Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,339
Depends on your viewpoint, i see yours is old school
Are you proud to be British?
- Thread starter Marmot
- Start date
Depends on your viewpoint, i see yours is old school
Makes no sense. If someone is poor, how does his neighbour being as poor make it a more preferable scenario?
If you can’t afford to eat, you are still hungry regardless if you have nothing to compare it to. It’s better for some to be able to afford to eat because they buy the food which stimulates the economy and therefore provides a better opportunity to raise all standards of living.
If everyone is poor there is no basis for economic recovery and no chance of progression.
If you can’t afford to eat, you are still hungry regardless if you have nothing to compare it to. It’s better for some to be able to afford to eat because they buy the food which stimulates the economy and therefore provides a better opportunity to raise all standards of living.
If everyone is poor there is no basis for economic recovery and no chance of progression.
Also, 'our' education system. Apparently.
Again, you're adding more premises into the scenarios.
Let me explain it mathematically. To do so, we assume constants between the two scenarios to allow us to compare equally. Both scenarios both produce beer and each produces 10 beers. We assume a perfect market with 100% demand.
Scenario A. Everyone is equally poor. Let's say each person has £1 and there are 10 people. So the total wealth is £10.
Scenario B, There are 8 poor people with £1 and 2 rich ones who have £5 each. A total of £18.
Scenario B is therefore richer on aggregate than scenario A.
In scenario A, there is £10 and 10 beers, the price of beers is therefore £1 and everyone can buy a beer.
However in scenario B, there is £18 and still only 10 beers, so the price of beer is £1.80. Here, only the rich can buy beer and they can buy 2 each and have change. The poor on the other hand stay thirsty.
So for the poor, scenario A is better. Even though aggregate wealth is less. Wealth is relative.
why is it preferable - if you're equally poor in either scenario then you're in the same situation... however at least in scenario B you have a chance to not be poor
it makes no sense that scenario A is preferable - you're at the nut low position by default - in scenario B you may be in that position or you may be in a better one
now you're adding more premises to the scenarios - you've changed things so that the poor people in scenario B are actually poorer by placing a constraint on what is available within that economy
the scenarios as described by the other poster inherently means that scenarioB, where people are at the level of scenario A or higher has more wealth... you can't then try to undermine this by arguing that the real wealth is fixed in both cases which is what you've done by placing a arbitrary restraint on the total quantities of beer... which is what you've essentially done by devaluing the £ in scenario B
Explained above.
No, that's what I'm not doing, what I'm doing is comparing two scenarios that are exactly the same except for wealth distribution.
you're changing the scenarios presented by the other poster - he didn't place a cap on anything, in your scenario B the poor people are actually poorer which is against what was specified
and back in the real world, we can look at East and West Germany and see how that worked out
What a crazy notion. You assume that if someone is designated as being poor then that’s all they will ever be. There isn’t a fixed amount of money in an economy there is a fluctuating amount of money connected to every other economy in the world which also is fluctuating.
You have essentially designed a constrained economy within your scenario just to prove a point. Except it has no actual relation to reality.
You have essentially designed a constrained economy within your scenario just to prove a point. Except it has no actual relation to reality.
He didn't mention a cap. Neither did I. If you want to raise production in B, feel free, just do it by the same in A. The maths will still work out.
And we weren't talking about the real world, we were talking about an assertion, that I disagree with, that wealth inequality isn't a bad thing for poor people, which it quite obviously and demonstrably is.
It's called a model. I assume you're familiar with the concept of modelling?
you did place a cap... your £s became irrelevant and you had a fixed number of beers in each scenario - albeit the people in scenario A had more beers ergo more wealth than the poor in scenario B which isn't what was specified....
I know we weren't talking about the real world, in the other posters assertion the poor in scenario B are just as poor as those in scenario A
so lets say in scenario A everyone has a 2 bedroom council flat, a single small car and can afford basic meals
in scenario B some people are at that level - 2 bedroom council flat, single small car and basic meals... others can afford a detached house, others a mansion etc..
it makes no sense that scenario A is better... sure inequality is reduced massively in scenario A but the point being made by the other poster was that that doesn't matter if everyone is poor. Scenario B is clearly better, even if you're poor there is at least a chance of bettering your situation
Soldato
I was, but not so much since the referendum. Finding it all pretty shameful and it makes us all look like a bunch of *****.
Which has nothing to do with wealth inequality?
Unless you're arguing that wealth inequality itself causes an increase in resource and production?
If you are, please feel free to explain your model.
Soldato
And while the superstate thrives we'll be living on our home-grown potatoes, playing conkers and hanging the bunting . All the while trading with countries hell bent on destroying the planet, or committing despicable acts against their own population, or both. We'll be looking in from the outside - ostracised and deservedly so for our arrogance. I say our, I of course refer to the 52%.
As for the pride thing. Never really understood it. Already been said a million times, but one can only be proud of what one has achieved personally. You can't be proud of something which happened years ago or sat idly by while someone else slogged there guts out.
In fact the Oxford English dictionary states the following:
A feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of one's close associates, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.
Wow - I wish you had explained that before because clearly that changes everything.
The model you had described is pure fantasy. There is never only X amount of money in an economy. Therefore, it’s not valid on any level of reality.
A level of fluctuating inequality is a good thing in a free market scenario. I am not talking about staggering levels of inequality. But there has to be a level of demand which creates work.
I'm just explaining that what the other poster presented isn't the same as what you presented and why your changing it undermines it as you made the people in scenario B poorer
Soldato
I personally believe we are in a very good place in terms of the way our country works compared to many other places in the world. We have a very multicultural society which does not have to many extremes like say America, we have base infrastructure that helps provide support for people (NHS) various other things.
While we not be the best in everything, all round this is a great country to live in. My mother moved here when she was 21 with my father and I was born here. I've lived in other countries/America/Canada and i still love it here. Canada was a lovely place though
.
All in all I am very proud to be British.
While we not be the best in everything, all round this is a great country to live in. My mother moved here when she was 21 with my father and I was born here. I've lived in other countries/America/Canada and i still love it here. Canada was a lovely place though
.All in all I am very proud to be British.