The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So why can't they afford it then?

Because they haven't got enough money, not because their percentage of the average is too small.

[Lord Kangana]

And at no time you question the morality of a country (or world) where a small percentage of people have more money than they can spend, yet a greater percentage can't afford food, clothes, shelter?

[communistworkethic]

So why can't they afford it then?

Because they haven't got enough money, not because their percentage of the average is too small.

your logic, if that's what it is, only applies in a "everyone has very little" society.

If everyone can't afford to eat then where you are %-wise is a bit moot, but in a society where some are earning £million a week, where you are compared to the median is very relevant in poverty terms.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

We're all better off on account of the fact that making large fortunes is possible and people all around the world strive to do that.

We're also all better off because we live in a world that does not make not striving a pleasantly viable option.

[communistworkethic]

We're all better off on account of the fact that making large fortunes is possible and people all around the world strive to do that.

We're also all better off because we live in a world that does not make not striving a pleasantly viable option.

yes tell that to the pensioners who die because they can't afford to heat their homes, or those living on the streets, or the thousands that die of starvation every week. Tell that to those being paid 10p a day in Indonesian sweatshops. Tell that to the tribes in south america who face anhilation because of deforestation.

For an intelligent lad, you don't have make some sweeping and incorrect statements.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I meant those of us involved in this discussion.

But yes, it is a disgrace that there are elderly people in this country who can't heat their homes and of course there should be intervention to help the vulnerable.

[Prufrock]

I can see your point about as long as people have enough to live then they arent necessarily poor, but i think its naive to expect that that could happen without thinking in relative terms. How rich somebody 'poor' is is not massively relative to the business exec on millions a year (which i think is wrong, but no doubt you, in this theoritical world where everyone CAN get by, is ok, because you like the model of capitalism, which is your perogative), but it IS relative to the average, because the average defines how much money is needed to get by. If the average man or woman suddenly got richer, then food prices would go up, house prices would go up, the general cost of living goes up. This leaves the people relatively poor, worse off. I see your point that relative wealth isnt the be all and end all, but it cannot be dismissed IMO.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

but it IS relative to the average, because the average defines how much money is needed to get by. If the average man or woman suddenly got richer, then food prices would go up, house prices would go up, the general cost of living goes up.

Again, the 'absolute terms' I speak of take this into account - i.e. it's a comment on what standard of living a person can afford with what they have.


At any rate, seeing as you mention it, I think the demand for most non-luxury foodstuffs is pretty income inelastic.

[Lord Kangana]

Am I not right in saying that there is a quantifiable, finite amount of money in the world?

If thats a given, then the more wealth polarises to one end, the less is available for the other. And if you carry on the model exponentially, eventually all money will end up in fewer and fewer hands.Surely that is evidence enough that wealth inequality is far more important than you seem to think?

In fact, come to think of it, it'd be great if that happened, because once none of us has any, we'll start to see the absurdity of it and look for a new system. Viva capitalism, it might just eat itself!

[communistworkethic]

Am I not right in saying that there is a quantifiable, finite amount of money in the world?

yes, you're not right, the amount of money can be expanded at the whim of government, as will happen here in the near future. Plus it depends on which definition of 'money' you use.

[Lord Kangana]

But doesn't that lead in turn to higher inflation?

[Prufrock]

but it IS relative to the average, because the average defines how much money is needed to get by. If the average man or woman suddenly got richer, then food prices would go up, house prices would go up, the general cost of living goes up.

Again, the 'absolute terms' I speak of take this into account - i.e. it's a comment on what standard of living a person can afford with what they have.


At any rate, seeing as you mention it, I think the demand for most non-luxury foodstuffs is pretty income inelastic.

Controversially i agree with your point that 'poverty' should be defined by whether or not someone has enough money to get by at the most basic level. However i think relative wealth affects this. That doesnt mean that i think its right for certain people to be earning massively above, or below that line, just that poverty isnt necessarily the right word. I dont think poverty can be defined specifically by percentage points. For instance if you take the 60% of the median rule, there would be plenty of people in say Somalia, who would be considered above the poverty line, who i would say were poor.

[Worthy4England]

There are a number of types of poverty "measurements".

Relative poverty the one that compares to the median, is used to differentiate within a geography, as to use absolute poverty would be meaningless. So someone 60% of greater away from the median in the UK would not necessarily be "poor" in Somalian terms but nevertheless would have problems affording some "necessities" in the UK...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There are a number of types of poverty "measurements".

Relative poverty the one that compares to the median, is used to differentiate within a geography, as to use absolute poverty would be meaningless. So someone 60% of greater away from the median in the UK would not necessarily be "poor" in Somalian terms but nevertheless would have problems affording some "necessities" in the UK...

Doesn't 'absolute poverty' just measure what somebody can buy where they are, thus dealing with the geography point itself?

[Lord Kangana]

you mean this kinda of thing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... F_2007.PNG

[Worthy4England]

There are a number of types of poverty "measurements".

Relative poverty the one that compares to the median, is used to differentiate within a geography, as to use absolute poverty would be meaningless. So someone 60% of greater away from the median in the UK would not necessarily be "poor" in Somalian terms but nevertheless would have problems affording some "necessities" in the UK...

Doesn't 'absolute poverty' just measure what somebody can buy where they are, thus dealing with the geography point itself?

Don't think so, for it to be "absolute" on a world level, it needs to ignore geography.

Wiki's view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line

[Lord Kangana]

Just a quick quote from that article:

A relative income line, related to some fraction of typical incomes. This excludes the wealthiest individuals from the calculation. For example, the OECD and the European Union uses 60% of national median equivalised household income.

So relative income isn't actually relative anyway. Surely theres grounds for a moral issue here? If they are leaving out the very wealthiest, surely there are more of us living in relative poverty than they'd like us to know.

[Prufrock]

There are a number of types of poverty "measurements".

Relative poverty the one that compares to the median, is used to differentiate within a geography, as to use absolute poverty would be meaningless. So someone 60% of greater away from the median in the UK would not necessarily be "poor" in Somalian terms but nevertheless would have problems affording some "necessities" in the UK...

Fair point, but i think of the world in terms as one entity, sans frontieres. To me very few people in england are in 'poverty', at least in the terms of 'make poverty history'. In my view that doesnt make the fact people struggle to get by right, i just dont think it justifies being in the same category as your 12 year old kid in somalia who literally struggles to survive, and lives in conflict territory (i stress very few, and not none).

Thats a purely idealistic world view, in real terms, the only thing we (UK voters) can talk about actually changing is conditions in this country. I dont see how it is fair that there can be a familly with people who work theirselves silly, all day and all night, and struggle to get by, whilst some fat cat banker rakes in millions. I see the opinion that straight out 'from each.. to each' doesnt create an incentive to work hard, but that doesnt justify the gulf between the top and bottom.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There are a number of types of poverty "measurements".

Relative poverty the one that compares to the median, is used to differentiate within a geography, as to use absolute poverty would be meaningless. So someone 60% of greater away from the median in the UK would not necessarily be "poor" in Somalian terms but nevertheless would have problems affording some "necessities" in the UK...

Doesn't 'absolute poverty' just measure what somebody can buy where they are, thus dealing with the geography point itself?

Don't think so, for it to be "absolute" on a world level, it needs to ignore geography.

Wiki's view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line

Perhaps I haven't expressed myself adequately, but Wiki's definition of absolute poverty is the same as mine:

"A measure of absolute poverty quantifies the number of people below a poverty threshold, and this poverty threshold is independent of time and place. For the measure to be absolute, the line must be the same in different countries, cultures, and technological levels. Such an absolute measure should look only at the individual's power to consume and it should be independent of any changes in income distribution. Such a measure is only possible when all consumed goods and services are counted and when PPP-exchange rates are used (see purchasing power parity)."

[Worthy4England]

Just a quick quote from that article:

A relative income line, related to some fraction of typical incomes. This excludes the wealthiest individuals from the calculation. For example, the OECD and the European Union uses 60% of national median equivalised household income.

So relative income isn't actually relative anyway. Surely theres grounds for a moral issue here? If they are leaving out the very wealthiest, surely there are more of us living in relative poverty than they'd like us to know.

At the risk of getting splinters, yes and no Yes it's not correct to pretend that the measure includes everyone's earnings, and no, it probably wouldn't be helpful to do so, if as a result, say, everyone earning less than £250k per annum then ended up "in poverty" - which quite clearly wouldn't be the case.