Tom, astrologers use numbers, and charts and graphs and scienterrific-sounding terms too. And not only do economists disagree, aren't there even different schools of libertarians, each with their own footnotes and graphs they bring to their debates?

Admit it Tom, you prefer some political and economic philosphies over others for the EXACT same reason I, and everyone else, does: you find them esthetically and philosophically and morally more pleasing to you. Its why I don't argue with you the way you want me to argue with you. I can't. Nobody can.

I can't use numbers to justify my preconceptions and preferences any more than you can. But at least I recognize that. The thought leaves you adrift, anchorless and rudderless in the turbulent ocean of your own emotional uncertainty.
You've convinced yourself of your scientific and statistical rigor, but you can't use it in politics any more than you can use musical notation to prove JS Bach is superior to Gangsta Rap.

All those numbers are just your way of denying that to yourself, and cloaking your emotional opinions and preferences in a mantle of engineering logic and certainty that you cannot even convince another mathematican and logician is valid, much less that's its true. Your pseudoscience may be intimidating to a psychologist or an art major, but it doesn't do anything for me, or anyone else here with scientific training. We can see right through it. I'm not saying real scientists can't be conservatives. I'm just saying they haven't deluded themselves into believing conservatism is scientific. No politics is scientific, not even mine.

As for the definition of "rich", you're absolutely right; there is no such thing. But some people are richer than others. That is an undeniable and verifiable fact. "Rich", like "poor", is not a place, it's a direction. Kind of like "hot" and "cold" in degrees Kelvin.