'Brexit boom' gives Britain record 134 billionaires

[Rixis]

Yeah... A happy population which feels as if there are possibilities for the future and they won't be poor just because their parents were poor. It does wonders for allowing children and young adults routes towards innovation and fulfilling themselves.

This whole idea that "people need to be poor and live in squalor because otherwise they won't have motivation to get rich" is clearly not working. It's just that some countries are so brainwashed into believing the "You're poor but feel grateful that we're allowing you to be poor and strive to get better!!"- sentiment...

You mustn't forget that we're not poor because we have a phone, and way back 40 years ago those didn't even exist, so we're really living a life of luxury.

[Captain N]

Except it's missing specific equality metrics. You know the first column is economic "quality", it's not a measure of equality.

If you click on where it says Economic Quality it shows the measures.

[Deleted]

Still not going to fix :

The €100 billion bill of contracts the UK signed with the EU and thus is forced to pay (legally bound contracts).
The €100 billion loss of annual income through being the Financial Heart of the EU.
The €8 billion in agriculture subsidies provided by EU funding.
The 180k jobs in London that will be lost once the Financial district moves to Brussels.

I mean I guess they did a good trade right?

[Azadina]

You mustn't forget that we're not poor because we have a phone, and way back 40 years ago those didn't even exist, so we're really living a life of luxury.

Forget phones, Republicans already said that 96% of poor can't be poor, when they have a fridge in their ghetto apartments!

[PC2]

You mustn't forget that we're not poor because we have a phone, and way back 40 years ago those didn't even exist, so we're really living a life of luxury.

Also due to the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy, starvation and poverty has gone way down globally. In the West obesity is a much bigger problem than starvation.

[Rixis]

Forget phones, Republicans already said that 96% of poor can't be poor, when they have a fridge in their ghetto apartments!

A fridge?!

Back in my day you had a hole in the ground for keeping things "cold".

[PC2]

If you click on where it says Economic Quality it shows the measures.

Exactly, I just didn't want anyone to confuse economic "quality" metrics with economic "equality" metrics.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Forget phones, Republicans already said that 96% of poor can't be poor, when they have a fridge in their ghetto apartments!

And don't forget televisions! These machines of wonder were a thing for the wealthy once, but now everyone has them! How can you be poor if you can afford a television??

[Azadina]

And don't forget televisions! These machines of wonder were a thing for the wealthy once, but now everyone has them! How can you be poor if you can afford a television??

Yay, I qualify as poor by that metric!

Nevermind I don't have TV by choice tho ^^

[Taneras]

It'll trickle down some day.... They need to buy a second yacht!

That's trickle down....

Someone had to build that yacht, right? Someone had to provide materials to build the yacht, right? It'll need to be staffed to some capacity, right? It'll be stored somewhere, right?

Taxing the rich, and having a very inept governing body mishandle the money isn't the only that money makes its way back into the economy.

[Captain N]

Exactly, I just didn't want anyone to confuse economic "quality" metrics with economic "equality" metrics.

Of course...you just wanted to make a claim that people in Equal Countries don't have a great Economy and now you're grasping at straws when evidence breaks your narrative.

Sorry bud...I know you like to shove one-line comments around here to fit a narrative but you don't get to say:

Producing more millionaires and billionaires than other countries is a great thing. There is no reason to think the most equal countries are the most economically prosperous overall.

And then hand wave away that those Equal Countries are more economically prosperous than those who enjoy funneling all their money to the top.

[PC2]

Of course...you just wanted to make a claim that people in Equal Countries don't have a great Economy and now you're grasping at straws when evidence breaks your narrative.

Sorry bud...I know you like to shove one-line comments around here to fit a narrative but you don't get to say:



And then hand wave away that those Equal Countries are more economically prosperous than those who enjoy funneling all their money to the top.

Again you are misreading your own link. It doesn't have a column for equality. The main pattern it is showing is that in general Western countries are more economically prosperous.

[Deleted]

So people who get rich should just hand it out to everyone else? WHY? That style of thinking makes no sense. if you "redistribute"(lets face it. you want to play robin hood and steal it to give it to the poor) then you just create an unsustainable welfare state because once you do it, no one will ever want to be wealthy again, who would want to be successful when you're just going to get torn down?

Because robbing rich people at gunpoint is the definition of justice.

[Captain N]

Again you are misreading your own link. It doesn't have a column for equality. The main pattern it is showing is that in general Western countries are more economically prosperous.

Dude are you seriously trying the mental gymnastics...

You made a claim that the most equal countries are not more economically prosperous than non-equal countries....

The link clearly shows that economic quality is better in those countries even though they are equal...

The US ranks 14th in this situation...the UK 10th...and nearly all the Scandinavian countries above that.

There is no truth to your claim at all....

[belfpala]

So people who get rich should just hand it out to everyone else? WHY? That style of thinking makes no sense. if you "redistribute"(lets face it. you want to play robin hood and steal it to give it to the poor) then you just create an unsustainable welfare state because once you do it, no one will ever want to be wealthy again, who would want to be successful when you're just going to get torn down?

Yeah, because if my marginal dollar only nets me 30 cents instead of 85 cents, I'm totally going to stop trying to make that marginal dollar. Totally. I'm just going to stop working when I hit the top tax bracket. Completely stop. Grind to a halt. Let my gears rust.

Meanwhile, wouldn't it help if more people could afford more than rent, utilities, and processed food? Bring back manufacturing jobs, you know, by having people who can buy things that get manufactured and such. Trickle UP and shit.

[PC2]

Dude are you seriously trying the mental gymnastics...

You made a claim that the most equal countries are not more economically prosperous than non-equal countries....

The link clearly shows that economic quality is better in those countries even though they are equal...

The US ranks 14th in this situation...the UK 10th...and nearly all the Scandinavian countries above that.

There is no truth to your claim at all....

You are not understanding the metrics from your link. Measures of economic quality are not measures of economic equality. You are drawing wrong conclusions because you don't understand that a single letter can entirely change the meaning of the metric.

[Taneras]

Aye, wtf is going on with the first world poor, they have cheap food that will cause them to bloat and die prematurely. Fuckin ungreatful shits the lot of them!

/s

Totally, who's the prick that's running around forcing them to eat more of this food than they need to? They need to go to jail!

[Arewn]

Skilled? Quite possibly. It takes quite a lot of social skill to manipulate people who would gain by your fall into giving you ultimate power and convinced that you know what's best for them.

It's a different set of skills, one that you personally believe are worthless.

You're taking my use of the word "skill" here differently then I meant it.

I'm not saying "is this skill able to accrue that amount of money". Obviously it is, because they have the money. (also, note that I did not claim it to be worthless)
I'm saying, is the accumulation of their, knowledge, talent, experience, education, effort, etc, actually something you would attribute a (for example) 1 million dollar annual income to, relative to all of the above for someone making 50k, or 80k, or 250k.
Again, obviously they CAN make that amount of money, because they do. Obviously their skill set enables them to make that kind of cash. And obviously that skill set has atleast SOME value. But if we're talking about redistributing wealth through wage adjustment, is the millionaire's ability truly valued at that amount relative to the civil engineer's sub-60k income? to the surgeon's 250k? to the burger flipper's 25k? Not as a matter of "can they", but as a matter of "should they" make that amount.

A few decades ago, the burger flipper actually made a lot more money, proportionally speaking. Is their decrease in salary, and the CEO's increase in salary, something we find appropriate? It happened "because they can", but what my question comes down to is "should it".

[Captain N]

You are not understanding the metrics from your link. Measures of economic quality are not measures of economic equality. You are drawing wrong conclusions because you don't understand that a single letter can entirely change the meaning of the metric.

I'm drawing the comment you made -- You clearly stated that the Happiest Countries were not the most Economically Prosperous. The link clearly shows they are extremely prosperous despite you saying their equality is a bad thing.

You're doing the mental gymnastics thing and moving goal posts because your narrative was wrong.

[PC2]

I'm drawing the comment you made -- You clearly stated that the Happiest Countries were not the most Economically Prosperous. The link clearly shows they are extremely prosperous despite you saying their equality is a bad thing.

You're doing the mental gymnastics thing and moving goal posts because your narrative was wrong.

Source?

/10char