Are you proud to be British?

dowie said:
I'm not arguing that at all, 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
Click to expand...

If you think I've changed things to prove a point, you've not understood what I did.
 
Domo said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense. It’s arrogant to want to retain a nations democratic governing institutions? Sweet lord.
 
rare said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is a simple model that shows the relationship between income inequality and relative wealth. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
inogen said:
If you think I've changed things to prove a point, you've not understood what I did.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether you've changed things to prove a point or not, I understood what you did though and you did change things. You made the people in scenario B poorer which isn't what the other poster specified.
 
inogen said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I beleive....

Wealth inequality causes people to strive to improve themselves making them more productive and innovative. Wealth equality fosters mediocracy and a lack of innovation.

Socialism is not just a bad idea it's a wicked one....
 
dowie said:
I don't know whether you've changed things to prove a point or not, I understood what you did though and you did change things. You made the people in scenario B poorer which isn't what the other poster specified.
Click to expand...

No, the poor in both scenarios when compared to each other are just as wealthy. £1 each. It's the wealth inequality that makes them poorer. Thus proving my point.
 
Caracus2k said:
That's exactly what I beleive....

Wealth inequality causes people to strive to improve themselves making them more productive and innovative. Wealth equality fosters mediocracy and a lack of innovation.

Socialism is not just a bad idea it's a wicked one....
Click to expand...

Please show your working.
 
No, we have done nothing positive in recent years. In fact we have had the opposite with wanting to abolish human rights, aid, cut backs to research, EU etc.
 
If England win the world cup next summer thousands of people will go nuts for reasons im not entirely sure. I like football, but i am not that attached to any particular team.

I am glad i was born here, but like others have mentioned I am not proud to be English.
 
inogen said:
No, the poor in both scenarios when compared to each other are just as wealthy. £1 each. It's the wealth inequality that makes them poorer. Thus proving my point.
Click to expand...

except they're not, your £s are meaningless - the poor in scenario B have less wealth as you capped the resources(beers), in this instance the number of beers and made £s worth less in scenario B... so to say they're just as wealthy because they have the same number of £s is meaningless, you might as well forget about the £s in that case as as they only serve to confuse things because in each scenario they're worth a different amount.


inogen said:
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.
Click to expand...

if you want to fit what the other poster described then you need 18 beers in scenario 2... the rich people can have 5 beers each and the poor people who are just as poor as scenario A can buy one each

the other poster never stated that both scenarios had the same total wealth/resources... scenario B inherently has more if the poor are just as poor and the rich are richer - his point (I'd assume) was simply that inequality isn't everything... no point in everyone being equally poor for example

which brings us back again to the real world and East/West Germany... West Germany not only had the chance to not be poor but also had more resources overall
 
Last edited:
rare said:
It doesn’t prove the point though because it’s pure fantasy. There is no economy in the world with a fixed GDP.
Click to expand...

Okay, don't think of it as being a real economy. Think of A and B being exactly the same model economy, one with wealth equality, one without. Fixed GDP or not makes no difference.
 
dowie said:
if you want to fit what the other poster described then you need 18 beers in scenario 2... the rich people can have 5 beers each and the poor people who are just as poor as scenario A can buy one each

the other poster never stated that both scenarios had the same total wealth/resources...
Click to expand...

No, 10 beers each. Otherwise what you're showing is that richer countries are richer. That's a tautology.

Each country is the same, one A, one B, EXCEPT for wealth distribution.
 
Superficial said:
In fact my comment outright acknowledges the contributions of foreign researchers - the "reputation" certainly comes of the back of British citizens overwhelmingly and you don't need to take my word for it - a simple check of the list of Nobel prize winners will confirm it. Many people of foreign origins there too but not most.

Once and again the ENVIRONMENT we create is top tier and THAT is the most important factor and I am very proud of it. This has been the way for HUNDREDS of years.

I think it's sad that we live in a world where people are more impressed by the badge on their cars or washing machines than the fact that their country accounts for a predominant amount of leading scientific researchers and institutions.
Click to expand...

That environment is one of the things that has defined us as British for centuries. It includes openness, tolerance and a welcoming attitude for all throughout the world. Unfortunately that part of “being British” has been eroded significantly since the olympics and the UK is becoming seen as somewhere people are less interested in visiting and working.

Being insular is not who we are and never has been, yet we are heading that way right now. That’s something that makes me less “proud” to be British at the moment.
 
inogen said:
No, 10 beers each. Otherwise what you're showing is that richer countries are richer. That's a tautology.

Each country is the same, one A, one B, EXCEPT for wealth distribution.
Click to expand...

but that then isn't what was specified, that's my point - your poor in scenario B are poorer (because you've made the £s worth different amounts - you might as well have said the poor have £10 each and the rich £50 each etc.. it is meaningless) point is you can't claim the poor in scenario b have the same wealth as in scenario A simply because they have £1 as the £ in each scenario isn't equivalent ergo you're presenting a different pair of scenarios

sure richer countries are richer - that wasn't what he was trying to show though, he was seemingly arguing that inequality isn't everything... no point necessarily having everyone equal but all being equally poor - and when that has been tried in the real world in the form of communism it generally doesn't work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom