|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The opiate of the people.
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
So, what else would you call a pass-time that encourages people to sit on their couch, drink beer, and crunch potato crisps (chips). At least, in the time of Marx, religion could be said to foster virtue, and make people better than they were before. The same cannot be said, in our age, of the 'consumption' of sport.
In the long term, does it really matter whether Aston Villa beats Manchester United, or who wins the ashes, or how well the Boston Red Sox do?
On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.
Seems to me like some people's priorities are skewed.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, what else would you call a pass-time that encourages people to sit on their couch, drink beer, and crunch potato crisps (chips). At least, in the time of Marx, religion could be said to foster virtue, and make people better than they were before. The same cannot be said, in our age, of the 'consumption' of sport.
To be comprehensive, one should broaden it to entertainment.
quote:
On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.
Seems to me like some people's priorities are skewed.
Pretty much. Though money alone will not change the world. If we want change, it has to include changing politics as well as what we, personally, spend our money on.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much. Though money alone will not change the world. If we want change, it has to include changing politics as well as what we, personally, spend our money on.
Hmmm. Seems to me like this comment raises the issue of whether forcing people to be virtuous makes them virtuous, or whether virtue is necessarily related to a voluntary disposition.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 14. January 2018, 19:53: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much. Though money alone will not change the world. If we want change, it has to include changing politics as well as what we, personally, spend our money on.
Hmmm. Seems to me like this comment raises the issue of whether forcing people to be virtuous makes them virtuous, or whether virtue is necessarily related to a voluntary disposition.
Well, that was not the intention of it. What affects the prosperity of the areas you mention is, in part, how our political policies affect them. Without fundamental change in those and in how we assist, all more money does is put a plaster on the problems. Still better than doing nothing, but not in minimising the problems.
True virtue is within. Practical virtue is often from without as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
There are vast amounts of money spent on weapons which would be better spent on basics for people, by our own governments. Sport is surely better than conflict.
There are many virtues. It's virtuous to stand up for justice and to work toward a better world for all people. This is possible while also watching TV at times.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.
So would the money spent on art galleries, museums, libraries and concert halls.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
As would the money spent on paying incompetent politicians and rapacious televangelists....
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
When I first saw this thread, I naturally thought of Karl Marx's comments, but then I began to wonder about the current opioid crisis we are experiencing here in the United States. Big Pharma convinced the medical profession that it was okay to use opioid-based painkillers for palliative care. They said if used properly no one would get hooked.
Well, that is not the way it happened. People started combining opioids with anti-anxiety meds (benzos in particular): and, even when used as prescribed people do develop a tolerance to them and have to take more to get the desired effect.
Myself, I have chronic back pain. I use a hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination to get by. I have used it for two years. My doctor gives me a 30 day supply which I can stretch to a little over 50 days since I do not take it in the evenings or on most weekends.
But people are having problems with it Stateside. How is it in your country?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I can't answer that, but I can say for myself that I am now dependent on hydrocortisone (for adrenal insufficiency) and Levetiracetam (sometimes known as Keppra) to prevent seizures.
ISTM that a fair proportion of the population of the UK relies on pills for one thing or another, but, naturally, the drug companies don't want us to get better - they want us to be dependent.
Perhaps the same applies to the importance of Sport, Slebrities, and Shopping - it's the old ploy of providing Bread and Circuses to keep the peasants happy whilst the Filthy Rich get ever richer...
IJ
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
A big problem in regional Australia, Gramps. Not sure about cities but I would not be surprised.
I have even heard in the news of grannies getting opioids for addicts and making some money (pensioners get quite cheap medications).
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Back to the first post, I don't get sport and really don't get why people watch it or listen to it on the radio. I curse each night it is on a national station instead of the BBC World Service. I also shudder at the money involved.
But that is me. I didn't appreciate someone telling me fiction was not worth reading when I could read Jobs' autobiography or some management / self improvement time. I would not appreciate someone telling me walking in the bush or watching a foreign film is my opiate.
When I've seen people watch sports they are engrossed. Or chatting with a friend next to them, sharing a shared interest. Or texting someone. Much like I do with Eurovision (there's something to call an opiate!!!)
To each his own. Not a good statement for a discussion board, but it's mine.
Re the money, where to stop? We should look to ourselves and make sure we give what we can.
[ 15. January 2018, 05:58: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I agree with mousethief.
Unless the obsession with sports is hurting society in some manner the enjoyment someone else gets from sports is simply none of my business. If it makes someone happy to be a sports fan more power to that person.
As to hurting society ISTM that a multi billion $/£ industry probably boosts the global economy.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.
Seems to me like some people's priorities are skewed.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Don't forget that Africans, Asians and South Americans enjoy sport as much as anyone. When electricity arrives the village TV set is often the first thing connected.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And what has created the internet? There's even a song that tells you the answer. Yes, the internet is for porn!
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I agree with mousethief. I think football (soccer) gives people great joy, and of course, great disappointment. And there is a community aspect that is good.
Also remember Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).” He was a goalkeeper.
One can criticize the huge amounts of money, of course, but is that particularly about sport?
I have to quote Simone Weil: 'revolution is the opium of the people'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
A claim I have encountered is that when Marx referred to religion as "the opiate of the people", he was saying it was a pain-reliever, not a vice. He apparently believed that with communism the pain would disappear and there would be no need for religion. Are you saying that the same is true of sports?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
When I was a kid, parents used to say "Eat your food. Think of all the starving children in China."
The thing is not one morsel left on one plate ever made it to China. The way to have helped the starving children in China might have been to send food before it was cooked. Not that Mao would have let it in.
The point is just condemning spotrs does not automatically direct aide to deserving groups.
If you want aide to go to the deserving group of your choice do something positive in support.
For instance every time anyone feels like showing off their newly acquired philosophy that person could donate cash to a NGO charity that delivers food to a famine striken region.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
When I was a kid, parents used to say "Eat your food. Think of all the starving children in China."
The thing is not one morsel left on one plate ever made it to China. The way to have helped the starving children in China might have been to send food before it was cooked. Not that Mao would have let it in.
AIUI, you were meant to think of the starving children, realise your good fortune and be grateful. Then eat your dinner.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryLouise
Shipmate
# 18697
|
Posted
Just looking back at the original post for a moment, the oddest assumption here for anyone who has lived or travelled in Africa is the idea that spectator sports today are primarily a Western phenomenon.
Both soccer (football) and cricket are global forms of entertainment. Most African countries have large numbers of sports-lovers who support local teams, attend international matches in local stadiums and watch sport played in the UK, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean on TV. (Manchester United has a strong following in Nairobi.) The OP might not care for sport, but it seems a little punitive to suggest African populations should have to choose between aid for social upliftment and the right to watch one's favourite game on TV.
And initiating policies or aid packages that effect profound and lasting social change (or betterment) is a really complicated issue.
--------------------
“As regards plots I find real life no help at all. Real life seems to have no plots.”
-- Ivy Compton-Burnett
Posts: 646 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
I am not very interested in sport, but here it is difficult to avoid mention of it and a large proportion of the daily news filtered through radio and TV is about sport. It bores me rigid and I hate it.
When the 2010 earthquake (and the subsequent thousands of other aftershocks and quakes followed) hit Christchurch it meant that Rugby World Cup games scheduled to be played here were diverted elsewhere. I knew some people were disappointed, but I really didn't appreciate the impact on their lives until the first international match was played here after the quakes.
There were tough rugby supporters interviewed on TV with tears streaming down their faces with joy. A large proportion of them were blokes - and NZ blokes don't cry.
I think it took that for me to become far less dismissive of the part sports played in their lives and for their well being. I would still not attend a match myself unless I were bound, gagged and dragged there at gunpoint, but I realised that their involvement in sport was as strong as mine in the books I read, and at least small branch libraries became available after about a month.(And the new Central Library opens later this year ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) ).
Before that I think it would have been easy for me to decide that something in which I had no interest could cease to exist and the money be re-directed to a for more noble cause, but I've realised that reality is far more complicated than that.
If you asked me if I were willing to forgo the building of the new Central Library in Christchurch to feed starving children that would be a much more uncomfortable question for me to answer, and I don't see that I could demand it of sports lovers without being willing to make an equal sacrifice.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Re OP: Just supposing we all channelled all the money we spend on entertainment into a huge fund to be spent on providing water, medical care and food to third-world countries, How much of it would actually get to where it is needed most, and then of course there would need to be support for maintaining and supplying the facilities and equipment on a regular basis. ... ...
It is an almost impossible task.
We can only do what we can ... and it is fortunate that so many people work to get things done in spite of the overwhelming obstacles they face.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
It's also not a zero sum game. In railway preservation, there's a well-known argument between those funding new build replicas of lost steam locomotives, and those who think "the money would be better spent on restoring what we've already got."
Without praying Mrs Thatcher too much in aid, that makes the error of assuming that there is such as thing as "the money" and if it wasn't being spent on building a new steam engine, it would be being spent on restoring a derelict carriage...
In reality, if you stop Dave from say watching Villa, that doesn't then compel Dave to give the money he would otherwise have spent watching the Villa to eg Tearfund. The money could just stay in his pocket, or be spent on beer.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What about you, 2RM, do you have entertainment expenditures? Do you feel guilty about yours?
Seems to me we all do, and probably sometimes do feel guilty about them but most of us shouldn't usually.
Well, that's a valid challenge. I like to talk to people on discussion forums, and read stuff. Oh yes, and I drink for more than is good for me.
Nevertheless, I have arrived at a formula that quiets my conscience.
Let $X be the amount of wealth in the world.
Let $Y be the annual Gross World Product.
Let Z be the number of people in the world.
Then an (approximately) equitable distribution of the world's wealth is $X/Z, and an (approximately) equitable distribution of the world's annual income is $Y/Z.
That works out to be around $33,000 per person net worth, and around $15,000 annual income.
I live quite comfortably within these limits, so I am not appropriating anyone else's 'fair share'.
I contend that if we all lived within such boundaries, and stopped spending so extravagantly on frivolities, the world might be a happier, fairer place.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Well, lucky old you.
A fair proportion of the world's population would be glad of even a fraction of $15000 per annum.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Damn right they would. Median income was about $1300 in 2012 and I doubt it has changed much. Half the world's population receive more than that while the other half receive less than, get this, about $100 per month.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Who was it who said, perhaps rather wryly, 'the poor you will always have with you', or words to that effect?
I envy those who can quiet their consciences by means of a formula.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.
Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.
Best wishes, 2RM
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.
Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.
Best wishes, 2RM
well no, because the money isn't there for everyone to live as you do - because even on your own sums a lot of that would need to be siphoned off for infrastructure and services*. Which means the true sum available for each person is probably some way below what you're living on. You're an exploiter, just of a lesser category than the billionaires.
*most of the world doesn't have round them the infrastructure that you likely do, the functioning state you likely have, the long-sunk capital costs which no one is now paying for. Eg, in the UK we've got a great railway network (in terms of mileage). The maintenance costs are crippling enough, but if it wasn't there I genuinely doubt we could afford to build it now from scratch. That's before we get onto schools, roads, hospitals, etc - and way before we get onto what would have to be nice to haves - libraries, museums, leisure/fitness centres.
If your conscience is going to be salved, you need to work out what needs to be spent to make everyone's life exactly like yours - rather than just handing them the same amount of money that you can live on. Then allow for that in the division of the global wealth, or even just the global product. I would expect that to produce a share of money (in crudest terms) somewhere well below your above calculation. So you're still (relatively) profiteering.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah but...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but...
No Martin, not "Yeah but."
You can agree with the principle while pointing out that the maths *as presented* aren't right...
The sort of settlement aimed for by the OP is completely laudable, but it's ok to say that their methodology to get there is flawed (at best).
Of all things, eradicating global inequality shouldn't be a competition, or an exercise in virtue signalling. It's got to be about what works. I don't know what will work, but I sincerely doubt it's this.
If you know what will work then I'm very happy to hear it.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
I'd just like to say that I am entirely happy for the forum to point out the flaws in my formula, and thinking. That is the advantage of the 'Great Debate', that we can all learn from each other, and the result is a ratchet towards virtue.
Nevertheless, I am also entirely happy to have presented a 'first approximation' for your criticism and comment.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 16. January 2018, 13:59: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
The arrogance of this post from N00B 2RM is almost breath-taking:
quote:
The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.
Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.
And ITTWACW!
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
So, I'm arrogant. So what? Does that, in any way, contradict the thought that the best way to distribute wealth, is equitably? That maybe people just shouldn't be hungry, and malnourished, and starved, while others spend money on 'sport'?
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 16. January 2018, 15:31: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Major problems are who has the money, how it is redistributed from those who have lots of it to those who don't, why we should or shouldn't force the issue. Myself, I think we have to force the issue by tax laws, regulations and enforcement.
I'd start off by addressing homelessness by taxing and regulating non-resident real estate ownership. I'd follow it up with getting the large corporations out of government, stop sponsoring and getting naming rights etc to anything, and pay this in taxes instead so we can pay for public service. We must ensure we do not privatise profit and socialize debt. As for military, obviously the oil companies need to pay for it, and also for cleaning up carbon pollution.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I'm arrogant. So what?
My experience is that my point comes across better if it is not coated in arrogance. YMMV.
Also, my experience is that humility allows me to experience life more fully and freely than I experienced life when I was completely ruled by an ego driven by self centered fear.
Many of us here have found that life experience tends to round sharp stones into stones that fit more easily amongst their companions.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Just so.
I was reminded of the Pharisee in the Temple, thanking God that he was not like other people, especially that publican over there....
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Being helpful then...
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I'm arrogant. So what? Does that, in any way, contradict the thought that the best way to distribute wealth, is equitably?
No.
However, where you're falling down is that what you're proposing is the redistribution of *money* rather than *wealth.*
There is a crucial difference, not least because money is tangible (ok, electronically these days it isn't but let that pass), and wealth isn't. What does that mean? Well, you say you can live perfectly well on $x, which is your share of global product, so that's what everyone else should have.
Ok, but to arrive at $x you've literally just divided global product by global population.
There are several problems with this:
- even as you've done it, there are wide global variations in the generation of that product per capita. This therefore doesn't take into account eg Norway (small population, vast oil wealth), or China (vast economy, but also vast population).
- you're not taking into account productivity by nation (which is a slight red herring, but we may as well include it). UK productivity is lower than France, for example. However, that's partly because unemployment in France is higher, so fewer people are making more... See the problems with raw multiplication/division?
- most problematically, as I said upthread, you're not taking into account the fact that massive investment would be needed into most of the world's countries in order to get them to a state where your purchasing power for $x would give everyone there the same standard of living you have. Consequently, the division of global product by global population needs to account for that. Which is where your $x is inaccurate. If your "fair share" of global product is therefore $x-60% (say), leaving your conscience aside for a minute, can you still live your life the way you do now?
As I say, I'm not complaining about your aim, I just think you've gone bit wrong on the calculations, and therefore where you currently sit vs your aims.
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
That maybe people just shouldn't be hungry, and malnourished, and starved, while others spend money on 'sport'?
Best wishes, 2RM.
Hmm, this is actually where I think you've gone even more off-piste. Do you appreciate how national product (and therefore global product as a sum of national products) is calculated?
It's the sum of the sale of goods and services within an economy. There is some international variation on whether black market work sch as prostitution or the drug trade is included.
Consequently, if you start telling people they can't do sport, or decrying the amount of money spent on that then, unless you're seizing their money and hosing it out again on your own projects, then you're actually just hitting the national product! Which is then further reducing global wealth and hence the share per capita of that wealth.
Some people like to spend money on sport. If you close down sport, that doesn't guarantee that they then spend that money on *anything* else. They could just put it under the mattress.
In the meantime, that action has consequences beyond the savings of the consumer. Some peoples' productive work is *through* sport. OK we all know about celebrity players on millions, but there is a whole army of others who earn their modest salaries (or indeed minimum wage salaries) operating the turnstiles, sweeping the terraces, etc. Ban sport and you have to find them other work. OK, if you're running a command economy then you can maybe do that, otherwise you're adding to unemployment.
In the meantime, while you're celebrating closing down sport because you can't see the worth in it, you've admitted you quite like a drink. Well, I don't like the alcohol industry so we can close that down too...
The problem is you want a more equal society - well that's where international aid comes in, and international/overseas development projects. If you start closing down industries because you don't see the worth in them then that's not a workable plan, it's just holier-than-thou grandstanding. Tobacco should be closed down because it kills people. There is a workable case to be made for closing down alcohol on the same lines. Sport is in a different category ISTM. It has excesses, but at the same time it's probably a good overall if it's encouraging fitness.
At the same time, the dilemma is compounded when you factor in the damage to the global economy if tobacco, alcohol and sport were all closed down tomorrow...
I'll actually say, having thought very much as I'm typing that your system will only work if the UN takes full control of money and issues people with tokens which can only be used to buy approved goods from approved retailers. I'm really struggling to see how otherwise you go about stopping people from spending money on things that aren't dealing with "hungry, malnourished and starved."
Football is huge amongst the starving in Africa. Not just playing it, but following Arsenal, etc.
Cricket is dominant among the poorest in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh - even popular in Afghanistan. Not just playing - watching, and betting, on TV matches.
Gambling is massive in China (regulated or otherwise).
How do you deal with the many "hungry, malnourished and starved" who want more in their lives than just food, water and medicine? Ten to one that a large number of them want sport, cinema, books, etc as well as the basics. That they haven't (many of them) even got the basics now doesn't mean that they would be happy just to have the basics. Aspiration is hard wired into humans, as is meaningless diversion. Just read The Theory of the Leisure Class - Veblen was right in 1899, and IMO he's right now.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@betjemaniac - I COMPLETELY agree with you. I was replying on behalf of the eponymous 2ndRM. He didn't disappoint.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Yes, what betjemaniac and Martin60 have both said.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
Hmmm. Can't help thinking that your collective problem is not my supposed arrogance, or that my mind is 2nd rate, (both of which I freely admit), but that you all know that in a fundamental way that I am hitting on an important issue, and one that's uncomfortable for you.
Meanwhile. and by the way, thank you Betjemaniac, for your intervention. I think it was constructive.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 16. January 2018, 19:26: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Reading the Gospels doesn’t give the whole impression that Jesus was totally pro the equality/distribution of wealth.
It could be argued that His advice to dump one's possessions was necessary for an individual to get closer to God, not a measure towards achieving some sort of monetary ideal among the World's population.
I will agree that it is peculiar (for want of a better word), to live in a World and see unimaginably large sums of money spent on luxuries, entertainment, etc. while, at the same time, seeing situations where a relatively small proportion of those sums could significantly improve the lot of many many others.
Then there is the matter of throwing tons tons of money at shit situations, only to discover those situations don’t become magically fixed for ever and ever into the future.
Magic wands anyone?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
I think that's right. Even in the case of the rich young ruler, Jesus wasn't advocating that everyone should give away everything to the poor.
He just said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
There are, it seems to me, two moral principles in tension, here. If I gave away all my wealth, that would be foolish, and only serve to increment the number of poor people in the world by one. But if I am so attached to my wealth, so that I cannot countenance the equitable distribution of it, even while war, famine, pestilence and premature death stalk the world, then I am no better than the young ruler, who 'went away (from Jesus) sorrowful, for he had great possessions'.
I have found a general compromise that suits me, in those simple formulae, $X/Z and $Y/Z. If you all can contrive a better moral compromise, (and I am quite prepared to consider the forum's suggestions), I'd be interested to hear it.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I deeply regret responding to you second rate and assure you that I shall not make the same mistake in future.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Being helpful then...
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I'm arrogant. So what? Does that, in any way, contradict the thought that the best way to distribute wealth, is equitably?
No.
However, where you're falling down is that what you're proposing is the redistribution of *money* rather than *wealth.*
There is a crucial difference...
I would tend to challenge this assertion. Whereas 'wealth' might be considered to be oysters you can eat, champagne you can drink, and the fridges you can buy to optimise the temperature and storage life of the two, money is the way that wealth is rationed. The estimated $241 trillion in the world, however distributed, determines who gets the oysters, champagne, and fridges.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I deeply regret responding to you second rate and assure you that I shall not make the same mistake in future.
Fair enough. Your responses thus far have not been very helpful, anyway. But nevertheless, I hope you have a nice life.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Reading the Gospels doesn’t give the whole impression that Jesus was totally pro the equality/distribution of wealth.
It could be argued that His advice to dump one's possessions was necessary for an individual to get closer to God, not a measure towards achieving some sort of monetary ideal among the World's population.
No, that would mean that the giving is the important bit, rather than some poor bugger actually being helped. That's not love and care, that's getting a warm fuzzy and conscience salving. I'd be really disappointed if Jesus were like that.
quote:
I will agree that it is peculiar (for want of a better word), to live in a World and see unimaginably large sums of money spent on luxuries, entertainment, etc. while, at the same time, seeing situations where a relatively small proportion of those sums could significantly improve the lot of many many others.
Then there is the matter of throwing tons tons of money at shit situations, only to discover those situations don’t become magically fixed for ever and ever into the future.
Magic wands anyone?
Of course not. Dives and Lazarus though indicates we'd better bloody make sure we try. And not because it's good for us, but because the people getting the shitty end of the stick need us to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
