Let the Good Times Roll! Or, Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's 1929

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Vanguard
"So in a high inequality economy, the price of a month's food will rise until it is equal to the price a rich person will pay for another ivory back scratcher. The more inequality there is in the economy, the higher this price becomes, until eventually the bottom X% can no longer afford food."

You seem to apply a teaching model called the production possiblities graph universally to the real world. That's only for teaching a concept. The economy doesn't work like that. Food is plentiful. There are some scarce goods and services, but the main reason for that is simply capitalism - the necessity for something to be relatively profitable for it to be produced. Indeed, when the rich consume things that the poor can't afford it helps the economy along and makes things better for the poor.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Of course, the actual calculation is meaningless. Clearly we have not experienced actual growth of 2% for the past 200+ years. If we had, then no one would be poor.

The "poor" today live better than 19th century kings.

No.

The claim you wish to debunk is laughable but don't be equally ridiculous in your counterargument.

[Kuciwalker]

I was waiting for that. In some ways they do, and in some they don't. They have access to far better healthcare, for instance.

[Dauphin]

If you are the poor of today, in America, you can't afford healthcare anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

You'll still have a higher life expectancy, have access to emergency room care (which is probably better than the state of the art in 1800), and have all the side benefits of living in a population largely immunized against many diseases.

[Kuciwalker]

You also derive health benefits from organizations like the FDA.

[Dauphin]

I'd still rather be the King George II than a homeless bum.

[Kuciwalker]

Poor people have homes now.

[Dauphin]

How many homeless people have palaces?

[Kuciwalker]

What proportion of poor people are homeless?

[Dauphin]

So you consider it a percentages game?

[Dauphin]

Or to restate a point, how many poor people live in homes that King George II would describe as being on a par with his own living?

[Kuciwalker]

Very few. But they have television and often a computer, the Internet, etc. - access to luxuries that he could never have.

[Dauphin]

George II could start real wars, not restrict himself to some silly computer game.

[Dauphin]

BTW, I am drunk, and being deliberately faceticious.