I have a similar but different take on the weighting around politics.

Our politicians are influence (unavoidably!) by the people who have the most time and money to spend lobbying them. Even if you reformed lobbying, this would still be the case - even if it was all just letter-writing with no money attached. Wealthy people could send way more letters than harried poor ones.

So the more you have, the more influence you get. BUT the more you have, the more you can fend for yourself, so also the less you need much of that influence! And then the government being unaligned with the needs of most people starts making a lot of sense, without even needing malicious conspiracies.

There's neither profit for businesses nor politicians in giving poor people what they need.

That does not seem to account for the wide disparity in outcomes among normal people in America vs many European counties like the Netherlands.

There appears to be a real corruption problem in the US that is distorting what politicians can do for poor people.

Economists and markets define the value of something as whatever someone will pay for it today.

Successful parents and sage founders define value differently.

They don't see dollars. They see sense.

This is the definition of value I am familiar with--whatever the buyer will pay.

I am unsure what colloquial definition GP refers to as the counterpoint. Surely you aren't both suggesting sense and dollars are non-overlapping?

> Surely you aren't both suggesting sense and dollars are non-overlapping?

The difference is the perspective of time.

A quick buck versus a strategic investment.

e.g. What made sense to Page and Brin in 1998 - the algorithm that would become famous as Page Rank, had only a trivial market value at the time, whilst Yahoo was "worth" billions.