Under which definition of prosperity (whether that being the well-being of the population or “alignment with imperial powers”) is North Korea doing better?
You made it sound like the answer depends on the definition of “prosperity” so I’m wondering under which definition the answer would be different.
But what then does it mean, or rather should it mean according to you? So far you’ve only cast confusion on what the question means, but you haven’t provided your view on what it should mean then.
There’s two issues. The one is that prosperity is already very ambiguous, and in the context of nations we usually default to easily measurable things like GDP. This doesn’t define human well-being which is actually not so easy to measure. Look at the US as the richest nation on earth for a stark example. The question was asked in this way and without this clarification for a reason.
But the bigger issue is that it’s just the wrong question to ask. Any definition of prosperity for one massive people can be built upon the cruel subjugation and exploitation of others. And that’s exactly what happened and continues to happen under the “former” global colonial powers, as well as aligned governments (which includes a lot of puppets). Hence US foreign policy. Celebrating this as a victory of capitalism is either clueless or outright malicious.
If you don’t feel like stating your opinion on which country is better off and why, then you could just say that outright or say nothing. You really don’t have to go to all of this trouble to pontificate about how it is unreasonable to even consider the matter. 😜
Under which definition of prosperity (whether that being the well-being of the population or “alignment with imperial powers”) is North Korea doing better?
You made it sound like the answer depends on the definition of “prosperity” so I’m wondering under which definition the answer would be different.
I said literally: it means absolutely nothing historically or ethically, or worse it typically means “aligned with imperialist hegemons”.
Do I need to explain to you what that means, or do you have a clue about South Korean history and US foreign policy?
But what then does it mean, or rather should it mean according to you? So far you’ve only cast confusion on what the question means, but you haven’t provided your view on what it should mean then.
There’s two issues. The one is that prosperity is already very ambiguous, and in the context of nations we usually default to easily measurable things like GDP. This doesn’t define human well-being which is actually not so easy to measure. Look at the US as the richest nation on earth for a stark example. The question was asked in this way and without this clarification for a reason.
But the bigger issue is that it’s just the wrong question to ask. Any definition of prosperity for one massive people can be built upon the cruel subjugation and exploitation of others. And that’s exactly what happened and continues to happen under the “former” global colonial powers, as well as aligned governments (which includes a lot of puppets). Hence US foreign policy. Celebrating this as a victory of capitalism is either clueless or outright malicious.
If you don’t feel like stating your opinion on which country is better off and why, then you could just say that outright or say nothing. You really don’t have to go to all of this trouble to pontificate about how it is unreasonable to even consider the matter. 😜
I appreciate you showing me how not to make a point in “a pointlessly hostile and asshole way”!
Yeah I guess you got me down to your level.
So now only the difference remains that I didn’t misconstrue your point on purpose to score a cheap dunk.