planet.. and maybe even be in a better equilibrium .. this is like the question.. do we need larger conception categories for the question of what is wealth
yeah that.. and/or.. we just need to stop measuring things
10 min – girl: on societies that measure wealth not by how much you have but how much you can destroy
11 min – and potlotches.. how much you can give away..
12 min – there are certain types of wealth that are considered real wealth.. and they’re things we wouldn’t consider wealth at all.. like right to use certain kind of symbol.. that come w names.. et al.. everything else was considered.. who cares.. ie: if get a new name.. then you try to give away as much stuff as possible.. esp to their enemies.. my wealth is like bolders.. let me bowl you down et al.. to show who cares the least about their things.. shows how standards of wealth are really diff.. ie: point is only people knowing you have it not that you have it…
14 min – frank: interesting that ideas of wealth are all diff.. but was same problems in both having too much or not enough..
15 min – q: how do you personally relate to the wealth and abundance.. so what is non capitalist answer to dealing w abundance of people
16 min – girl: i disagree w what you said.. i don’t think we have too many people.. we have too many rich people (guy: i didn’t say too many people.. i asked how you relate to it).. the problem are the rich.. ie: can double number of poorest and no prob.. double number of richest and prob.. the ineq is the problem not the number of people.. how the resources are distributed in society..