By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 22 October 2008
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I meant your idea about flat vs. scaling ratio. I don't see the connection between that and what you said in that last post.

And certainly, people don't breeze through life in a state of perpetual euphoria, and likely never will, but it is also certain that suffering has greatly decreased in recent centuries.

On a related note, how happy people are is a state of mind that often has little to do with how well-off they ACTUALLY are. Exhibit A: Upper-middle class suburban emo kids.

P.S. "and the rich aren't necissarily on top when it comes to this happiness and "Standard of Life" depending on which values you perfer in the ratio." Did you have the impression that I was saying that money buys happiness? I certainly apologize if I said something to imply that.

It seems like you were saying the rich have a higher standard of living... and therefore should pay more.  When in reality they don't. 

Basically I can't figure out what your arguement is in general of what this "first money" provides that so much more valuable then any other money.

But if you're claiming that article as evidence, then you're equating standard of living to the amount of time per day that someone is happy.  Is that truly your position?  If so then I completely disagree with your premise.  

That's what you were equating it to I thought?

All in all I really don't see what you're even argueing.

I mean the only way to get "Standard of Living" to be perfect is to have a pure socialism where the wealth is spread around completly equally no matter who does what. 

Since Income inequality is basically the biggest indicator in "Standard of Living" ignoring such factors as per capita and such... and you seem against having a full equality in distribution of wealth, your using it as the numbers behind your argument seems to ring false.

It seems like you are saying  a certain level of "Standard of Living" is ideal... but too high isn't good... though you aren't sure where too high is.

Though, I would note that the US constantly ranks in the top 20 as far as Standard of Living is concerned... because our poor basically have access to everything considered in "standard of living" aside from home ownership (Which we actually are 3rd in the world so not much can improve) and the wealth gap.

Basically in addition to the above problem, you are basically argueing that the wealth gap is too high, because the wealth gap is too high since the US constantly ranks in the top 20 for Standard of Living.