Not to be taken toooo seriously
youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg
Franglais:
Not to be taken toooo seriously
youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg
Good entertainment.
But the line about needing the poor is true.
The poor do the work that keeps the rich, well, rich. An interesting read that contains sections that illustrate that this was (is?) actually the thinking that was behind many decisions by the US governments over the years (and I suggest most capitalist systems, perhaps our own) is Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”. This has been a best seller for years and well worth a read. It covers so much more too.
The US rich were enrichened by slavery in its early years. When that ceased the poor took on the role of the slaves by being paid meagre wages for great toil. Any revolts (such as unionisation) were cruelly dealt with to keep the system on the road. The rich needed, and need still, the poor.
‘Pump gas into Lidl’ [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
“Rich” is a comparative term after all.
No-one can be rich, if no-one is poor!
Are we comparing our own wealth with the top, bottom, median or average?
Are we comparing ourselves with only others in the UK? Or in the world, or only in “The West”?
And do we look at ourselves 50years ago?
.
There are some very clever tools looking at wealth distribution in a country, the Gini Coefficient being fairly well known. None are perfect of course but Gini works OK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … e_equality
.
.
Are you rich?
Interesting way to spend 5 mins here.
oecd.org/wise/compare-your-income.htm
Franglais:
“Rich” is a comparative term after all.
No-one can be rich, if no-one is poor!
Are we comparing our own wealth with the top, bottom, median or average?
Are we comparing ourselves with only others in the UK? Or in the world, or only in “The West”?
And do we look at ourselves 50years ago?
.
There are some very clever tools looking at wealth distribution in a country, the Gini Coefficient being fairly well known. None are perfect of course but Gini works OK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … e_equality
.
.
Are you rich?
Interesting way to spend 5 mins here.
oecd.org/wise/compare-your-income.htm
The first 2 lines of your post are obviously true. The real problem, in my opinion, is the vast, vast gulf between the two categories. Many of us are rich compared to so many others, in our minds. But not in comparison to the top few percent who are obscenely, unnecessarily, rich. Often gained at the expense and misery of the poor. Warren Buffett got it right when he gave away vast amounts of his wealth and encouraged others in his position to do likewise. As he said, the tiny percentage of his wealth he retained still kept him a very wealthy man…
Dipster:
Franglais:
“Rich” is a comparative term after all.
No-one can be rich, if no-one is poor!
Are we comparing our own wealth with the top, bottom, median or average?
Are we comparing ourselves with only others in the UK? Or in the world, or only in “The West”?
And do we look at ourselves 50years ago?
.
There are some very clever tools looking at wealth distribution in a country, the Gini Coefficient being fairly well known. None are perfect of course but Gini works OK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … e_equality
.
.
Are you rich?
Interesting way to spend 5 mins here.
oecd.org/wise/compare-your-income.htmThe first 2 lines of your post are obviously true. The real problem, in my opinion, is the vast, vast gulf between the two categories. Many of us are rich compared to so many others, in our minds. But not in comparison to the top few percent who are obscenely, unnecessarily, rich. Often gained at the expense and misery of the poor. Warren Buffett got it right when he gave away vast amounts of his wealth and encouraged others in his position to do likewise. As he said, the tiny percentage of his wealth he retained still kept him a very wealthy man…
Nowt to argue with there.
Kudos to the Gates too.
The first 2 lines of your post are obviously true. The real problem, in my opinion, is the vast, vast gulf between the two categories. Many of us are rich compared to so many others, in our minds. But not in comparison to the top few percent who are obscenely, unnecessarily, rich. Often gained at the expense and misery of the poor. Warren Buffett got it right when he gave away vast amounts of his wealth and encouraged others in his position to do likewise. As he said, the tiny percentage of his wealth he retained still kept him a very wealthy man…
[/quote]
Nowt to argue with there.
Kudos to the Gates too.
[/quote]
Indeed. In fact Buffett and Gates are friendly, I think you could say mates. Buffett actually gave a vast wodge of his money to be distributed by the Gates Foundation. I recall that when his kids reached adulthood he gave them about a million each and told them to get on with life-nothing more to come until he passed on! Figured his kids should have a good leg up in life but not too much. Quite a man Mr Buffett.
Why are we bothered about money?
It is a partial proxy for happiness isn`t it? And surely happiness is the true target for us all?
I wondered could be a fairly simple relationship between the Gini index and happiness, no great surprise I can`t find one really. Nowt is simple, is it?
Anyway, playing about with a few sites and came across this one.
ourworldindata.org/happiness-an … tisfaction
Lovely interactive graph with a time slide. We could make all kinds of interpretations from that.
You can use the slider to look at differing happiness levels in different countries in relation to national and world events.
Franglais:
Why are we bothered about money?
It is a partial proxy for happiness isn`t it? And surely happiness is the true target for us all?I wondered could be a fairly simple relationship between the Gini index and happiness, no great surprise I can`t find one really. Nowt is simple, is it?
Anyway, playing about with a few sites and came across this one.
ourworldindata.org/happiness-an … tisfaction
Lovely interactive graph with a time slide. We could make all kinds of interpretations from that.You can use the slider to look at differing happiness levels in different countries in relation to national and world events.
Money can’t buy you love the Beatles sand, nor can it keep you healthy (but can help in a cure) or ensure happiness. But for those who can barely house or feed or clothe themselves and their families it is quite useful. If they can earn enough to do so. That is the problem. So many can work their arses off yet still be short. That is wrong.
Franglais:
Why are we bothered about money?
It is a partial proxy for happiness isn`t it? And surely happiness is the true target for us all?
.
Money certainly does not buy happiness. It does however buy a better class of misery!
I’m not obsessed with the pursuit of wealth, of course it’d be great to have the freedom that wealth brings but as I’ve gotten older I’ve come to realise that being financially rich is not as important as being rich in life. I’ve been blessed with incredibly good health, incredibly good family and incredibly good friends. I’m satisfied thus far, and surely that’s what’s important?
the maoster:
Franglais:
Why are we bothered about money?
It is a partial proxy for happiness isn`t it? And surely happiness is the true target for us all?
.Money certainly does not buy happiness. It does however buy a better class of misery!
I’m not obsessed with the pursuit of wealth, of course it’d be great to have the freedom that wealth brings but as I’ve gotten older I’ve come to realise that being financially rich is not as important as being rich in life. I’ve been blessed with incredibly good health, incredibly good family and incredibly good friends. I’m satisfied thus far, and surely that’s what’s important?
And, I presume, enough income to feed, house and clothe your family adequately. Like, probably most, if not all of us, on this forum. I agree that is enough in life.