Greed is Good!

[doodab]

Give an example.

An example of what? A country with more equitable income distribution? Denmark or Sweden spring to mind.

Why not go the whole hog and take the entire wage packet of Brazil and divide equally amongst everyone?

Because I don't think that would be a very good idea. Like I say I think there is an optimum level of inequality, and I don't think it's 0.

[DodgyAgent]

Oh feck orf and read the Wail or something instead of posting yer dull platitudes here.

Go and play with your trainset

[sasguru]

Go and play with your trainset

Like all thickos you think repetition works. It doesn't.

[doodab]

Self worth is far more important than any judgement from anyone else. You lot do not seem to understand that.

Not when it comes to resource allocation it isn't. You need a measure that people will agree on.

[Old Greg]

Self worth is far more important than any judgement from anyone else. You lot do not seem to understand that.

Important in what sense?

[Old Greg]

you have two or three measures going here.

Equality on Rights (their 'worth to society') the bit the founding fathers were talking about.

Worth as contribution to society and ability to contribute.

Boris was talking about 'Worth' as in ability to contribute.

Some are understanding worth as wealth which means they are either Blinkered or unable to spell.

OG is hammering on about rights which weren't part of the discussion, Dodgy & Lisa are talking about contribution.

AssGuru is talking delusional Tulip about how superior he is as usual. (yes this is aimed at you)


I think we should talk about ability to contribute and not just financially. Those people who do Marathons for charity are more 'worthy' (able to contribute) than me in that respect. In others I may be more worthy (able to contribute).

I'm not hammering on about rights. I'm hammering on about worth.

[vetran]

Oh feck orf and read the Wail or something instead of posting yer dull platitudes here.

That's why thickos like you "debate" with your intellectual betters on t'internet and fondly imagine you're making sense.

I think we have the measure of you. Nasty delusional tulip. And you almost answer yourself.

[DodgyAgent]

An example of what? A country with more equitable income distribution? Denmark or Sweden spring to mind.



Because I don't think that would be a very good idea. Like I say I think there is an optimum level of inequality, and I don't think it's 0.

I am trying to make the point that the problem has nothing to do with the rich it is how the poor are treated. Your "left wing" argument (sorry, cliche) that problems are to do with inequality is misleading and implies that it is because the rich should be pulled back.
This is a red herring. In Denmark and Sweden they still have rich people but the reason they have less crime and the poor are better looked after is to do with how redistribution is dealt with.
The problem with countries like Brazil is nothing to do with inequality it is to do with corruption and a failure to elevate the standards of living of the poor.
Making crime and poverty an issue of equality enables governments and government institutions to step away from responsibility by demonising the rich.

[sasguru]

I think we have the measure of you. Nasty delusional tulip. And you almost answer yourself.

In what sense am I delusional? Because I think I'm cleverer than you?
Could that not be an objective truth?
If you were to bet your life on it, which way would you go?

[vetran]

I'm not hammering on about rights. I'm hammering on about worth.

from your posts you were arguing everyone had equal right to 'worth' and had a right to the same consideration by virtue of being born.

I tried to split the definition into Rights, Contribution & wealth as some posters are talking from different perspectives.