would anyone like to discuss the meaning of the following statement?

olly300

TruckerT wrote: »

You simply cannot compare 1713 with the present day using numbers.

TruckerT

You can actually adjust the figures for inflation and say what it will get.

There are some historical programs where they say things like someone with an income of £2,000 a year in x would be earning the equivalent of £250,000 today.

TruckerT

TruckerT wrote: »

You simply cannot compare 1713 with the present day using numbers.

TruckerT

You might as well try to compare the economy of another planet.

TruckerT

chewmylegoff

olly300 wrote: »

Have the figures been adjusted for inflation?

In 1700 there was no welfare state, and regardless of how rich or poor you were child mortality was high, dying in child birth was common, etc. So obviously if you are poor you would be better off so it's like comparing apples with pears.

I've also worked in countries that are less unequal than the UK.

It's actually an eye opener to go to someone's house who says they are poor but there is no damp or mould and the rest of property is in very good condition you do realise poverty is relative.

Those GDP per capita figures must be inflation adjusted as some ropey inflation calculator I just looked at said that £1,200 in 1751 is equivalent to £220,000 now.

antrobus

olly300 wrote: »

Have the figures been adjusted for inflation?

Yes, they're in 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars.

They come from an excel file at http://www.ggdc.net/ which is maintained by the Maddison Project, part of the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen, who are apparently interested in this sort of thing.

olly300 wrote: »

....In 1700 there was no welfare state, and regardless of how rich or poor you were child mortality was high, dying in child birth was common, etc....

Wouldn't that be the point? Wealth made the welfare state possible. Wealth improved child care, midwifery, you name it.

chewmylegoff

TruckerT wrote: »

You simply cannot compare 1713 with the present day using numbers.

TruckerT

You can compare what the poorest 10% of people in the UK had relative to the poorest 10% in the world in 1700 (not much more) to what the poorest 10% in the UK have today relative to the poorest 10% in the world.

No-one in the uk today is living in a shanty town and picking over rubbish heaps to find enough rotten food to survive.

TruckerT

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You can compare what the poorest 10% of people in the UK had relative to the poorest 10% in the world in 1700 (not much more) to what the poorest 10% in the UK have today relative to the poorest 10% in the world.

No-one in the uk today is living in a shanty town and picking over rubbish heaps to find enough rotten food to survive.

How many wannabe-capitalists would vote in favour of redistributing their diminishing wealth to the third world?

TruckerT

ps - in 1713, the were probably no heaps of rotting food to pick through...

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

...ps - in 1713, the were probably no heaps of rotting food to pick through...

All I remember from 1713 is that there was a Treaty of Utrecht and we got Gibraltar. On the other hand, I imagine there was plenty of rotting food about; no refrigeration, no canning in 1713.

chewmylegoff

TruckerT wrote: »

How many wannabe-capitalists would vote in favour of redistributing their diminishing wealth to the third world?

TruckerT

ps - in 1713, the were probably no heaps of rotting food to pick through...

You're probably right as the rich would have fed the scraps to their dogs leaving the poor to starve.

I assume that the point that Generali was trying to make when he wrote the sentence you have quoted in your OP is that capitalism has made us much richer as a country than we were before it came along and that as a result we all live in relative comfort - even the poorest 10% that live here.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this as you'll either respond with an impenterably cryptic post or a random, irrelevant question.

TruckerT

chewmylegoff wrote: »

You're probably right as the rich would have fed the scraps to their dogs leaving the poor to starve.

I assume that the point that Generali was trying to make when he wrote the sentence you have quoted in your OP is that capitalism has made us much richer as a country than we were before it came along and that as a result we all live in relative comfort - even the poorest 10% that live here.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this as you'll either respond with an impenterably cryptic post or a random, irrelevant question.

I am pleased to offer a challenge to the simplistic views of the majority of this forum's contributors.

TruckerT

chewmylegoff

TruckerT wrote: »

I am pleased to offer a challenge to the simplistic views of the majority of this forum's contributors.

TruckerT

Why does a mouse when it spins?