Curing poverty.



    1. Stop printing of money completely. Burn all existing currencies and melt all coins. Get rid of banking system (include bank / credit card company / stock market / future market etc).

    Watch poverty diseaper.


    So do you think Nagesh is Great Economist or Great[b]est[/b] Economist?


  •  Great, now everybody is poor.



  • An easier solution with fewer side effects is to tear out all of the 'P' pages in the dictionary, no?



  •  gets popcorn and waits for all the armchair economists who take this too seriously.



    1. Kill all the poor people.
    2. Soylent Green them!
    3. Problem solved!


  • @ekolis said:

    1. Kill all the poor people.

    1. Soylent Green them!
    2. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set.
    And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100



  • @dhromed said:

     Great, now everybody is poor.

    Double Wrong! Why think of half empty cup when you can instead think of half full cup?



  • @Nagesh said:

    @ekolis said:
    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set. And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100

     

    Only if you're looking at a relative scale.  If instead you're saying "you're poor if you're below the poverty line" this will indeed work.


  • @ekolis said:

    1. Kill all the poor people.

    1. Soylent Green them!
    2. Problem solved!
     

    That's not curing them.  You need to add step 2.1 Soak them in brine and 2.2 Hang them in a smokehouse for a couple of days.



  • @da Doctah said:

    @ekolis said:

    1. Kill all the poor people.

    1. Soylent Green them!
    2. Problem solved!
     

    That's not curing them.  You need to add step 2.1 Soak them in brine and 2.2 Hang them in a smokehouse for a couple of days.

    You are talking about curation process which is used to preserve meat so that it can be eaten after long time.

    Not funny when aplied to people.



  • @Nagesh said:

    @da Doctah said:

    @ekolis said:

    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!
     

    That's not curing them.  You need to add step 2.1 Soak them in brine and 2.2 Hang them in a smokehouse for a couple of days.

    You are talking about curation process which is used to preserve meat so that it can be eaten after long time.

    Not funny when aplied to people.

    Only practical.


  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Nagesh said:

    @ekolis said:
    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set. And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100

     

    Only if you're looking at a relative scale.  If instead you're saying "you're poor if you're below the poverty line" this will indeed work.

    Yes. Poverty is always relative only. In some case it is also cause due to relative



  • @Nagesh said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @Nagesh said:

    @ekolis said:
    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set. And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100

     

    Only if you're looking at a relative scale.  If instead you're saying "you're poor if you're below the poverty line" this will indeed work.

    Yes. Poverty is always relative only. In some case it is also cause due to relative

    Nope. In Cuba everyone (except the president and his closest circle) had to spend the most of the dictatorship living on the same income. Nobody was richer than anybody else, but that didn't mean they weren't poor, since even today you still almost have to kill for a little paper and a couple pens.



  • @Renan said:

    @Nagesh said:
    @Sutherlands said:

    @Nagesh said:

    @ekolis said:
    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set. And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100

     

    Only if you're looking at a relative scale.  If instead you're saying "you're poor if you're below the poverty line" this will indeed work.

    Yes. Poverty is always relative only. In some case it is also cause due to relative

    Nope. In Cuba everyone (except the president and his closest circle) had to spend the most of the dictatorship living on the same income. Nobody was richer than anybody else, but that didn't mean they weren't poor, since even today you still almost have to kill for a little paper and a couple pens.

    I have heard of Mr Castro, but the exception is cause of poverty. Get rid of exceptions. if all posible exception are handled correctly, program never has a bug.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Nagesh said:
    @ekolis said:
    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set. And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100

    Only if you're looking at a relative scale.  If instead you're saying "you're poor if you're below the poverty line" this will indeed work.
    Poverty is generally defined as a relative measure. For example in the UK:
    60% of median income is widely accepted at the primary threshold of income poverty that should be used.
    and it's broken for exactly the same reason - as soon as you start bringing those in poverty out of poverty, then the absolute level creeps up, thus the 'goal' of 'eradicating poverty' can never really be achieved.


  • @PJH said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    @Nagesh said:
    @ekolis said:
    1. Kill all the poor people. 2. Soylent Green them! 3. Problem solved!

    Aproach is flawed.

    1) Assume there's index of 1 - 100 of rich people, with poor being at 1 and rich being at 100. If you kill all people at level 1, then 2 - 100 becomes the new set. And 2 become the new poor

    So this process will have to continue forever till everyone at level 100

    Only if you're looking at a relative scale.  If instead you're saying "you're poor if you're below the poverty line" this will indeed work.
    Poverty is generally defined as a relative measure. For example in the UK:
    60% of median income is widely accepted at the primary threshold of income poverty that should be used.
    and it's broken for exactly the same reason - as soon as you start bringing those in poverty out of poverty, then the absolute level creeps up, thus the 'goal' of 'eradicating poverty' can never really be achieved.

    This is very reason why my 1 million watts brilliant, if I may say so myself, plan will work!


    In few strokes, all poverty will be wiped from face of our planet.



  • @PJH said:

    Poverty is generally defined as a relative measure.
    Citation needed.

    Here's... absolute poverty and relative poverty!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @PJH said:
    Poverty is generally defined as a relative measure.
    Citation needed.
    I gave one. You seem to have omitted it from your quote however, since it was the sentence after the one you did quote.



    But since you appear prefer the second-hand nature of citation that is Wikipedia, note that your link mentions only one entity that uses the absolute measure (The World Bank) and lots of entities that use relative measures ("Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates in several developed countries", the OECD and the EU.) I believe that fits my statement that it is "generally" defined as a relative measure.



  • @PJH said:

    (Poverty)...is "generally" defined as a relative measure.
     

    I think this definition depends on the politics of the situation.  "Absolute poverty" is usually important when you are talking about quality of life kind of things - which is probably why the World Bank uses that measure.  "Relative poverty" is used when people are screaming about "income inequality."  So I think that both definitions are valid for their appropriate context.  In addition, both terms can easily be misused to promote a particular agenda.



  • @Nagesh said:

    You are talking about curation process which is used to preserve meat so that it can be eaten after long time.

    Not funny when aplied to people.

    Secret's in the sauce! Or so I've been told . . .


  • @PJH said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    @PJH said:
    Poverty is generally defined as a relative measure.
    Citation needed.
    I gave one. You seem to have omitted it from your quote however, since it was the sentence after the one you did quote.

    Citation != Example

    Heck, if anecdotal evidence were all you needed to prove a point, I'd be a millionaire!

    @PJH said:

    But since you appear prefer the second-hand nature of citation that is Wikipedia, note that your link mentions only one entity that uses the absolute measure (The World Bank) and lots of entities that use relative measures ("Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates in several developed countries", the OECD and the EU.) I believe that fits my statement that it is "generally" defined as a relative measure.
    3 examples is still not evidence.



  • @Nagesh said:

    You are talking about curation process which is used to preserve meat so that it can be eaten after long time.

    Not funny when aplied to people.

    That's a matter of taste, isn't it?


  • @frits said:

    @Nagesh said:

    You are talking about curation process which is used to preserve meat so that it can be eaten after long time.

    Not funny when aplied to people.

    That's a matter of taste, isn't it?

    Or the Futurama version: "it varies from person to person."



  • @Sutherlands said:

    3 examples is still not evidence.
    Since I quoted more than 3 examples from your favoured citation, (hint: "several" != 1) I can clearly not satisfy your criteria, even from your preferred source. I'll treat this as 'agree to disagree,' since I get the impression that even if I cited more than 100 examples of institutions (especially including governments) that prefer relative over absolute for their measure, you would still consider it [hearsay|heresy].



  • @PJH said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    3 examples is still not evidence.
    Since I quoted more than 3 examples from your favoured citation, (hint: "several" != 1) I can clearly not satisfy your criteria, even from your preferred source. I'll treat this as 'agree to disagree,' since I get the impression that even if I cited more than 100 examples of institutions (especially including governments) that prefer relative over absolute for their measure, you would still consider it [hearsay|heresy].
    Are you now implying that "several developed countries" is enough to prove that it is the generally accepted term? Moreover, are you trying to use it to prove as a counterpoint to me saying that you can use absolute poverty as a guideline? Because if not then I still fail to see your point.



  • What in the fuck are you two doing?



  • @dhromed said:

    What in the fuck are you two doing?

    Oh... you know.... 😉



  • Worst troll thread so far in 2012.

     



  • @Nagesh said:

    Yes. Poverty is always relative only. In some case it is also cause due to relative


    I don't believe it. A Nagesh post which was actually funny. More like this, please.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Most useful thread so far in 2012.

     

    Thanks for support!



  • @PJH said:

    @Sutherlands said:
    3 examples is still not evidence.
    Since I quoted more than 3 examples from your favoured citation, (hint: "several" != 1) I can clearly not satisfy your criteria, even from your preferred source. I'll treat this as 'agree to disagree,' since I get the impression that even if I cited more than 100 examples of institutions (especially including governments) that prefer relative over absolute for their measure, you would still consider it [hearsay|heresy].

    Poverty is relative when elected official talk of it. For common man like me, poverty is absolute. Relative wealth not benefit to anyone unless you are at top end of the spektrum. For people in middle, they screwed one way or other. My system will restore order. No exceptions not even me also. That is way to go.



  • @Nagesh said:

    Poverty is relative when elected official talk of it. For common man like me, poverty is absolute. Relative wealth not benefit to anyone unless you are at top end of the spektrum. For people in middle, they screwed one way or other. My system will restore order. No exceptions not even me also. That is way to go.

    And yet, even your "absolute" definition isn't terribly absolute. What's considered poverty in the US is very different than what's considered poverty in India. One of the more "amusing" things to come up as a result of the "Occupy" movement and their 99% junk is that when you include the entire world population, the 1%ers are everyone making above something like $45K per year. I believe that US median household income is currently about $33K per year.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Nagesh said:
    Poverty is relative when elected official talk of it. For common man like me, poverty is absolute. Relative wealth not benefit to anyone unless you are at top end of the spektrum. For people in middle, they screwed one way or other. My system will restore order. No exceptions not even me also. That is way to go.

    And yet, even your "absolute" definition isn't terribly absolute. What's considered poverty in the US is very different than what's considered poverty in India. One of the more "amusing" things to come up as a result of the "Occupy" movement and their 99% junk is that when you include the entire world population, the 1%ers are everyone making above something like $45K per year. I believe that US median household income is currently about $33K per year.

    No definition is not terrible, it is very real.

    Everywhere I go same story. 5% population control 95% population. If 5% is benvolent, all is well, once they go bad, 95% suffer. That movement in US is big flop show. Nothing is going to happen. Once they are handed tea, coffee and biscuits, these people will go home.



  • @Nagesh said:

    Everywhere I go same story. 5% population control 95% population. If 5% is benvolent, all is well, once they go bad, 95% suffer.

    Define "control." For that matter, define where you go.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Nagesh said:
    Everywhere I go same story. 5% population control 95% population. If 5% is benvolent, all is well, once they go bad, 95% suffer.

    Define "control." For that matter, define where you go.

    If the 5% guy want you to wake up at 4:40 AM and come to office, you will wake up and come to office. You might give him some bad words or curse him, but you will be doing what he tell you to do.

    I go to Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Philipines, Sri Lanka, Malayasia, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia. Does not mater where I go.



  • @Nagesh said:

    If the 5% guy want you to wake up at 4:40 AM and come to office, you will wake up and come to office. You might give him some bad words or curse him, but you will be doing what he tell you to do.

    I see. More stupid ass group account trolling. Not sure why I expected anything different, especially in this thread.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Nagesh said:
    If the 5% guy want you to wake up at 4:40 AM and come to office, you will wake up and come to office. You might give him some bad words or curse him, but you will be doing what he tell you to do.
    I see. More stupid ass group account trolling. Not sure why I expected anything different, especially in this thread.
    Psh.  Just the kind of response I'd expect from the 1%!



  • @Sutherlands said:

    Psh.  Just the kind of response I'd expect from the 1%!

    Damn straight! Those pussy 5%ers...



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Nagesh said:
    If the 5% guy want you to wake up at 4:40 AM and come to office, you will wake up and come to office. You might give him some bad words or curse him, but you will be doing what he tell you to do.

    I see. More stupid ass group account trolling. Not sure why I expected anything different, especially in this thread.

    You ask for example on control, I give you one and now you are bemoaning on that.



  • @Nagesh said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @Nagesh said:
    If the 5% guy want you to wake up at 4:40 AM and come to office, you will wake up and come to office. You might give him some bad words or curse him, but you will be doing what he tell you to do.

    I see. More stupid ass group account trolling. Not sure why I expected anything different, especially in this thread.

    You ask for example on control, I give you one and now you are bemoaning on that.

    Yes, when you enter a voluntary employment agreement, and then whine about it like you did, I'm going to call bullshit.



  • @Renan said:

    Nope. In Cuba everyone (except the president and his closest circle) had to spend the most of the dictatorship living on the same income.

    Not true, power yes, but actual salary was not that much

    @Renan said:

    Nobody was richer than anybody else
    Not true either, exception existed, not all of them related to having cozy high ranking government jobs

     @Renan said:

    since even today you still almost have to kill for a little paper and a couple pens

    Also untrue, but I'll let it slide as I suppose you were exagerating to make it funnier



  • I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.



  • @Yaos said:

    I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.

    Everyone has by now heard of story about lumberjack, axe and chainsaw. Windows 7 did not create bankrupt situation, the management did.



  • @Nagesh said:

    @Yaos said:
    I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.

    Everyone has by now heard of story about lumberjack, axe and chainsaw. Windows 7 did not create bankrupt situation, the management did.

    Okay, Nagesh is some kind of troll, right?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Nagesh said:
    @Yaos said:
    I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.
    Everyone has by now heard of story about lumberjack, axe and chainsaw. Windows 7 did not create bankrupt situation, the management did.
    Okay, Nagesh is some kind of troll, right?

    Aren't we all?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Nagesh said:
    @Yaos said:
    I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.

    Everyone has by now heard of story about lumberjack, axe and chainsaw. Windows 7 did not create bankrupt situation, the management did.

    Okay, Nagesh is some kind of troll, right?


    Okay, and you are like some kind of idiot, right?


  • @Nagesh said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Nagesh said:
    @Yaos said:
    I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.

    Everyone has by now heard of story about lumberjack, axe and chainsaw. Windows 7 did not create bankrupt situation, the management did.

    Okay, Nagesh is some kind of troll, right?


    Okay, and you are like some kind of idiot, right?
    Nagesh drops the bad English act to call you an idiot!  You should feel accomplished.


  • @Sutherlands said:

    @Nagesh said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Nagesh said:
    @Yaos said:
    I a person that works with computers I know that replacing everything overnight is a good idea. That's how we moved 500 jillion users to Windows 7 and by coincidence the company went bankrupt a few months later.

    Everyone has by now heard of story about lumberjack, axe and chainsaw. Windows 7 did not create bankrupt situation, the management did.

    Okay, Nagesh is some kind of troll, right?


    Okay, and you are like some kind of idiot, right?
    Nagesh drops the bad English act to call you an idiot!  You should feel accomplished.

    Thought #1: He's a snarky Westerner doing an impersonation that illustrates the folly of offshoring.

    Thought #2: He's a literal illustration of the folly of offshoring.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Thought #2: He's a literal illustration of the folly of offshoring.
     

    .. He's a drawing?

    Like... a cartoon?



  • <dickweed_time>He did say that morbs was like some kind of idiot, rather than an actual one.

    I'm sure if we all searched carefully, we could find some kind of idiot that has a passing similarity to Morbs. However, I'm excluded from such an activity: I'm currently monitoring a recently-applied layer of emulsion dehydrate over time to eventually form a smooth surface that's non-cohesive to the touch.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.