The reality is that once a person has escaped relative poverty as described in the previous blog they are almost certainly going to be better off when their activities result in reasonably balanced achievements. I could do the maths to show why that is true: I won’t here, not now. These diagrams suffice. The person possessing the ellipse in this diagram (which are now smoothed for ease of presentation and with area C, the consequence of action, being highlighted in red) is better of than the person in the one that follows:
The first person may not have the peak experiences that the second one does with regard to both spiritual and material well-being but nor are they in relative poverty, or even life threatening destitution in any area of their life, but the second person is in that situation.
In fact, it is also possible to say that this person is better off than the person whose diagram follows:
Balance is best even when absolute poverty is avoided.
Enough Economics 
“balance is best even when absolute poverty is avoided”
Why?
This is just a statement, and you’ve not backed it up. Why is it best to have a balance between the 4 values you (somewhat arbitrarily) designate as being important to human wellbeing?
Some people might not want balance. They might be “non-balance type people”, whose lives go much better – as a subjective experience for themselves – if they are unbalanced in some ways.
I don’t see how you are justified in ruling these people out with a simple sentence that “balance is best”. You need to tell us why.
I assure you – I will deal with this in due course
There is a clear logic to this which I will develop – I have sketched it out in detail, but need to write the words!
Thanks for your comments
Richard