User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 88

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    25,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    What if they are poor and happy?
    What if you were poor and happy?
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers liked this post

  2. #12
    FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Survive & Stay Free View Post
    What if you were poor and happy?
    What if I was rich and miserable?
    "Did you exchange
    A walk-on part in the war
    for a lead role in a cage?"

    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson

  3. #13
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Inequality is a sign of progress and a symptom of personal liberty; it needs to be celebrated instead of demonized by ignorant folk.
    No.
    Likes SurrealisticSlumbers, Yama, Flâneuse liked this post

  4. #14
    Lord Grumpus Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    4,640

    Default

    Throughout most of human history, equality has meant abject poverty and starvation. The great Margaret Thatcher recognized this when she chastised a lefty for wanting to bring down the rich even though that wouldn't do a thing to improve the lives of anyone.

    So when someone argues for greater equality, they're actually arguing for more poverty and that's just stupid (stupid because it's irrational, emotional nonsense). They're trying to argue that the world would be better off without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and all the other highly successful men and women who've changed this world for the better. No, I think the world would be better off if we had more great men, not less.
    I'm not always right but you are usually wrong.

  5. #15
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iNTJ
    Enneagram
    583 so/sp
    Posts
    10,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Throughout most of human history, equality has meant abject poverty and starvation. The great Margaret Thatcher recognized this when she chastised a lefty for wanting to bring down the rich even though that wouldn't do a thing to improve the lives of anyone.
    Equality means mass poverty and the solution for that is to make people less equal. Are you really sure about that ?

    Btw I am pretty sure that social equality didn't even really exist until the 20th century. (and we all know how that world looked like)


    So when someone argues for greater equality, they're actually arguing for more poverty and that's just stupid (stupid because it's irrational, emotional nonsense). They're trying to argue that the world would be better off without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and all the other highly successful men and women who've changed this world for the better. No, I think the world would be better off if we had more great men, not less.
    What is really so great about those people ? Everything they made could have been made my someone else, they were simply at the right place at the right time.

    Also aren't this the people who setup the internet for what it is and therefore they have allowed the start of globalization as we know it, which damaged America's culture and economy severly and it made the platform for developemnt of SJW culture as we know it ? (what led to election of Trump so that he can reverse this trend, since Hillary surely wouldn't)

    After all their success is exactly what is allowing me to taint this nice little american forum with "unholly ideas of equality".

  6. #16
    clever fool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,579

    Default

    Well, while the difference between rich and poor are rising, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are also getting richer, just to a much lesser extent.

    The old saying "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" leads people to think the poor get poorer, when in fact it's just that they are getting less rich than the rich, proportianlly speaking.

    So I think the way such studies about inequality are presented to the public are misleading. They are meant to outrage people against capitalism, when in fact it is largely thanks to capitalism that most "poor" people in developped countries today live better than rich people in the 1800s in those same countries. In other terms, inequality says nothing about standard of living.
    Likes Grand Admiral Crunch liked this post

  7. #17
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iNTJ
    Enneagram
    583 so/sp
    Posts
    10,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Well, while the difference between rich and poor are rising, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are also getting richer, just to a much lesser extent.

    The old saying "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" leads people to think the poor get poorer, when in fact it's just that they are getting less rich than the rich, proportianlly speaking.

    So I think the way such studies about inequality are presented to the public are misldeading. They are meant to outrage people against capitalism, when in fact it is largely thanks to capitalism that poor people in developped countries today live better than rich people in the 1800s in those same countries.

    Yes, but the real question is are the poor or even middle class getting richer faster than the prices are rising. Income increased in numbers doesn't mean much on itself.
    Plus if the differnce between poor and rich gets too big you are very likely to end in some kind of corrupt oligarchy/plutocracy. Proven through history a million times.



    Plus what you said is very capitalistic take on the issue.
    What about availablity of untoxic food and water, the days that you can spend with your child, sick leaves, quality of basic education ... etc, etc. Not everything can be expressed in money.

  8. #18
    clever fool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual ghost View Post
    Equality means mass poverty and the solution for that is to make people less equal. Are you really sure about that ?

    Btw I am pretty sure that social equality didn't even really exist until the 20th century. (and we all know how that world looked like)
    Perceptions of inequality rose in the 19th century when people moved in mass to cities. The physical closeness people had to each other increased perceptions of inequality.

    I wouldn't say inequality means mass poverty in theory, but it does in practice. While I realize that you "imagine" a society where everyone is prosperous as well as equal, in reality such societies have been tried and have lead to mass poverty.

    This fact isn't really suprising to liberal economists, I mean you no offense when I say this but I wouldn't place too much faith in the nationalizations your country has implemented, mainly because this is how countries in the 20th century have become ruined. You said elsewhere that the major exploitation of oil that your country used to benefit from has been cut off due to the war in Syria, which seems like a more plausible explanation than simply saying markets are a failure. Because while I understand that people may be skeptical of markets, that it's difficult to sell markets to people in some countries, this does not mean public opinion is informed on this matter. It seems your country has plenty of natural resources which have never been exploited.

    Venezuala is a recent example of nationalizations that have failed, the people there are "perishing amongst plenty".

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual ghost View Post
    Yes, but the real question is are the poor or even middle class getting richer faster than the prices are rising. Income increased in numbers doesn't mean much on itself.
    I think that in western countries, the standard of living is decent. Even for a low income household like mine. The problem is more, in my case, being able to build a futrue, economic mobility. The reasons for lack of economic mobility are too much to get into for the sake fo this thread, though, I feel.

    Plus if the differnce between poor and rich gets too big you are very likely to end in some kind of corrupt oligarchy/plutocracy. Proven through history a million times.
    Right I agree with this, I'm just saying the study itself is kinda misleading; at least the manner in which it is presented to the public. I've seen numbers that prove that inequality is just as bad if not worse in places where production is in the hands of government, just so you know. This isn't a problem solely of capitalist societies, contrary to popular belief.

    Plus what you said is very capitalistic take on the issue.
    What about availablity of untoxic food and water, the days that you can spend with your child, sick leaves, quality of basic education ... etc, etc. Not everything can be expressed in money.
    Certianly not, but I don't think government producing food would decrease the chance of it being toxic. There is no basis to suppose it would. In fact, it would only increase the chance of it being toxic, because in a nationalized sector of the economy it is basically government regulating itself. And self-regulation isn't better just because it is the public sector doing it. The government simply needs to set up laws to punish those careless private actors for selling toxic food/water.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    25,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Throughout most of human history, equality has meant abject poverty and starvation. The great Margaret Thatcher recognized this when she chastised a lefty for wanting to bring down the rich even though that wouldn't do a thing to improve the lives of anyone.

    So when someone argues for greater equality, they're actually arguing for more poverty and that's just stupid (stupid because it's irrational, emotional nonsense). They're trying to argue that the world would be better off without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and all the other highly successful men and women who've changed this world for the better. No, I think the world would be better off if we had more great men, not less.
    It sounds like you're going to reach the destination Hayek warned about in Road to Serfdom but via a different route, or what would you call clusters of individuals depending limpet fashion on a few rich legacies for their survival?

    I guess history will judge the late great American experiment in social inequality eventually, all I know is that I dont actually look forward to a world in which the next hegemon isnt one which speaks english.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    25,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Well, while the difference between rich and poor are rising, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are also getting richer, just to a much lesser extent.

    The old saying "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" leads people to think the poor get poorer, when in fact it's just that they are getting less rich than the rich, proportianlly speaking.

    So I think the way such studies about inequality are presented to the public are misleading. They are meant to outrage people against capitalism, when in fact it is largely thanks to capitalism that most "poor" people in developped countries today live better than rich people in the 1800s in those same countries. In other terms, inequality says nothing about standard of living.
    Well, that would depend on what you mean by capitalism (I'd say there were capitalisms rather than capitalism to be honest) and there's nothing about the idea in general, per se which involves the provision of a good standard of living to all (and a better one to the few), if it generated greater profit to do the opposite and materially deprive and immiserate the general population then it would do that too, just consider the impact of traffic in crystal meth or heroin in the communities were that's popular.

    The idea that the "rising tide raises all boats", that "everyone is doing better, just some people are doing even better than most", are neo-liberal myths, there's a lot of good information about that available online if you are interested, it was a popular idea in the eighties, when they gave massive tax cuts to the very richest taxpayers instead of the greater number which paid less taxes but really could have done with a cut, but there's a lot of evidence in the time in between that its a fallacy.

Similar Threads

  1. Which Function Is Closest To The Unconscious And Why?
    By highlander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 06-07-2013, 01:54 AM
  2. [Inst] Feeling the need to preserve ones beauty: Is this an Sx/SP and Sp/Sx thing?
    By The Great One in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-01-2012, 05:47 AM
  3. University and "The grass is greener on the other side"
    By Snow Turtle in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 05:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO