isn't there something fundamentally wrong?

[meazza]

if 99% of wealth was held by 1% of the worlds population and supply of goods remained constant wouldn't that necassarily mean shortages for those sharing the 1%? wouldn't that be attributable to wealth inequality? if you think not, why not?

 

 

Which goods are you referring to? Have you not noticed that that there has been increases in technology so the supply of goods is not constant?

 

As the challenges have increased, the ability to increase production has increased.

 

Just remember, you brought up Star Trek. They use replicators which would definitely eliminate that whole pesky scarcity issue.

Edited June 6, 2013 by meazza

[DC Tom]

if 99% of wealth was held by 1% of the worlds population and supply of goods remained constant wouldn't that necassarily mean shortages for those sharing the 1%? wouldn't that be attributable to wealth inequality? if you think not, why not?

 

Weren't we talking about starvation? If 99% of the wealth was held by 1% of the population, would that mean they're hoarding 99% of the FOOD, too?

 

There's the fallacy in your logic - the idea that all goods are equal.

[3rdnlng]

if 99% of wealth was held by 1% of the worlds population and supply of goods remained constant wouldn't that necassarily mean shortages for those sharing the 1%? wouldn't that be attributable to wealth inequality? if you think not, why not?

 

show me the fallacy in my logic. alternatively, present a rational counter argument. rejecting mine out of hand isn't an argument. it's easy but not persuasive.

 

That sounds dangerously close to a hypothetical question. Here's your in post #81 of this thread:

 

"hypothetical assumes it's possible. why hypothesize something that's impossible. oh, ok, so you can make some point that requires an impossible hypothetical...um, no."

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm starting to think that birdog = US general in Viet Nam. Birdog: "They blow up the bridge, we rebuild it. They blow it up, we build it again. We can afford to do it, and we are Americans, so of course we can do it."

 

Hooray!

 

Birdog is proud that they keep building the bridge, and tells everybody that resources we are wasting are worth it, because its the moral victory that counts and lots of people depend on the bridge.

 

But, if you ask him why he doesn't do something about the people who keep blowing up the bridge? He tells you that's not the mission.

 

 

 

And nothing else.

 

 

Ever.

Edited June 6, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Rob's House]

if 99% of wealth was held by 1% of the worlds population and supply of goods remained constant wouldn't that necassarily mean shortages for those sharing the 1%? wouldn't that be attributable to wealth inequality? if you think not, why not?

And if my aunt was a man wouldn't she be my uncle?

 

The flaw in your hypo is fairly elementary. You presuppose that one man owning something prevents another from creating something else. The desirability of wealth disparity is a separate discussion. But the fact that you've constructed such a paradigm in your mind, whose fundamental construct is materially different from the reality it is meant to represent explains a lot about why you subscribe to the philosophies you do. It also explains how someone intelligent enough to get through medical school can espouse such ridiculous beliefs - It's not the logic that's flawed, but rather the premise. And you're too emotionally tied to the belief in that premise to ever honestly question it.

[Just Jack]

Weren't we talking about starvation? If 99% of the wealth was held by 1% of the population, would that mean they're hoarding 99% of the FOOD, too?

 

If you compare my fridge/cabinets to their fridge/cabinets, then yes, they're hoarding.

[birdog1960]

Weren't we talking about starvation? If 99% of the wealth was held by 1% of the population, would that mean they're hoarding 99% of the FOOD, too?

 

There's the fallacy in your logic - the idea that all goods are equal.

no. didn't say 99% of the food would be hoarded. i said that there would necessarily be shortages. and there would. who would want to produce goods for a large population holding 1% of the wealth? if poor somalian's somehow found gold or platinum deposits nearby, they would no longer be starving because they'd have more wealth and producers would line up to supply them.....until someone exploited them (at least then,there'd likely be more international efforts at invoking order) and their natural resources and then they'd likely be hungry again.

 

That sounds dangerously close to a hypothetical question. Here's your in post #81 of this thread:

 

"hypothetical assumes it's possible. why hypothesize something that's impossible. oh, ok, so you can make some point that requires an impossible hypothetical...um, no."

not at all certain it's impossible. what was the wealth disparity in fiefdoms? millions, perhaps billions in the world already qualify as serfs. what is going to stop the exponential progression of wealth disparity to this level? obama? ok, a bit of hyperbole...maybe i should have said 75%. is that better? does that change the argument?

 

And if my aunt was a man wouldn't she be my uncle?

 

The flaw in your hypo is fairly elementary. You presuppose that one man owning something prevents another from creating something else. The desirability of wealth disparity is a separate discussion. But the fact that you've constructed such a paradigm in your mind, whose fundamental construct is materially different from the reality it is meant to represent explains a lot about why you subscribe to the philosophies you do. It also explains how someone intelligent enough to get through medical school can espouse such ridiculous beliefs - It's not the logic that's flawed, but rather the premise. And you're too emotionally tied to the belief in that premise to ever honestly question it.

i set the condition of constant supply as a premise to make the argument simpler. disregard it if you wish. assume that supply increases. but not proportionally to wealth disparity...that ain't gonna happen. hasn't happened before, isn't happening now, won't likely happen in the future. changing that condition doesn't change or destroy my argument. nothing emotional about it.

 

I'm starting to think that birdog = US general in Viet Nam. Birdog: "They blow up the bridge, we rebuild it. They blow it up, we build it again. We can afford to do it, and we are Americans, so of course we can do it."

 

Hooray!

 

Birdog is proud that they keep building the bridge, and tells everybody that resources we are wasting are worth it, because its the moral victory that counts and lots of people depend on the bridge.

 

But, if you ask him why he doesn't do something about the people who keep blowing up the bridge? He tells you that's not the mission.

 

 

 

And nothing else.

 

 

Ever.

no. Edited June 7, 2013 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

no. didn't say 99% of the food would be hoarded. i said that there would necessarily be shortages. and there would. who would want to produce goods for a large population holding 1% of the wealth? if poor somalian's somehow found gold or platinum deposits nearby, they would no longer be starving because they'd have more wealth and producers would line up to supply them.....until someone exploited them (at least then,there'd likely be more international efforts at invoking order) and their natural resources and then they'd likely be hungry again.

 

not at all certain it's impossible. what was the wealth disparity in fiefdoms? millions, perhaps billions in the world already qualify as serfs. what is going to stop the exponential progression of wealth disparity to this level? obama? ok, a bit of hyperbole...maybe i should have said 75%. is that better? does that change the argument?

 

i set the condition of constant supply as a premise to make the argument simpler. disregard it if you wish. assume that supply increases. but not proportionally to wealth disparity...that ain't gonna happen. hasn't happened before, isn't happening now, won't likely happen in the future. changing that condition doesn't change or destroy my argument. nothing emotional about it.

 

no.

 

So the wealthy will just eat more because of what?

[birdog1960]

So the wealthy will just eat more because of what?

good lord. they don't eat more. the rest eat less.

[Magox]

good lord. they don't eat more. the rest eat less.

You are implying that the growing wealth gap causes people to eat less. This is demonstrably false. I read a great piece in the ECONOMIST the other day, that is loaded with factual data. Read'em and weep. " Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same againIN HIS inaugural address in 1949 Harry Truman said that “more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of those people.” It has taken much longer than Truman hoped, but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people."

"The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original MDGs—such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.

The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty; in the most equal countries, it yields a 4.3% cut.

" http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

[Jauronimo]

good lord. they don't eat more. the rest eat less.

You're still focusing on the consequences of poverty rather than on the cause of poverty. Go do your homework.

[Gary M]

So the wealthy will just eat more because of what?

 

he believes wealth creates poverty.

 

If I have something, you can't have it, which makes you impoverished.

[birdog1960]

You are implying that the growing wealth gap causes people to eat less. This is demonstrably false. I read a great piece in the ECONOMIST the other day, that is loaded with factual data. Read'em and weep. " Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same againIN HIS inaugural address in 1949 Harry Truman said that “more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of those people.” It has taken much longer than Truman hoped, but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people."

"The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original MDGs—such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.

The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. GREATER EQUALITY ALSO HELPS, contributing the other third. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty; in the most equal countries, it yields a 4.3% cut.

" http://www.economist...orld-should-aim

asked and answered. based an arbitrary and unreasonable definition of extreme poverty as being $1.25 consumption per day. that's a pretty low bar to set - i'd think a one legged high jumper would set the bar higher.

 

 

guess yall missed this part in the 4th or 5th paragraph: "so caution is justified...and if inequality does not widen so much that the rich lap up all the cream of growth...". seems the writer (presumably an economist) can envision a scenario quite similar and by the same mechanisms to the one i've been presenting. imagine that.

 

and this little part from the section you included: "Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third"...except that we arent seeing greater equality globally. so what gives?

Edited June 7, 2013 by birdog1960

[Joe Miner]

asked and answered. based an arbitrary and unreasonable definition of extreme poverty as being $1.25 consumption per day. that's a pretty low bar to set - i'd think a one legged high jumper would set the bar higher.

 

 

guess yall missed this part in the 4th or 5th paragraph: "so caution is justified...and if inequality does not widen so much that the rich lap up all the cream of growth...". seems the writer (presumably an economist) can envision a scenario quite similar and by the same mechanisms to the one i've been presenting. imagine that.

 

and this little part from the section you included: "Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third"...except that we arent seeing greater equality globally. so what gives?

 

What is your obsession with equality?

[birdog1960]

What is your obsession with equality?

the first time i've used this word in the thread and it's a reference to someones link that supposedly undermines my argument. is that obsessive? i'll just go off and obsess about that for a while...

[KD in CA]

What is your obsession with equality?

And more importantly, why doesn't he have an obsession with equality of effort and determination?

 

I want to know what happens after the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Fairness & Equality 'redistributes' all the wealth and fifty years later we're back in the exact same place because most people will simply squander their newly granted wealth in a short period of time while some will figure out how to multiply theirs.

[DC Tom]

no. didn't say 99% of the food would be hoarded. i said that there would necessarily be shortages. and there would. who would want to produce goods for a large population holding 1% of the wealth? if poor somalian's somehow found gold or platinum deposits nearby, they would no longer be starving because they'd have more wealth and producers would line up to supply them.....until someone exploited them (at least then,there'd likely be more international efforts at invoking order) and their natural resources and then they'd likely be hungry again.

 

You can't be serious. The problem of Somali famine could be solved by mineral resources?

 

How's that working out in other countries?

[KD in CA]

You can't be serious. The problem of Somali famine could be solved by mineral resources?

 

How's that working out in other countries?

 

I'm sure it would work out fine if Americans would be nice enough to show up with their equipment, people and know-how, mine all the resources, hand them over to the locals, teach them how to sell or use them, and then leave.

 

Or at least it would help the local dictator/warlord/whatever.

[Joe Miner]

And more importantly, why doesn't he have an obsession with equality of effort and determination?

 

I want to know what happens after the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Fairness & Equality 'redistributes' all the wealth and fifty years later we're back in the exact same place because most people will simply squander their newly granted wealth in a short period of time while some will figure out how to multiply theirs.

 

See, the poor people don't squander it, the evil greedy rich people take, steal, and swindle it away from them.

[birdog1960]

And more importantly, why doesn't he have an obsession with equality of effort and determination?

 

I want to know what happens after the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Fairness & Equality 'redistributes' all the wealth and fifty years later we're back in the exact same place because most people will simply squander their newly granted wealth in a short period of time while some will figure out how to multiply theirs.

yeah, "squandering" $1.25 per day is going to be a real problem. hell, some might even "squander" 10x's that. the shame....