|
^^^ Yeah, basically inflation is meaningless as long as the increase in the real amount of goods/services people can purchase increases faster than the rate of inflation. But the media tends to focus on it a lot because inflation is really bad for rich people.on the left posted:No reason not to make the minimum income at least 500k, just so poor people can afford everything they need in life. Of course, some sort of money circulation effect will quickly bring our GDP in line with this high figure. There must be some way for the economy to reflect a higher money supply or velocity chasing a relatively fixed supply of energy-intensive goods. This is a really dumb post and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? It's kind of obvious that a slippery slope argument doesn't apply here. It's a really stupid post! While it's true that increasing money supply can result in inflation, you're basically weighing the benefits of a great increase in the amount of money poorer individuals spend on goods/services vs. whatever inflation occurs. If you were talking about increasing the pay of every single person in the nation by $X an hour then it might make sense to think that the harm would be at least equal to the benefit, but it's entirely reasonable to think the benefits of the poor having a lot more spending money will outweigh whatever relatively insignificant inflation occurs as a result. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 6, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:a question - do you believe all rich people became rich immorally? Is it possible to be rich and deserve it? Let me give an analogy explaining why it's impossible to be morally rich. Imagine that there's a race between 100 people where the top 5 people are given a reward of millions of dollars. 25 of those people are sick or injured to begin with. Can you really say that the winners deserved to win when many of the competitors were handicapped to begin with? To make the analogy even more like reality, imagine that many of the people who don't win will live in poverty, so there's a great consequence to ending up in the bottom quintile(s). Would it not be greatly immoral for the winners to choose to keep the great majority of their earnings? After all, the competition wasn't fair to begin with and many of their fellow competitors are living in poverty while they enjoy the benefits of their great wealth. And this analogy is actually overly generous in that it assumes that the competition itself is relatively fair. So no, it isn't possible to be a moral rich person. There's a sliding scale of immorality depending upon how rich a person is, but every single person who has tens/hundreds of millions of dollars is grossly immoral.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 18:09
|
|