As said above, England don't need Scotland.
If Scotland became independent, the extremely large amount of unionists in the country would cause havoc. Rioting, looting, and and an even bigger split of the people of Scotland (nationalists vs unionists), who already have extremely violent tendencies towards each other as it is.
The Scottish government don't want that blood on their hands.
So, when Bill Gates walks into a bar, on average, the 10 regular people in it are all billionaires, and if I asked the, could easily throw a million my way.
If you are going to look at incomes, median is a better measure, and one should, as noted above, consider how that wealth and income are concentrated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ni_coefficient
Let me know when this guy submits his research to an economics journal.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-25-2014 at 12:22 PM. Reason: proof-reading
LOL, yeah that was pretty stupid using averages to discuss wealth inequality.
LOL I remember back in the 80s and 90s when people would always talk about Mexico being such a country because the wealth was so concentrated at the top. Now the US inequality is a lot closer to Mexico than of its good neighbor Canada.
Last edited by baseline bum; 08-25-2014 at 12:04 PM.
I suppose you would have a great point if there was a Bill Gates in each state (lol, especially with a pop. of 10) or if Britain had no billionaires.
The top 10 billionaires in GB are each richer than the wealthiest person in these states:
Alabama
Delaware
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Mississippi
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
West Virginia
It wasn't about wealth inequality.LOL, yeah that was pretty stupid using averages to discuss wealth inequality.
There are lots of reasons that Mexico is a country.
So, he hasn't submitted his research to any kind of peer review?
It was about income inequality, and the point about averages still stands.
The guys thinking was amateurish and sloppy, and just happened to support your ideological/psychological need to have socialist countries be worse off than the US, which is, in theory, less socialistic.
So you lapped it up. Ends up saying more about you than anything else, IMO.
He writes for the telegraph.
It's got a similar reputation as the National Enquirer does here.
Indeed.this is not a measure of median incomes and living standards
I see what you did there.
So this is not a measure of median incomes and living standards although it is a useful guide to them.
lol useful guide
Why cant any of them just measure median incomes and living standards?
Sounds like a good exercise. Get to it.
Or, if you find one, post it.
I'll just be content that they were afraid to do it.
Good work by them,.
I'm sure they were afraid to do it. Lol
They certainly avoided doing it. Did the internet run out of space for it?
No, they were afraid.
Did Darrin post something he didn't really understand again? Between he and WC I don't know which one does it more. Darrin exhibits one of the most lazy minds i have ever seen.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 08-25-2014 at 09:44 PM.
English hard.
More plausible than lack of bits.
What's more embarrassing: England losing Scotland, or the Sharts losing that 3-0 lead?
The first thing that will happen after the Scottish successfully secede from the United Kingdom is that Rangers and Celtic fans are going to kill each other.
They've basically done that already, but Rangers fans would have the backing of England, due to the Celtic fans siding with the IRA
We have HertlWhat's more embarrassing: England losing Scotland, or the Sharts losing that 3-0 lead?
Tee, hee.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
