|
|
| Re: NYC Rail networks—bursting at seams? (1353327) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NYC Rail networks—bursting at seams? |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat May 23 00:27:38 2015, in response to Re: NYC Rail networks—bursting at seams?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri May 22 17:58:12 2015. Should they?Used to be you had to be a white, male landowner in order to vote. Yes, and we now recognise that this was a bad thing. Well, some of us do anyway. Now we just vote free money to the "poor" (whoever they are)... You seriously need to take a peek outside your privileged cloistered (pun intended) lifestyle. Poverty is a major problem in this country. ... and 100% taxes on the rich. What now? Citation very much needed. You just made that up. Problem is... When nobody it rich, then everybody is poor. Um, no. Math really isn't your strong point, is it? Suppose a society has a GDP of $10,000,000 and 250 people. If that society awards $4,500,000 to each of 2 people, $10,000 to each of 100 people, and $0 to the remaining 148 people, then you have 2 people who are rich, 100 people who are poor and 148 people in abject poverty. On the other hand, if you allocated $40,000 to each of the 250 people, then no one would be rich but everyone would be comfortably well off. LION would rather see everybody be rich, or at least a weathy and they can be. Except the problem is that you have basically no understanding of economics. There is a finite quantity of wealth— add up the total value of all goods and services produced, and that's how much wealth there is. Nobody can have more wealth than all of it. We have limited capacity to increase the total amount of wealth available, since that's limited by technology and human ability; no matter how much incentive you are offered, you physically cannot work 24 hours each day nor can you build skyscrapers overnight. What we can control much more extensively is how that wealth is distributed. At the moment, wealth is distributed such that a very small group of people have a considerable majority of the wealth, a slightly larger group under them have most of the rest, and the majority of the population has little or no wealth at all. This is obviously unfair. Like you, I would like to see everyone be rich. However, that can't be done because there isn't enough wealth to go around— it is physically impossible to make everybody a millionaire short of inflating the currency to the point where even poor people are technical millionaires. Given that your "make everyone rich" utopia is nothing but fantasy, and considering only the options that are actually available, it seems preferable that wealth be distributed more evenly such that everyone is well off ("middle class") rather than unevenly so that a small handful of people are extremely rich at the expense of a majority in abject poverty. Further overcomplicating matters— if wealth distribution were more equitable as I propose, there would actually be more wealth available to distribute, although your understanding of economics is probably far too limited to understand why. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|