| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] RE: OWNERSHIP: Malthusian Pessimism--a question | | Date: | Saturday, March 5, 2005 08:30:50 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 608 (written by Jessop Sutton) |
(Jessop wrote:-) . This
> means that while the money supply increased dramatically, the
> unit-production/consumption hardly changed in spite of an increase in
> population**. > [Note: ** That means, of course, that people on average
enjoyed less of the
> good things -- but I suppose we could guess that the rich continued to
> consume at an increasing rate while the poor could afford less and less?]
>
----------------------------------------------------------
(Joe replies:-) I wonder if the 'rich' DO 'consume' at an increasing rate,
Jessop? Or do they 'invest' their riches, and try to consolidate their
position?
Seems to me that anyone's personal 'consumption' would be rather limited
'physically', no matter how rich they were. For instance, a rich man may
want to own more than one house for his own use. And if he were really rich
maybe he might have, say, six houses. But would he want sixty? Or
six-hundred? He can still only live in one at a time. And of all of them,
only one is ever going to be 'home'.
There's no evidence to show that Bill Gates, who's often referred to as the
world's 'richest' individual, consumes any more food when he sits down to
eat than any other North American with a small fraction of his income, is
there? He certainly hasn't appeared to put on any weight as a result oif
his 'riches'. And no matter how many suits of clothes a Gates may have, he
still only has one body. And is unlikely to use every waking moment
changing clothes.
So I think I'd have some doubts as to the 'consumption' habits of the
'rich', even when it comes to their indulgences in 'luxuries', as having
much, if any, bearing on the plight of the poor. But as to their
'investment habits' ~ well, that's something else again.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message