Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

This new finding that poverty is rising isn’t all it seems.

4 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. At the risk of starting a firestorm, I don’t think it is three cheers for free market capitalism. At least, it’s not quite. Applying Adam Smith’s linen shirt, the economy has doubled yet twice as many people as 30 years ago are essentially saying they are not benefiting from that growth. That is almost certainly too many. History offers plenty of examples of empires crumbling from within because the spoils of empire, or the opportunities if you wish, weren’t shared enough. One could argue the Roman Republic fell to the emperors because the patricians didn’t share enough.

  2. Survey person: “Do you only partly heat your house in winter”
    BiG: “Yes”.
    Survey person: “I am putting you down as officially poor”.
    BiG: “B..b..but, I’m one of the 1%, or near as damnit. Globally I’m unquestionably a 1%er and grateful for it. You can’t do that! It’s deceitful!”
    Survey person: “Yes I can, we need more poor people for our survey”.

  3. I assume that references to “British households” mean households in Britain, rather than households of British nationality. I’d expect to find a disproportionate number of immigrants amongst the poor. I wonder how the figures look if you don’t count them.

    For politicians courting votes it’s an important distinction. There’s no point showering benefits on non-voters, other than to score Brownie-points with Guardian readers.

  4. “But if you live in a society where not having enough to be able to afford a linen shirt means you are regarded as poor then in that society you are indeed poor.”

    And in this society the correct response to some who claims this to be poor is so fucking what, wear cotton from Primarni.

    All societies rank people in to hierarchies, if this be on the basis of your shirt or how you hold your knife and fork so be it. If we had Star Trek material goods equality they would then go on more about the socially dis-enfranchised not going to the theatre enough or whatever.

    They have defined “proverty” so that the poor will always exist so that they have an excuse to destroy liberty with their courageous state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *