More for the War, less for the poor

[Glaucus]

Well then you should stick to black and white language. Fade's example of mining himself to wealth would not likely put him in the top .1% bracket. If you're gonna talk about the edge cases, be more specific then using words like "rich", because depending on your perspective, the "rich" are way more then just the .1% of the population.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Well then you should stick to black and white language. Fade's example of mining himself to wealth would not likely put him in the top .1% bracket. If you're gonna talk about the edge cases, be more specific then using words like "rich", because depending on your perspective, the "rich" are way more then just the .1% of the population.

Compared to the top 0.1% of the population, everyone is poor. There is only ambiguity talking about the rich when the rich are excluded from the picture.

 

[Glaucus]

Compared to the top 0.1% of the population, everyone is poor.

And compared to those who are starving, everyone is rich.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Compared to the top 0.1% of the population, everyone is poor.

And compared to those who are starving, everyone is rich.

There's much more gray area on that end of the spectrum because the curve is shallower.

 

[Glaucus]

There's much more gray area on that end of the spectrum because the curve is shallower.

That all depends on what criteria you use to draw the graph. If you were to draw that graph not based on hundred dollar bills worth of income but by nutrients eaten you see that those who are so poor that they do not have a reliable food source eat less nutrients then everyone else who eat regularly. Those who make $10 an hour may not eat like kings, but they don't starve either. Admittedly you're not gonna find a lot of people actually starving in a place like Canada, but there are parts of the world where food is a scarce commodity. Still, poverty to the point of starvation does exist in NA if you look for it.

Canadian Children Go Hungry

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

There's much more gray area on that end of the spectrum because the curve is shallower.

That all depends on what criteria you use to draw the graph.

Not really. There are so many starving people that there are just more variety among the starving than among the rich. The starving are not, unfortunately, an exceptional group.

 

[Glaucus]

Not really. There are so many starving people that there are just more variety among the starving than among the rich. The starving are not, unfortunately, an exceptional group.

Look, I agree with the premise of this thread, that there exist people rich enough to influence world politics in such ways so that it benefits themselves, and that their influence can be so strong as to lead nations into war. The point I was trying to make is that using the word "rich" to describe these people is just so vague that different readers will interpret it differently and that can impact on the integrity of your argument. Just look at Fade's response, he completely missed the point and not just because he's being intentionally difficult. Being more specific should avoid that.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Just look at Fade's response, he completely missed the point and not just because he's being intentionally difficult.

Really? I thought he was. After all, his second post in the thread was an attempt to redefine the meaning of "rich" down to about the median income in the US. That looks at least a little bit intentional.