What i was getting at is that the video you posted does exactly that.
Yes... That's what I mean when I say the video was illustrating what I meant.
That already happens, my company contracts out all support positions.
I don't think I know of a single big company in Belgium (make fun all you want, I'll wait for you to stop laughing...But we do have an absolutely amazing amount of European and international headquarters due to Brussels) who doesn't. IT, cleaning, building maintenance (usually), dispatching, helpdesk stuff, logistics, security, counsel, payroll, HR,... heck, one of the biggest employers in the country nowadays is a company specialised in doing other companies' paper work.
So you used a misleading video to counter another misleading video?
Sigh. No. I used a video that presented statistics in an agenda-favourable way to point out that the other video was as guilty. You can use the numbers to fit whatever policy you want. I wasn't saying "This video counters that," but "This rebuttal is the same thing." Hence lies, damned lies, and statistics.
So you used another video where they used statistics to show the first video could also be wrong?
Maybe so, but I wasn't saying that 'this video shows that the first video is wrong' - although in other points I noted where it was at best misleading, and at worst lying - I was saying simply that such a rebuttal showing similar stats in a different way can apparently demonstrate the opposite point.
I feel like the video was misinterpreted as receiving my resounding support, and that in fact, we agree that all it does is show that statistics are malleable. I was unclear, perhaps. But my biggest problem with the original video was never its normative ideas about wealth, but about its honesty, and I felt that a similar video making the opposite point was demonstrating why I found that to be a problem.
Real wealth is happiness and growth as a person, and the best distribution is evenly amongst all people who I think deserve it.
(From the article "Is Inequality Inevitable?" published Nov 1, 2019 in Scientific American)
Call me old-fashioned, but I thought this “game” was supposed to be a team thing where all of Humanity benefits, and not the glorified global concentration camp it is becoming.
But not everyone agrees. Therein lies the problem.
Plenty of board games around where most players are cooperative, but one or two act as a saboteur and have to try and undermine the people from within.
When was this in fashion again?
I’m pragmatic enough to realize there is probably some kind of feedback mechanism at work. There are those predisposed to rugged, selfishly individualistic "What's mine is mine and you can't have any!" behavior which is probably a desirable trait when a population is spread thinly over a large area and every individual must be self-reliant in order for the whole species to survive. But as population density increases, a tendency towards sharing and cooperation becomes more important to that species' survival... which no doubt grates on the nerves of those with the more individualistic alleles.
Mid-18th Century, again in the late 19th-early 20th Century, and no doubt elsewhen, and I have no idea it won't eventually come back into fashion again.
The ENTIRE Trump family. From Old Man Fred all the way to that 13-year-old brat. If cheeto is gonna publicly attack children, no way does that little shit-stain of a spawn get a pass.
As far as I know, the kid hasn't done anything. Is he a spoiled brat that will grow up to be a grifter just like everyone else in the Trump family? Probably, at least that's what has happened to his previous children. But until then he's just a kid.
That's at the height of mercantilism, when the East India Company had it's own armies that waged wars against Indian kingdoms.
You mean during the Gilded Age and all the other stuff that lead to the Great Depression?
Definitely when we realized we'd have better chance of our species surviving against saber-toothed cats if, instead of abandoning the weakest members a la herd animals, we banded together and fought them off.
Damn communist hunter-gatherers...
Those where literally times when hoarding the wealth at the top caused the whole stack of cards to eventually collapse...
And yet, income inequality was at a lower level than it is now.
But that's down to the physical limitations at the time, not from a lack of trying.
No, this is about people willingly signing up for things they may not be able to pay in the future. It's potentially another 2008 housing crisis in the making, but with cars.Headed for another automobile industry bailout, then?
I was attempting a joke. People are overextending themselves, and they'll end up in debt they can't pay off, which will cause a crash in the automobile market, which will result in businesses getting a bailout (possibly both the automobile makers and the banks), when it's really poor people who need the help.
I had to do 72 months on my 2013 Elantra. I was still in over my head most of the time. Never ever buying new again.
Ah, playing the long game, I see.
That's pretty much any significant purchase these days. Rich people are the only ones allowed to buy anything brand new, and you can have your turn with it only once they're done enjoying it.
