Global Wealth Disparity Page 3

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 10:44:35 44,503 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I would say the following was a fairer measure of the drivers of wealth:

    Natural Resources: 5%
    Convenient location for international trade: 5%
    Headstart: 90%

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • monkman76 18 Apr 2013 10:46:07 4,712 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    :)
    Absolutely.
  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 10:48:08 39,467 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I have 3 words that will fix everything for all time.

    THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR

    That might be 2 words.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Stefansen-W 18 Apr 2013 10:53:31 46 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    ...population genetics?
    This is a very sensitive issue, especially because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
    I state that I believe that all people on the earth are equal and they have all equally entitled to the same rights.

    But the incidence in some populations of some genetic traits, can affects positively or negatively the prosperity of a people
  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 10:58:01 39,467 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    OH SHIT!

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Stefansen-W 18 Apr 2013 11:07:02 46 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    These factors are factors that influence the populations in the long time.
    In fact, the slight or well-being of a people today, is the result of factors that go on for many years.
    Even if it want, uganda cannot improve his economic condition from one day to another. It takes some time
  • neilka 18 Apr 2013 11:09:00 16,225 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Stefansen-W is back ladies and gentlemen!
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 11:11:00 44,503 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    ...population genetics?
    This is a very sensitive issue, especially because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
    I state that I believe that all people on the earth are equal and they have all equally entitled to the same rights.

    But the incidence in some populations of some genetic traits, can affects positively or negatively the prosperity of a people
    So, to put it more obviously:

    'I hesitate to say that some people are genetically better than others because people don't like it, but the fact is some people are genetically better than others.' And for you this is also the single biggest factor going by your list.

    I stand by my list at the top of the page.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Mr_Sleep 18 Apr 2013 11:11:50 17,171 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    ...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
    Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Bremenacht 18 Apr 2013 11:20:09 18,693 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Can it be healthy for the world economy, when wealth concentrates so much with so few people? Much of that wealth is clearly inactive or else it would be somewhere else in the 99.n%.

    Perhaps a steady degree of devaluation is required, in the form of global quantative easing. Give regular bundles of cash to poor people, in the knowledge it'll gravitate towards the the 0.n% anyway.

    Or a 'Logon's Run' style system for the super rich. Get too rich - get lasered. That way they'll be inclined to spend a lot more.
  • Mr_Sleep 18 Apr 2013 11:35:17 17,171 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Can it be healthy for the world economy, when wealth concentrates so much with so few people? Much of that wealth is clearly inactive or else it would be somewhere else in the 99.n%.
    That very much depends on if you believe in the trickle down effect.

    I'm really not sure if there is a solution to the problem of wealth centralisation. I think the tax breaks and other cash generating reforms that have been lobbied for in America are not helping any one and congress should be more robust against this sort of thing. The same applies over here, politicians need to be more robust in how they deal with the financial elite.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 11:36:31 44,503 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm not sure that there really is a problem to wealth disparity, in the same way as there is with earnings disparity.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • TheBlackDog 18 Apr 2013 12:25:20 405 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    ^This. As I said earlier, the wealth sitting with the relative few doesn't affect whether most of us have to work for a living (or more accurately, produce stuff that we want/need). But if pay was distributed more evenly, I'm sure things would a lot better for a huge number of people. 6 and 7 figure salaries don't make sense compared to the average wage, in my opinion. Perhaps that makes me a communist, I don't know.
  • kalel 18 Apr 2013 12:31:00 88,336 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    TheBlackDog wrote:
    6 and 7 figure salaries don't make sense compared to the average wage, in my opinion. Perhaps that makes me a communist, I don't know.
    I just don't see how massive salaries for a tiny minority are avoidable if you have a supply/demand economic system. Those with incredibly rare skills that there is a massive need for, will generate huge incomes.

    Unless you're saying that system itself is flawed, in which case yes, you're a communist :)
  • Bremenacht 18 Apr 2013 12:34:43 18,693 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Can it be healthy for the world economy, when wealth concentrates so much with so few people? Much of that wealth is clearly inactive or else it would be somewhere else in the 99.n%.
    That very much depends on if you believe in the trickle down effect.

    I'm really not sure if there is a solution to the problem of wealth centralisation. I think the tax breaks and other cash generating reforms that have been lobbied for in America are not helping any one and congress should be more robust against this sort of thing. The same applies over here, politicians need to be more robust in how they deal with the financial elite.
    I very much believe in trickle-up.

    I don't think there's anything to be done about it. How do you get people with $billions to spend, when there's little they need to spend on? (Other than other $billion-making opportunities).
  • RobTheBuilder 18 Apr 2013 12:35:10 6,521 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I would say the following was a fairer measure of the drivers of wealth:

    Natural Resources: 5%
    Convenient location for international trade: 5%
    Headstart: 90%
    Totally.
  • monkman76 18 Apr 2013 12:52:05 4,712 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Unless you're saying that system itself is flawed, in which case yes, you're a communist :)
    This is a joke, right? The system is flawed. That doesn't mean it should be ditched entirely nor that communism is the only alternative.
  • kalel 18 Apr 2013 12:57:21 88,336 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Unless you're saying that system itself is flawed, in which case yes, you're a communist :)
    This is a joke, right? The system is flawed. That doesn't mean it should be ditched entirely nor that communism is the only alternative.
    Yes, it was indeed sort of was a joke.
  • Stefansen-W 18 Apr 2013 13:02:42 46 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    ...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
    Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.
    When you start talking about cultural and social differences between the populations of the world, you often end up getting to issues such as racism or nationalism.
    And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.

    therefore I said that it is a difficult issue
  • mcmonkeyplc 18 Apr 2013 13:03:20 39,467 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Communism isn't bad. It just doesn't work given current technology.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • kalel 18 Apr 2013 13:03:51 88,336 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.
    They sure do.
  • kalel 18 Apr 2013 13:04:52 88,336 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    ...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
    Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.
    When you start talking about cultural and social differences between the populations of the world, you often end up getting to issues such as racism or nationalism.
    And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.

    therefore I said that it is a difficult issue
    By the way, you very specifically cited genetic, not cultural or social.
  • RedSparrows 18 Apr 2013 13:08:17 23,233 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I would say the following was a fairer measure of the drivers of wealth:

    Natural Resources: 5%
    Convenient location for international trade: 5%
    Headstart: 90%
    Needs work, but is better than all the other lists thus far.

    Here's my history list:

    Masses: 10%
    Individuals: 10%
    Random crap: 80%
  • Stefansen-W 18 Apr 2013 13:09:44 46 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    It's like a game of poker.
    when the money ends up in the hands of one or two players for the remaining is difficult to play and the game can not proceed.

    The global economic situation is precisely at that stage.
    the modern industrialized world, is based on demand / production / supply and intermediary agents, but if the money went into the hands of the few, no longer makes sense to them still produce, and the system crashes
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 13:10:28 44,503 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Stefansen: what genetic factors give an advantage exactly, and can you give me examples?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 18 Apr 2013 13:10:45 23,233 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well, that assumes that anyone earning wealth doesn't then want to earn more, which is flawed given the entire premise for this chat.

    Work time, bad Sparrows.
  • LeoliansBro 18 Apr 2013 13:11:28 44,503 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Beat me to it RedSparrows - that implies a closed system, which the concept of wealth very much isn't.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • chopsen 18 Apr 2013 13:27:06 16,125 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The problem with attributing things to genetics on a global scale is the presence of confounding factors. If genetic traits are not uniformly distributed (regardless of their effect on wealth creation or otherwise), and neither are other factors which *would* be associated with potential for wealth production (e.g. suitability of land for agriculture or other natural resources) then you get the appearance that one may be associated with another, but in fact they're just associated with a third, coincident, variable: they both affect people on a certain chunk of land. There is no direct causative link.
  • Stefansen-W 18 Apr 2013 13:29:24 46 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    ...because there is ignorant people who might deliberately distort the topic.
    Sorry but someone calling into question your opinion or your conclusions to data you may have does not make them ignorant. You either need to be more specific in what you mean by ignorance or accept that you have set up a bit of a straw man.
    When you start talking about cultural and social differences between the populations of the world, you often end up getting to issues such as racism or nationalism.
    And in these cases, stupid people begin to profess their ideologies.

    therefore I said that it is a difficult issue
    By the way, you very specifically cited genetic, not cultural or social.
    For example:
    In the Zuzzurù tribe, it manifests a genetic defect. First it hits 4 people, then reproducing affects 80% of individuals. The genetic defect involves that these people can not use their arms for a long time.
    then it is likely that the Zuzzurù tribe will not have a warrior culture, nor an economic system of production of manufactured goods. Maybe they will become good traders. But in a time of famine, when the business slows down, they risk poverty or become extinct, they can not conquer through war the wealth of other peoples and they can not produce manufacturing objects for their livelihood.

    Can we say that genetics has influenced as much as the famine on their poverty in this case?
  • cubbymoore 18 Apr 2013 13:30:58 36,500 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think the Zuzzuru tribe would die out from all of them giving themselves "strangers" all day long.
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply