We can talk about whether it's a good or moral idea to transfer wealth, but let's not pretend like that's the only way to deal with poverty.
We can talk about whether it's a good or moral idea to transfer wealth, but let's not pretend like that's the only way to deal with poverty.
It expressly refers to relative, not absolute, wealth, which necessarily is zero-sum. (There's also quite a lot of evidence that relative, not absolute, wealth is the more important driver of exoerienced utility: humans are strongly programmed to be satisfied or not based on performance relative to expectations set by social environment, not absolute material condition. For this reason relative wealth is generally more important.)
I keep seeing people say this but is there not a finite amount of wealth in the world at any given time?
There are also the finite land and natural resources required for wealth creation.