- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Reason article on luxury goods and class: don't mind the gap
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the focus of this thread is on access to luxury goods
Sure, and it's still a misleading point.
1
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
pretty much the same thing, especially in this era of sectarian/insurgent conflicts
You can also say the same with republicans and law enforcement/prisons. More more more
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:23 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
and it's still a misleading point.
how?
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:23 am to bmy
quote:
Like our military spending and Republicans?
Our military spending is right about where it should be. Just need to start using those funds properly.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's 10 years old. likely even better than what's on that chart
I'd be curious if it was done today, as well as what defined it as a "poor household"
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:24 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Our military spending is right about where it should be. Just need to start using those funds properly.
I advocate nuking the current acquisition process from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how?
Trying to make the point that Warren Buffett making the choice to drive a cheaper vehicle is equal to a narrow gap is misleading. Where is your confusion?
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:29 am to Centinel
quote:
I advocate nuking the current acquisition process from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The whole bureaucracy needs wiped out.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:31 am to DisplacedBuckeye
buffet's point is a good one. the intended audience just isn't the one you want to to be, it seems
buffet's example shows that there isn't as much of a difference in luxury goods (namely, brands) because a rich person can live without the wasted costs often associated with "Being rich". it's an example aimed at middle/upper class people and you're trying to pigeon hole it as an example for poor people
buffet's example shows that there isn't as much of a difference in luxury goods (namely, brands) because a rich person can live without the wasted costs often associated with "Being rich". it's an example aimed at middle/upper class people and you're trying to pigeon hole it as an example for poor people
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:36 am to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
We feed off on the fact that no one in this country should declare bankruptcy due to medical issues
No one is entitled to all the medical care the world can provide at someone else's expense. That is utter horseshite - especially when it is funded by taking money that someone else earned at the threat of imprisonment for not paying taxes.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
buffet's point is a good one.
It isn't, at least not as it's being used where I replied. There's a difference between saying Tesla and Toyota are closer than people think, and saying that because of that there's a narrow gap between the rich and poor.
quote:
you're trying to pigeon hole it
Incorrect. You seem to have missed my point, which is fine. I don't need you to agree with me.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:38 am to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
right to health care are all universal rights of humans.
WRONG.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:39 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
There's a difference between saying Tesla and Toyota are closer than people think, and saying that because of that there's a narrow gap between the rich and poor.
why? you're not explaining these comments. you've made them a bunch and are relying on generic dismissals with no real substance
quote:
You seem to have missed my point,
you haven't made one other than being dismissive
you've said almost nothing beside being dismissive
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:41 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You seem to say that in almost every thread you post in.
You seem to have missed my point
I think it is time for you to consider that maybe, just maybe, you kinda suck at making points.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:"Income inequality" is a mathematical fallacy.
The chasm between the very rich and the median citizen yawns wider the further back you look. Three centuries ago, an aristocrat riding in a cushioned carriage would have looked down at a peasant trudging barefoot through the muck—a much more substantial difference than the Honda-Tesla gap today.
If Thibodeaux and Boudreaux each have $10 in year one, each has 50% of the wealth. In year 5 if Thinodaux has 90% of the wealth... is Boudreaux richer or poorer?
I'm continually amazed at the number of people that confidently and boldly answer: "Boudreaux is poorer" to the above question.
In reality, knowing Boudreaux went from 50% to 10% of the wealth tells you NOTHING about how much money Boudreaux has.
If, for instance , in year five, Thibodeaux has $900,000... then Boudreaux has $100,000. Boudreaux's "share" of the wealth has indeed dropped. "Iinequality" went from 50-50% to 90-10%... But....Boudreaux (@10%) went from $10-$100,000. He's far, far richer than he was despite the widening "income inequality".
This is exactly the circumstance he article points out. Income "inequality" would only be a viable measure if there were a fixed amount of money in the economy. That is certainly not the case, as money is created by the central banks. Just like in the Thibodeaux and Boudreaux's "economy" grew from $20-$1,000,000.
Most people don't even have a basic understanding of monetary policy. That makes understanding the irrelevancy of "income inequality" elusive. Shame really.
This post was edited on 6/19/17 at 8:49 am
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why? you're not explaining these comments.
I need to explain why those are two different points?
The quality of a product, or the ability or choice to obtain a specific product speaks very little to wealth and lifestyle.
Anything else?
quote:
you haven't made one other than being dismissive
you've said almost nothing beside being dismissive
Well, mostly because I didn't think it was a complicated concept.
My mistake...won't happen again.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:46 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I need to explain why those are two different points?
yes
quote:
The quality of a product, or the ability or choice to obtain a specific product speaks very little to wealth and lifestyle.
so the ability of poor people to have the choice to acquire luxury goods of the same basic quality as the rich speaks little to lifestyle? what?
that literally makes no sense
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you've said almost nothing beside being dismissive
That's the sum of his posting on this whole board.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:46 am to Scruffy
quote:
You seem to say that in almost every thread you post in.
I think it is time for you to consider that maybe, just maybe, you kinda suck at making points.
More correctly, I don't care if the PT doesn't understand the points I'm making. I'm not here to educate people or change the world.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 8:47 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I'm not here to educate people or change the world.
so what's the point of even commenting?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News