Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s precisely the elephant in the room. Money is a distortion and filtering lense No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented . It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. Every single other metric is worse . Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly perceive reality, and that all of the indirect…
>No, money is the most accurate way of measuring value to people that has ever been invented. It quite literally is the least distorted lens you can possibly get. As they say "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it", which also have many other more flavors.[1] >Aren't you aware of the well-known scientific truism that it's impossible to directly percei…
This is a useless, irrelevant, and fallacious thought-terminating cliche that you're using as an attempt to disguise the fact that you have presented no alternative - because you know I'll tear it to shreds if you do. (an LLM comment doesn't count, because they lie and hallucinate, and it's not you responding)
> even LLMs run by capitalist companies will explain that to anyone interested to ask.[2]
You can't even be bothered to try to think for yourself. "psychoslave" is an extremely apt name for your account.
> Money at best is a proxy for binding individuals into social classes.
Oh, and there's the politics - you're not interested in debate, you're a propagandist. You're not arguing in good faith (if that wasn't clear enough from the LLM-generated responses, failure to make any sort of coherent argument, and not including a single actual alternative to money as a proxy for measuring value). If you respond, I'll do my best to debunk your arguments for future HN readers, but it's useless to try to convince you while your basic mindset is that you're shilling for a particular political point.