View Single Post
Unread 1 May 2008, 14:08   #28
Hebdomad
I ♡ ☠
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 834
Hebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Child poverty in the UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie
ie, countries that facilitate trickle down economics do better than those who dont
As I tried to allude to with my discussion of GDP, it depends on how you define "better." The medium income of a country is useless because outliners will distort that figure wildly. I've already mentioned, GDP is pretty useless, too. I've not come across any mainstream definitions of "better" I really agree with. I briefly came across some philosopher/economics/person who argued that an economic system should be judged on how it helps the lower stratum of society. That seems the most laudable position.

Quote:
Anyone who owns/runs a corporation and does this is an idiot. Cash on hand is incredibly expensive as it strongly depreciates, and doesnt generate additional wealth under compounding interest. The only possible reason to do this is a hedge against future uncertainty (ie, against a downturn, in which case Gold is much better or even Treasury bills), or because they are compelled to do so due to regulation.
Sorry, I was too vague, and I didn't mean money per se (I should have said capital). By positional I mean a good which increases your wealth in relation to others without reinvestment into an economy, which would in turn help those who are worse off than you. Of course, there are goods which both increase your wealth and help the less better off, and I would prefer a social (or political in the short-term) bias towards those goods, but a good like gold does not promote reinvestment, does not help those worse off than you, and only serve to sustain your social position, realised by your wealth, in relation to others.

It seems an unfortunate human predilection to voraciously seek social esteem and status. In the feudal epoch, bloodline served this person. In this epoch, capital and the goods that capital affords serves this purpose. As I should have articulated by now, I am against this positional (social esteem and status) predilection of humanity, and I am thus against the use of capital for this purpose.
Hebdomad is offline   Reply With Quote