EPTIs it possible for all to be rich? - Page 3
| Blogs > jjun212 |
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
theonemephisto
United States409 Posts
Now just wait 100 or 200 years into the future. Assuming that technological innovation continues (and I have a lot of faith in the ability of the human mind), the poorest people from a century in the future will be looking down on Bill Gates and pitying him. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1205 Posts
On December 24 2008 08:55 KH1031 wrote: If everyone has the same amount of wealth, "richness" ceases to exist. By ontological argument, it is not possible for all to be rich. I disagree, it is possible to be rich. But only in comparison to a rich person NOW. Since wealth doesn't have to be defined in terms of money. A rich person can merely have alot of, for lack of a better term, stuff. Obviously, this can't be done by redistributing money, since money is only a representation of value of essentially finite ( and overall fairly small) amount of assets. However it is theoretically possible for everyone can have alot of stuff, if there is more stuff to go around. And there is much more than enough 'stuff' in the universe to make everyone rich by todays standards. This just means that to make everyone rich is more dependant on scientists, engineers, labourers etc and not economists. We need to access more of the universe's resources in a meaningful way in order for everyone to have more wealth in the absolute sense. Clearly no amount of playing around with economics is going to achieve this as economics does not produce anything, it merely redistributes and revalues. If however you define rich as being relative to everyone else, then no it's not possible for everyone to be rich, obviously not everyone can have more stuff than everyone else. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9107 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:13 theonemephisto wrote: Yes. I mean, if you look at it in historical terms, we are al incredibly rich right now in America. Compare the poorest American's life right now to the richest person's life 100 or 200 years ago, and you'll see that even the poorest American's have a quality of life that royalty from 200 years ago could only dream of. Even compared to American's 30 or 40 years ago, the bottom 10% of American's have as many or more microwaves, refrigerators, cars, TVs, and other technology than the average person from the past, not to mention new technology that previous generations could only dream of. Now just wait 100 or 200 years into the future. Assuming that technological innovation continues (and I have a lot of faith in the ability of the human mind), the poorest people from a century in the future will be looking down on Bill Gates and pitying him. I really disagree with your logic here. I saw on the evening news today that more Americans are on food stamps today than have been in 20 years, and it's not just America having problems with unemployment and meeting peoples' basic needs. Technology is not some magic cure-all. | ||
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
|
shavingcream66
United States1219 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:24 Jonoman92 wrote: I really disagree with your logic here. I saw on the evening news today that more Americans are on food stamps today than have been in 20 years, and it's not just America having problems with unemployment and meeting peoples' basic needs. Technology is not some magic cure-all. you should also account for inflation. I read in a historical paper that the average american living in the 1700's ate higher quality foods at a greater amount compared to americans today. :\ | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
but see, if he distributed his money like that, that amount wouldn't be called rich anymore =D And surely something would happen to take up all ur extra money, or else we would most definitely not be at a Pareto optimal situation. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On December 24 2008 09:51 Supah wrote: Considering he mentionedI still cant understand how you managed to screw up that calculation so badly. I mean 40/7 = 1 billion? On December 24 2008 08:17 jjun212 wrote: I'm assuming his logic wasAnd he would still have 30+ Billion.. 40billion dollars - 7 billion people = 33 billion dollars left over. | ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 24 2008 11:23 Falcynn wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 24 2008 09:51 Supah wrote: Considering he mentionedI still cant understand how you managed to screw up that calculation so badly. I mean 40/7 = 1 billion? On December 24 2008 08:17 jjun212 wrote: I'm assuming his logic wasAnd he would still have 30+ Billion.. 40billion dollars - 7 billion people = 33 billion dollars left over. dollar minus people equals dollars... Looks like slave trade to me! | ||
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
On December 24 2008 10:24 sqwert wrote: does failblog accept pics from forums? They'd be overrun. btw LOOOLLLLL | ||
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
| ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
| ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
|
Roxen000
1226 Posts
| ||
|
SayaSP
Laos5494 Posts
| ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
Paper has no practical value, goods do, so for someone to be rich he or she must posess a big amount fo high quality goods, but this is imposible because resources are simply limited, so even is somehow everyone was rich, that would have no meaning because not everybody would be able to turn that money into useful goods. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Kill the fucking rich is what I see fit. But w/e. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
| ||
