ForumGarden

Accountable;1417864 wrote: Thank you. So no such society exists today, at least not in the developed world, so that we have to invoke hypotheticals to discuss it. I can agree with that.


No, I was trying very hard to divorce the discussion from real life examples so that we could agree basic principles. One the principles are agreed then we can introduce the examples to see how they might fit in.

Removed the emotive elements doing it that way.

What developed nation has a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend?



To discuss your hypothetical society, we'd have to flesh it out a bit, because I find it difficult to imagine a developed nation reaching such a state. It simply isn't possible.

What is your idea of "large section" and "small elite"?

Accountable;1417867 wrote: What developed nation has a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend?



To discuss your hypothetical society, we'd have to flesh it out a bit, because I find it difficult to imagine a developed nation reaching such a state. It simply isn't possible.

What is your idea of "large section" and "small elite"?


How bout Cuba?

YZGI;1417869 wrote: How bout Cuba?
Um, not a developed nation, no mega-rich elite that I'm aware of, and I don't recall anybody saying that the people are starving. Although I don't keep up with Cuba; they're not on my radar.

Accountable;1417867 wrote: What developed nation has a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend?



To discuss your hypothetical society, we'd have to flesh it out a bit, because I find it difficult to imagine a developed nation reaching such a state. It simply isn't possible.

What is your idea of "large section" and "small elite"?


Remove 'starving' and many western developed countries would fit that description?

Accountable;1417867 wrote: What developed nation has a large section is impoverished to the extent that they are starving and unable to house or cloth themselves but at the same time has a small elite that have more money than they can possibly spend?



To discuss your hypothetical society, we'd have to flesh it out a bit, because I find it difficult to imagine a developed nation reaching such a state. It simply isn't possible.

What is your idea of "large section" and "small elite"?


Which is exactly what I was trying to avoid - by naming a specific country you cease to discuss the principles and it turns into a case history.

And where did I limit it to a developed nation?

Bruv;1417874 wrote: Remove 'starving' and many western developed countries would fit that description?


The only reason large number do not die of starvation in countries like the UK is the presence of charities prepared to feed people.

OK, replace "starving" with "unable to adequately feed themselves".

Shifting sands of what ifs.

tude dog;1417892 wrote: Shifting sands of what ifs.This thread is based on "what if". The fact that some members have been attempting to make something more of it is commendable.

Wouldn't the question be better posed as "How poor is too poor"

Bruv;1417900 wrote: Wouldn't the question be better posed as "How poor is too poor"It needs parameters.

My original unanswered question to TD is relevant - In monopoly, when is the game over?

Bruv;1417900 wrote: Wouldn't the question be better posed as "How poor is too poor"


By George I think you've got it!

Bryn Mawr;1417880 wrote: Which is exactly what I was trying to avoid - by naming a specific country you cease to discuss the principles and it turns into a case history.

And where did I limit it to a developed nation?One of us has lost the point. I'll follow you for a bit. Okay, I can see a third world country fitting your description of a large starving group and small mega-rich elite. Is this large group the majority, or just large compared to the elite?

Bruv;1417900 wrote: Wouldn't the question be better posed as "How poor is too poor"


AnneBoleyn;1417904 wrote: By George I think you've got it! :DWell ... until you try to nail down what 'poor' means.

Not at all. Too Poor is too easy. The basics, made well. Anything else you must earn. Have to go now.

Accountable;1417916 wrote: Well ... until you try to nail down what 'poor' means.


It is exactly the same as the rich question, reversed.

I believe on a world scale that western countries have no real poor, nobody needs to starve or go witout basic requirements.

But in the UK as in USA there are many homeless and charities to support many symptoms of poverty, feeding clothing and supplying accomodation.

Are these people Too Poor ? Or just unfortunates ?

Bruv;1417928 wrote: It is exactly the same as the rich question, reversed.which we've been discussing for over 100 posts and still haven't made much headway.

Bruv;1417928 wrote: I believe on a world scale that western countries have no real poor, nobody needs to starve or go witout basic requirements.

But in the UK as in USA there are many homeless and charities to support many symptoms of poverty, feeding clothing and supplying accomodation.

Are these people Too Poor ? Or just unfortunates ?Again, what does the word "too" imply here? Should we be defining such states for others, and forcing them to be 'not so poor' whether they want our help or not? Far too many people feel completely comfortable taking from those they believe have too much, for no other justification than their own arbitrary definitions of "too rich". Now we want to force others to take some of the spoils because they fit our arbitrary definition of "too poor"?

Accountable;1417915 wrote: One of us has lost the point. I'll follow you for a bit. Okay, I can see a third world country fitting your description of a large starving group and small mega-rich elite. Is this large group the majority, or just large compared to the elite?


If you want to put figures on it then lets posit an elite composed of 1% of the population and 20% poor enough not to be able to feed house and clothe themselves.

Accountable;1417930 wrote:

Should we be defining such states for others, and forcing them to be 'not so poor' whether they want our help or not?
I wonder if only an American could pose such a question in such a way ? Far too many people feel completely comfortable taking from those they believe have too much, for no other justification than their own arbitrary definitions of "too rich". Now we want to force others to take some of the spoils because they fit our arbitrary definition of "too poor"?
If he world's resources were infinite and being richer didn't mean somebody somewhere must be poorer, then the question wouldn't need to be asked at all. A cake can only be cut into so many portions.

The problem is not how rich is too rich or how poor is too poor, but how great the difference is between the two extremes, before it gets uncomfortable, immoral and probably unworkable

Bryn Mawr;1417972 wrote: If you want to put figures on it then lets posit an elite composed of 1% of the population and 20% poor enough not to be able to feed house and clothe themselves.
I count 79% that are "making it" to some degree. See, in my mind there are just too many variables to nail this down. I just can't fathom being rich as a bad thing. Is Bill Gates too rich? How about Warren Buffet? When you start talking specifics, we are forced to investigate what they are doing with those riches. If they're helping people, can we say that they're not helping enough and so should forfeit their wealth anyway? If they're causing harm, isn't that the real problem and not the wealth per se?

CAN a person be too rich? Sure, in theory. But the problem with conversations like this is that some people believe it's not only possible, but actually exists right now. I disagree. I don't think an objective equation exists to determine the point at which someone becomes too rich.

So I'll have to bow out of this one, I think.

Bruv;1417974 wrote: I wonder if only an American could pose such a question in such a way ?

If he world's resources were infinite and being richer didn't mean somebody somewhere must be poorer, then the question wouldn't need to be asked at all. A cake can only be cut into so many portions.

The problem is not how rich is too rich or how poor is too poor, but how great the difference is between the two extremes, before it gets uncomfortable, immoral and probably unworkable


I've had many of these conversations, and have yet to see how the difference between "the rich" and "the poor" has any impact on anyone except those who see themselves as not rich enough and are jealous of the success of others.

Bruv;1417974 wrote: I wonder if only an American could pose such a question in such a way ?I wonder if you've ever been in a situation where you were unable to clothe or feed yourself, know anyone that has, or have even been very close to it. We think we can empathize without experience, but it's impossible to understand beyond a cursory sympathy without it.

Long after the threshold of poverty is passed, and long before starvation is attained, there exists dignity. Any program to help the poor must acknowledge and consider that fact. And it must especially acknowledge that dignity is not a commodity that can be dispensed from the back of a truck.

No not only an American could pose such a question in such a way, but only someone without understanding would be baffled by it.

Accountable;1417988 wrote: I've had many of these conversations, and have yet to see how the difference between "the rich" and "the poor" has any impact on anyone except those who see themselves as not rich enough and are jealous of the success of others.

I wonder if you've ever been in a situation where you were unable to clothe or feed yourself, know anyone that has, or have even been very close to it. We think we can empathize without experience, but it's impossible to understand beyond a cursory sympathy without it.

Long after the threshold of poverty is passed, and long before starvation is attained, there exists dignity. Any program to help the poor must acknowledge and consider that fact. And it must especially acknowledge that dignity is not a commodity that can be dispensed from the back of a truck.

No not only an American could pose such a question in such a way, but only someone without understanding would be baffled by it.


Maybe I am looking at this from a wider global view.

There are people in the world who go to bed hungry, people actually die from lack of food, they could survive if they had access to western high/main street trash cans and the take aways discarded in them.

I don't believe they are jealous of Gate's wealth, well not in the way I might be......if I was that way inclined.

I am sure a mans dignity comes way down the line when he and his kids are starving.

Dignity is a luxury a starving person will exchange for a loaf of bread.



Yes I have been so short of cash that I fed my children before myself and slept wanting more food, and patched up my shoes with cardboard inserts, but I was never starving or anywhere near to it.

Accountable;1417987 wrote: I count 79% that are "making it" to some degree. See, in my mind there are just too many variables to nail this down. I just can't fathom being rich as a bad thing. Is Bill Gates too rich? How about Warren Buffet? When you start talking specifics, we are forced to investigate what they are doing with those riches. If they're helping people, can we say that they're not helping enough and so should forfeit their wealth anyway? If they're causing harm, isn't that the real problem and not the wealth per se?

CAN a person be too rich? Sure, in theory. But the problem with conversations like this is that some people believe it's not only possible, but actually exists right now. I disagree. I don't think an objective equation exists to determine the point at which someone becomes too rich.

So I'll have to bow out of this one, I think.


Far enough.

Where you see 79% of the population as "making it to some degree" I see a society that is failing 20% of its population. Few people elect to starve. When you start talking specifics we are forced to investigate why they cannot earn a living sufficient to feed clothe and house themselves - as I say, it is not through choice in the majority of cases.

Have you come across the GINI coefficient? It's a measure of social equality within any given country. So, in answer to your previous question, I did have an example in mind, South Africa - it does tend to stand out on the map :-

File:GINI retouched legend.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%.

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

I say America's not a democracy or a republic...it's a plutocracy.

I'm not familiar with a GINI coefficient, Bryn. I'll read up on it.

Saint_;1418005 wrote: I say America's not a democracy or a republic...it's a plutocracy.
A de facto plutocracy, yes I agree. Do you think they are "too" rich?

Accountable;1418014 wrote:

A de facto plutocracy, yes I agree. Do you think they are "too" rich?


Hmmm...I never thought about it this way. I just saw a reference on a student's quiz. Apparently Aristotle thought that Monarchies and Plutocracies were better than democracies or republics because a king or a plutocrat dictator would care more for his "people" and try to do the best for them unfettered by any boundries or bureaucracy.

Whereas, democracies and republics would sink into the mire of selfish greed and the red tape of procedure, forgetting the people and only worrying about getting reelected and making sure they got theirs.

That sounds eerily like the jam we find ourselves in today.

If all that is true, then I'd rather the hyper rich just step up, say "We're in charge and the elections are over" and get to work fixing things.

I don't like living in a delusional state.

Now there's a tack I hadn't considered. I'm not sure history supports it, though.

Accountable;1418122 wrote: Now there's a tack I hadn't considered. I'm not sure history supports it, though.How would you know?

Sorry, had to.

:wah: