Explain this poverty comparison to me

Right or wrong?

 

Generally fish are able to aquire their own food if left to their own devises in nature. But you pulled them from nature and now centrally control the food. No amount of work can be done by the fish to create or aquire more food because YOU (the government) are keeping them in a state of ... well .... slavery for your entertainment. I suppose a lesson can be learned here. Thats Liberalism doesent work unless you enjoy being in a state of servatude and dependence. The more you feed your fish the more dependent they become and the more they will breed off little welfare fishies that will mimick the welfare queen that spawned them until you cannot afford to feed all the moochers anymore. Who knew?

The conservative fish would be the ingenuitive one in the water filled suit escaping from the state run tank. The liberal fish are the ones asking the government to put him back in the name of fairness.

 

You could be right and you COULD be wrong: small guppy type fish, in a well planted 100 gallon aquarium are as good as in nature, or on any paradice island, without me giving them any food at all. and earth in a sense CAN be compared with such an island, when I consider all the wars...

That is exactly the point of my thread.

 

Have you seen this lovely music video? http://www.politicalforum.com/polit.../232042-results-liberal-welfare-policies.html

 

I managed to get 1/3 thru the video, immitation or not, believe me I lived among these macaccas long enough to know everything about their culture. I even state that in my video if you watched it all.

 

First, same could be said for land, and unlike water, there will never be any more land than there is right now.

The pie gets bigger because we create wealth, your still stuck thinking wealth = money or dollars, which is wrong. Just the about the amount of stuff we have no compared to 25 or 50 years ago, we're vastly more wealthy, the pie has gotten bigger and we all are more wealthy than our ancestors, we've all gained wealth simultaneously thus proving that it's not zero sum.

 

What are you calling wealth? The fact most have indoor plumbing instead of an outhouse? Or a flat screen LCD vs 19" tube TV?
We have more stuff, that = more wealth?

The popultion has always grown, mostly. If the population were to decrease would wealth start decreasing with the population decreaseing?

IE, we have more wealth because there are more people wanting stuff.

 

Valuable resources and material possessions, the definition isn't hard to find.

The exact opposite to some degree, fewer people dividing the same amount of wealth, very basic mathematics.

 

The vast majority of what people consider to be wealth its stocks and bonds, not money. If you only consider actual money to be wealth, there is virtually no wealth disparity in the US, since rich people very rarely keep much cash - that is part of how they become rich.

 

No a TV is wealth until it is bought and then it quickly becomes a liability when it has to be disposed of.

No, Argentina was once the second most powerful economy on the planet but they went progressive; right down the path that Obama is preaching and their wealth evaporated even though there people still want stuff their economy is in ruin. They did as many liberals want us to do, they spent, printed money, spent more and printed more. They had 3000% inflation for a while but after the collapse that the progressives want for us they started to enjoy the bitter juices of depression. I just tried to search for Argentine economy and my computer puked and closed my browser.

 

This is verifiably incorrect. Not only income, but also wealth disparity are high relative to other developed nations.

 

You should get rid of your fish tanks or have someone come in to take care of them.

 

Resources are not infinite. Unless they're easily renewable or lab made. Which could be.

If you don't have anyone to sell your resources to, or less people, you may have wealth(resources) but of little use.

 

Did you even read my post?

I wasn't arguing that there is no wealth disparity, I was explaining that the wealth disparity is based on stocks and bonds in addition to cash and that, for the rich, cash makes up the smallest part of their wealth.

 

It's based on a lot of things, holding being a part of it. But it also includes a huge amount of material possessions, regardless the wealth disparity in this country exist and is increasing, that's the only point I'm making.

 

True, most aren't. But some are certainly non-rivaled, ie. one person consuming it doesn't affect anyone else's ability to do the same, such as music or movies.

But it's really irrelevant, wealth may just be numbers on a banks balance sheet, but that's doesn't diminish their value and this doesn't refute my central point.

Your confusing some concepts here. In either case, if demand drops off for a product then we'd expect the price of said good to fall in response assuming this reduction still makes it worth producing. Again though, this doesn't dispute my point that, economics is not zero-sum.

 

With this situation, you are not necessarily impoverished.

In Aquarium A, you have two fish that can provide you dinner.

Once those 2 fish have been satisfactory fried, you will then have an empty aquarium that you can transfer a portion from aquarium B into. You can then take the rest of the overstock of aquarium B and either eat them, or sell them. Once aquarium A and B become over stocked again, you will then have even more fish to provide you with nourishment or income....hopefully enough income to allow you to purchase aquarium C.

 

WOW, another genius