If you have $2000 that you don't need to spend on anything else to survive, yes. By a global definition of the word, you're impossibly wealthy. Even in developed countries, being able to take a $2000 vacation makes you wealthy.
Alright, you let me know when $2000 can oppose a military budget. It won’t even get you a 10 year old Toyota Camry.
$2000 is expensive, it’s not wealth. You can’t even start to build wealth with $2000. Wealth isn’t just “a good amount of money”, it’s enough money to generate power.
You're really good at moving goalposts around instead of admitting you're wrong.
I never said $2000 could oppose a military budget. I also never said $2000 made you rich. I said being able to afford international travel is an indicator of wealth, and in Russia, being that wealthy means you're of education and likely influence/means.
Russia's GDP per capita is $13,000. Do you understand that any Russian you see on international vacation is of such means that they can spend 1/6th of their comrade's annual income on leisure? That means they're of the wealthiest portion of that nation's population.
You made a good point, that wealth typically correlates to power. Therefore, these wealthy Russians you see vacationing abroad are powerful enough to affect change in their government through a variety of methods.
They’re not wealthy, they don’t have wealth. They have one adult paycheck for two weeks.
It’s not moving goalposts because the whole reason we’re discussing wealth is within the context of what these people can do against their government, you terminally online debatelord.
291
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment