In the news

Explain quantitative easing in the UK in the last 7 years then? Over £350 billion 'injected' into the economy, inflation stayed flat.

Only pretty patronising? Ugh. I somehow doubt there are many people who saw that comic and were like "Wow, I never realised that! My eyes have been opened!" unless perhaps they've spent their lives being ignorant oblivious dicks cloud kittens.

I also doubt that @Dammit is unaware of privilege.

Debt went up.

Andy - you, me, our children and their children will be paying that debt off, forever.

debt of forever

deep.

I think @Dammit is a Maltese Prince.

Lets use, as a working example, a post-grad course lecturer.

He or she works for a University and earns £50,000/year.

I reject the premise of your position.

A professor?

Do you think the conversion that has been taking place over the last few pages is simply one in which people are complaining about having less money than others?

it's interesting how this thread has veered into depressingly stereotypical subconscious prejudice - carry on!

some news > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35075702

Moral high ground >>>>>>

This is pretty patronising but demonstrates quite aptly what spiderpie is getting at:
digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/p­rivileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-to­by-morris/

I read this bit "The illustrations depict the story of two individuals born into different households and how their backgrounds and families play a huge role in the kind of opportunities they get in life. '

And stopped there, as its got nothing to do with what Spiderpie (seems, to me) to be talking about?

Spiderpie is asserting that there is a finite amount money available for wages in the world economy, and that for one persons wage to go up anothers has to go down - quantum entanglement for remuneration.

I also doubt it (although I don't know him) but he seemed to be ignoring the point and reducing it to 'this person worked hard and deserves their wage'. Such a simplistic argument deserves an equally simplistic (if wildly patronising) response.

Spiderpie said:

"So to bring it back around to the actual point: To say that someone "earns" something suggests that they gain it deservedly. To me that seems to ignore the realities of how they got to be in such a privileged position, and suggests that the person at the bottom equally deserves to be there."

Nah, Spiderpie's zero-sum argument is a dangerous one.

It seems to me that he's coming from a left-wing point of view. But he's mistaking the old marxist argument that a capitalist's profits is money (unfairly) taken off the worker's wages, and lazily extrapolating that to mean that any money made by anyone must be someone else's loss.

And it's dangerous because it can also be used by the right to block a more progressive society. As in: "Money spent on better education for deprived areas means those kids will grow up to earn higher incomes than their parents. Which again means that in the future they'll be taking money that was meant for my privately educated kids. Hence the plebs must be kept in their place."

Contrary to what Spiderpie thinks, the zero-sum game reasoning serves a right wing agenda far better than a left wing one.

It's a very simplistic argument but is broadly speaking, correct, because we live in a hierarchical society of which wealth is the primary defining factor.

Inflation is effectively controlled by the Bank of England MPC, which maintains interest rates at artificially low rates because of indirect political pressure: there is too much to lose (mostly in terms of the housing market) if rates rise. Inflation rates have therefore stopped being an indicator of economic activity.

This is my understanding as an armchair spectator, I am not an economist.

Also genuine drivers of low inflation (falling oil prices, supermarket price wars, falling technology prices) are not affected by QE.

It's far too simplistic, to the point that it's polemic with no substance.

It's hardly an attack, just pulling focus to the part I understood to be the main gist.

Anyway, isn't zero-sum blown out of the water by FR banking? Breaking the link between money owed and money lent?

Do you think the conversion that has been taking place over the last few pages is simply one in which people are complaining about having less money than others?

Not exclusively, no. I think there is more than one thread to the conversation.

Do you think the conversation that has been taking place over the last few pages has nothing at all to do with how people feel about having less money than others?

Zero-sum is blown out of the water by looking at how societies over time collectively become either richer or poorer. The problem of course is working out how that happens.

A very crude observation of the last 10 years in a few different countries:

Norway -> lots of oil -> everybody better off
Venezuela -> lots of oil -> everybody worse off

South Korea -> ??? -> everybody better off
Greece -> ??? -> everybody worse off

*almost everybody

Do you think the conversation that has been taking place over the last few pages has nothing at all to do with how people feel about having less money than others?

In the general, absolutely. How could it not - it's a discussion about the economy, redistribution, and wealth.

In the particular, not until your post.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34903577

If anyone fancies a laugh.

you must have missed this from Spiderpie:

To say that someone "earns" something suggests that they gain it deservedly. To me that seems to ignore the realities of how they got to be in such a privileged position, and suggests that the person at the bottom equally deserves to be there.

and this from Jwestland

I don't mind others having more, but I can't stand people who just want to work being left out as wages are too low, housing is too expensive, studying is too expensive, in other words the whole social mobility is going to pot as some people are unwilling to share their pot. Quite a few rich people are of course not like that, but the current Tory lot is