Err, what does this actually mean?April 19, 2017 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere22 Comments Here's someone under the guise of objective commentary projecting their privilege by accentuating their differences from the disadvantaged. https://t.co/pfvhOHYb8n — Akin Akíntáyọ̀ (@forakin) April 18, 2017 previousAnother linenextThe Jehovah’s Witnesses are on the rampage again 22 thoughts on “Err, what does this actually mean?” bilbaoboy April 19, 2017 at 6:29 am Oops You’ve come up against the new subjective reality of the postmodernists. Power groups, privilege and hell you are a straight white male. Remember truth is either racist, classcist or whatever. Ljh April 19, 2017 at 6:39 am From across the pond: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/17/claremont-snowflakes-write-hairbrained-open-letter-characterizing-truth-as-a-myth/ “Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples,” they explain. “The idea that there is a single truth–‘the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples.” synp April 19, 2017 at 6:42 am It is all obvious or trivial. You have an American-sounding name. You post a graph showing that the USA is rich while India is poor, because you have privilege and get to write for Forbes, while a poor Indian rickshaw driver doesn’t. Why would you do this? To assure your fellow Americans that you are on top while Indians are on the bottom and to rub the proverbial Indian rickshaw driver’s nose in it. That is projecting your privilege. synp April 19, 2017 at 6:42 am Oh, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Jack Hughes April 19, 2017 at 6:47 am It seems the tweeter, unfortunately, does not have Logic as his first language. Andrew M April 19, 2017 at 6:50 am Pompliano alleges that Spiegel said Snapchat is “only for rich people” and that he didn’t want to “expand into poor countries like India and Spain. India is correct; but Spain? The mind boggles. They’re highly (perhaps even extremely) likely to have the services of a servant or three […] The top of those poorer societies have lower average incomes than the bottom of the richer one. Something’s up with the PPP adjustment. On the one hand a rich East African is poorer than a poor Dane (even with PPP adjustments); but the former can afford servants, whereas the latter can’t. If I were a wealthy East African, I don’t think I’d be in any rush to swap my life for one in the poorer suburbs of Aarhus. Tim Worstall April 19, 2017 at 6:53 am No. A poor place has a low price on human labour. A low price on human labour means a place is poor. The widespread existence of servants shows that a place is poor – because it indicates that human labour is cheap. JuliaM April 19, 2017 at 7:27 am PARKLIFE! Arthur the Cat April 19, 2017 at 8:14 am @Jack Hughes “It seems the tweeter, unfortunately, does not have Logic as his first language.” Probably because speaking Logic is difficult with your head up your arse. Andrew M April 19, 2017 at 8:24 am TW, I suppose it hinges on what’s in the basket of goods for PPP. Looking at overall expenditure, a top-5%er in Uganda can afford to purchase the labour of (e.g.) three servants; whereas the bottom 20% of Denmark probably can’t even purchase one servant’s labour. Tim Worstall April 19, 2017 at 8:27 am The important point being that the Ugandan can’t buy the labour of three Danes but the Dane could still buy the labour of 3 Ugandans. Mr Ecks April 19, 2017 at 8:29 am Akin is akin to a sack of shite. His name needs to be changed to Ache-in’ . Let’s hope the Trumpers can manage it . Battle of Berkeley-style. Mark T April 19, 2017 at 8:38 am Tim, you should be ashamed of yourself, pretending to be from the West Country and living in Portugal when in fact you are clearly American. You should also be ashamed of how upset the Forbes reading rickshaw drivers of India are that you Americans, with your pesky command of the English language and your appeal to an audience that likes to read in English are in fact denying that largely monolingual audience the chance to read the insights of a rickshaw driver in Urdu. Fascist. CJ Nerd April 19, 2017 at 9:32 am It means you’re pretending to do objective commentary, but actually just using the issue as an excuse to tell Indians “I appear to be Considerably Richer Than Yow”. NielsR April 19, 2017 at 9:38 am It’s the usual thing – someone, somewhere, may be having a good time. Therefore patriarchy. Pretty rich from a guy boasting about being a traveller, observer and consultant on his bio, but never mind. Jim April 19, 2017 at 10:01 am I think we can file this in the same folder as the ‘White man’s science is racist’ malarkey in South Africa: http://www.dailywire.com/news/10000/leftist-student-activist-science-racist-and-should-joshua-yasmeh#exit-modal Filed under Bullshit, that is. The Mole April 19, 2017 at 10:04 am “The important point being that the Ugandan can’t buy the labour of three Danes but the Dane could still buy the labour of 3 Ugandans.” That’s true in absolute terms, but surely in PPP terms the Ugandan can afford to have people do his washing, cleaning and cooking, giving him all the utility that that free time is worth, whilst the Dane can’t afford that utility and has to work those hours. The Ugandan appears to have higher purchasing power in their local market (which I thought is what PPP is meant to compare?). I imagine the issue is that trying to use a single number to compare a complex issue will generally always fail, whilst the Ugandan has much higher purchasing power for service jobs, if you compare a different sector such as high tech goods the picture is likely to be very different. Theophrastus April 19, 2017 at 10:05 am Akin Akintayo seems to possess an IQ approaching the sub-saharan average. Tim Worstall April 19, 2017 at 10:06 am Yes, traded goods will trend toward one global price, non-traded won’t. It’s he balance of the two that PPP is trying to describe. Hallowed Be April 19, 2017 at 10:09 am ooh in that forbes comments i spotted the old canard. America has had 200 years to get rich, india only 70. Kruschev made the same point when he saw his first electric waffle iron. Same one the Ayatollah’s make everyday. It’s a point that comes straight out of political propaganda not any economics. And even if you do accept the point that political upheavals can potentially lead to growth its arguable the second american civil war changed economic policy more than the first. Tim Newman April 19, 2017 at 10:20 am He’s Nigerian. They specialise in overwritten, over-elaborate prose on the internet. They do it to show they are educated, at least in comparison to the rest of their countrymen. You could almost say is: someone under the guise of objective commentary projecting their privilege by accentuating their differences from the disadvantaged. john malpas April 19, 2017 at 11:09 pm “The widespread existence of servants shows that a place is poor – because it indicates that human labour is cheap.” Civil servants included? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.