In reply to Jon Stewart:
> The only point of anything is what is experienced by people: in fact, nothing else in the world really exists in any tangible form, only its imprints on human consciousness. So the only way to frame the value of anything is in terms of human suffering and human happiness.
> As such, the point of the economy is to maximise human happiness and minimise human suffering. The products of a successful economy are increased lifespan, increased leisure time for art and sport, decreased chances of seeing your children die, less pain from disease, etc etc etc. There is a very good point in having a successful economy.
> But this philosophy (which strikes me as totally obvious - why else would you do anything unless you've got weird religious world view that's about earning brownie points to cash in later in the afterlife, or whatever) also tells us why the products of the economy must be distributed widely in order for there to be any point. No one really believes that being stupendously wealthy makes you sttupedously happy, because what makes us happy is the basic stuff: not being in pain, our children being well, having control over our time, etc. Being stupendously wealthy only buys gaudy tat that doesn't contribute to the purpose of alleviating human suffering and maximising human happiness. So if you have sky high GDP, but the wealth is concentrated in a tiny minority while huge swathes of the population aren't getting the healthcare, the education that will allow them to take control of their time, the decent food and housing that will keep them in good health, then the economy is failing, no matter how much money it makes.
Someone had to spoil a nice philosophical thread with more bloody politics. No matter that you're probably right.