Well of course they’re poor, they put a higher value on the happiness of their population than on their capital generation. The country can only sustainably support so many people, so they can’t let a large number of people immigrate unless they want to sacrifice their wildlife or impose reproduction limits on residents (directly or through reduced support for families), both of which would be fucked up.

I didn’t realize they had zero billionaires though, now I’m even more impressed by them!

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I just told you they live hungry, uneducated, and basically serve to enrich a small group of elites and your response was "wow, that could be me!"

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You asked for a country that doesn’t prioritize wealth creation and you don’t like the one given because they’re poor. I don’t know what you want, but now it seems like you’re looking for a country that’s just wealthy by happenstance, which I don’t think can exist in a world dominated by trade and capitalism.

Bhutan prioritizes happiness over wealth. Therefore, the people living there are not especially wealthy on a global scale, given that most other countries prioritize wealth.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I outlined very very very clearly, with no room to deny, Bhutan is built in a way that enriches a few, and serves the extremely wealthy from around the world, while many suffer.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

I don’t think we’re having the same conversation, because I took very different things away from your comment. That’s okay, we are not the same, as noted. I’ll leave it here.