A liter of gaz (95) (benzin)

[Fjon]

Nearly every where here is 99.9c - I think everyone is afraid to go over the €1 mark. I think there's one place where you can get it for 86c, but that's the cheapest in the country.
Last September my local garage was charging 83.9c - how the times have changed!

[Aaron]

Nearly every where here is 99.9c - I think everyone is afraid to go over the €1 mark. I think there's one place where you can get it for 86c, but that's the cheapest in the country.
Last September my local garage was charging 83.9c - how the times have changed!

We can only dream about as cheap petrol!

I think it was around €1.20 when I filled my tank last time.

I don't really remember as I don't use car so much nowadays.

[Dakkus]

But reducing poverty IS balancing out social inequalities. They are one and the same.[\quote]

Ok, an example. You have 100 people living in a country, say. 50 of them earn €1000 per week, the other 50 earn €600 per week. The average income is therefore €800 per week. The group on €600 is earning only 75% of the national average. Bad, bad, bad, isn't that right? Those poor pets, only earning €600 per week. How do they survive.

Compare to another country, where again 100 people live. 50 earn €100 per week, 50 earn €98 per week. Wo-hoo! Everyone is within one percent of the national average, who cares that they are probably all starving?

Now, which is the country _you_ would want to live in?

here is only so much wealth that can go round

Wrong. So completely wrong it is unbelievable. The amount of wealth in the world is rising, constantly and mostly thanks to capitalism.

The working class in Europe, for instance, enjoy a standard of living now that in the medieval period was only equalled by people in the nobility.

Capitalism doesn't sound all "nice" and make you feel good like socialism does, but the reason I eventually abandoned the socialist beliefs I held when I was a teenager was because I came to realise that capitalism is the best hope of the world's poor.

Poorness exists only as a comparison between the wealths of different sociological parts of the people.
In one country a person who gets 1000€/month is damn rich. He can have a huge house, eat luxurious food and have gazillion servants doing his daily tasks.
In some another country (for example Finland) a person getting 1000€/month is already wondering how to feed his family and pay the rent at the same time.

That's because in "poorer" countries everything is cheaper.

Stuff ends up being priced about by the average amount of money the people of that country have.
So, if there are very rich (getting for example 5000€/month) people in the country, also the average income per capita is higher, although some of the people might get only 100€/month.
That means food and other such basic needings are then priced so that the poor part of the people can get less with their money than they could, if the rich people had less money.

When the richest people get more money, the shops must raise their prices to keep at the optimal price/amount of stuff sold comparison.
For a shop it doesn't matter that 90% of people can't buy a bread, if the last 10% can pay 10000€ for it. The shop ends up getting more money although less people can afford its products, if the rich people are rich enough.
If they sold their bread for 1€, they'd get far less money than with they do with the higher price.
So, if they follow capitalist immoralism (which is needed to keep a company alive in the 100% capitalistically "working" world), they must let the poor ones starve to stay alive theirselves.

One more explanation for this same thing:
I get less than 500€ per month and have to pay my rent from that. That means I'm not exactly a very rich person in Finland.
But if I moved to a country like for example Bangladesh, I could afford very much more with the same 500€ per month. I can only imagine how much more luxuriously I could live there than I now do here.
And guess where that difference comes from? It comes from the fact that in Bangladesh there would be very much people who are poorer than I am.

So, it's not about the absolute amount of money a person has, but the amount of money a person has compared to how much the other people in the same economical area (normally a country) do. Also remember that in most cases the poorness line is an absolute number, not a compared one.

[Ganymede]

But i doesn't bother me, since i allways buy benzin for 25 euro!

I just love the bad logic of this...

[Anonymous Avenger]

But reducing poverty IS balancing out social inequalities. They are one and the same.

Ok, an example. You have 100 people living in a country, say. 50 of them earn ?1000 per week, the other 50 earn ?600 per week. The average income is therefore ?800 per week. The group on ?600 is earning only 75% of the national average. Bad, bad, bad, isn't that right? Those poor pets, only earning ?600 per week. How do they survive.

Compare to another country, where again 100 people live. 50 earn ?100 per week, 50 earn ?98 per week. Wo-hoo! Everyone is within one percent of the national average, who cares that they are probably all starving?

Now, which is the country _you_ would want to live in?

here is only so much wealth that can go round

Wrong. So completely wrong it is unbelievable. The amount of wealth in the world is rising, constantly and mostly thanks to capitalism.

Any sources on that? How do you measure total amount of wealth? To be exact, amount of wealth of planet Earth is exactly the same as it has always been. It is simply distributed diffirently.

The working class in Europe, for instance, enjoy a standard of living now that in the medieval period was only equalled by people in the nobility.

Capitalism doesn't sound all "nice" and make you feel good like socialism does, but the reason I eventually abandoned the socialist beliefs I held when I was a teenager was because I came to realise that capitalism is the best hope of the world's poor.

Poorness exists only as a comparison between the wealths of different sociological parts of the people.
In one country a person who gets 1000?/month is damn rich. He can have a huge house, eat luxurious food and have gazillion servants doing his daily tasks.
In some another country (for example Finland) a person getting 1000?/month is already wondering how to feed his family and pay the rent at the same time.

That's because in "poorer" countries everything is cheaper.

Except luxury items. Luxury items cost about the same amounth everywhere.

Stuff ends up being priced about by the average amount of money the people of that country have.
So, if there are very rich (getting for example 5000?/month) people in the country, also the average income per capita is higher, although some of the people might get only 100?/month.
That means food and other such basic needings are then priced so that the poor part of the people can get less with their money than they could, if the rich people had less money.

In capitalism, goods are priced based on supply and demand. I see nothing wrong with that. There are other means than getting rid of capitalism to provide basic needs for all citizens, as all western coutries have.

When the richest people get more money, the shops must raise their prices to keep at the optimal price/amount of stuff sold comparison.
For a shop it doesn't matter that 90% of people can't buy a bread, if the last 10% can pay 10000? for it. The shop ends up getting more money although less people can afford its products, if the rich people are rich enough.
If they sold their bread for 1?, they'd get far less money than with they do with the higher price.


So, if they follow capitalist immoralism (which is needed to keep a company alive in the 100% capitalistically "working" world), they must let the poor ones starve to stay alive theirselves.

Why are you creating such a horrible scenario? In none of the western countries there are people starwing to death, as it is in some communist (or socialist dictatorship, to be exact) countries, such as North Korea. You are producing a scenario that could never happen in a real world (e.g. insane alternation of bread price). You are forgetting that in capitalism prices are also controlled by competition.

You used apostropes with the word "work" so I assume that you think capitalist world doesn't work. So you have a better alternative? Please share it with us.

One more explanation for this same thing:
I get less than 500? per month and have to pay my rent from that. That means I'm not exactly a very rich person in Finland.
But if I moved to a country like for example Bangladesh, I could afford very much more with the same 500? per month. I can only imagine how much more luxuriously I could live there than I now do here.
And guess where that difference comes from? It comes from the fact that in Bangladesh there would be very much people who are poorer than I am.

So, it's not about the absolute amount of money a person has, but the amount of money a person has compared to how much the other people in the same economical area (normally a country) do.

No shit, Sherlock.

Overall I'm so annoyed about one thing that leftist/socialist/commie people seem to have. I can see it so clearly from Dakkus' post. It's always the other people that have to change to make a perfect socialist state. They themselves are not ready to lower a one bit of their economic status. They fail to realize that it doesn't matter if the most richest ones would be ripped off, it's the middle class and lower middle class that would have to radically decrease their economical status. The masses. And that would never ever happen.

One more thing: a truly socialist/communist state would never be able to exist without serious violations of human rights since the best performing individuals would simply not approve that they would not be able to climb the social/economic ladder by using their skills. The Soviet Union solved this problem by executing or exiling to Siberia the citizens that didn't accept socialism. So I ask from Dakkus, what's your solution to this? There would be always people realizing that they would be better off with free market.

I find true socialism/communism so inhuman and far from human nature that it simply cannot exist.

I'm a little drunk while posting this so don't mind the errors. This is how I truly feel. I would love to live in a form of "star trek communism" but I simply think it couldn't exist.

But i doesn't bother me, since i allways buy benzin for 25 euro!

I just love the bad logic of this...

Heh! I wondered the same thing!

[Dakkus]

When the richest people get more money, the shops must raise their prices to keep at the optimal price/amount of stuff sold comparison.
For a shop it doesn't matter that 90% of people can't buy a bread, if the last 10% can pay 10000? for it. The shop ends up getting more money although less people can afford its products, if the rich people are rich enough.
If they sold their bread for 1?, they'd get far less money than with they do with the higher price.


So, if they follow capitalist immoralism (which is needed to keep a company alive in the 100% capitalistically "working" world), they must let the poor ones starve to stay alive theirselves.

Why are you creating such a horrible scenario? In none of the western countries there are people starwing to death, as it is in some communist (or socialist dictatorship, to be exact) countries, such as North Korea. You are producing a scenario that could never happen in a real world (e.g. insane alternation of bread price). You are forgetting that in capitalism prices are also controlled by competition.

You used apostropes with the word "work" so I assume that you think capitalist world doesn't work. So you have a better alternative? Please share it with us.

Things are often easier to understand through exaggerations. A fact is, even the price of bread grows higher, if and average person can pay more for it.
I know 10000€ for bread will never happen, but for example 10% difference in that price is really possible. And so is even a difference of 1000%, when I think more of it.
Here a bread normally costs 2€/loaf while in some very poor country it might be 0,20€. And that's indeed a 1000% difference.
If everything a person needs to survive gets even 10% or 20% more expensive, that's really much for the person's purse. And the percentage is much higher than that in the real life.

[airis]

Today the price in Rovaniemi was 1.13 € , but last friday it was 1.18 €. Last weekend I visited several places in Lapland. The cheapest price then was 1,15 € (in Kemijärvi) and the most expensive 1,23 € (in Salla). I also visited Haparanda in Sweden and the price was about 9,5 Swedish kronas per liter.

[psych3]

We have Finnish site http://www.polttoaine.net/ Here on frontpage sentence "Kallein Bensa:" means "The most expensive gas". And now it seems to be 1,240 €.

[Fjon]

This site (if it is updated correctly) also is good for comparisons:

http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/

Once they update the International prices (the ones here are from April 2004), we will have a good indicator of the differences between different countries

[westwind]

Hi everyone!


I went to buy some gaz (benzin, fuel?) for my car yesterday... The liter of SP 95 is 1 euro !! I wonder how much costs a liter in your countries?

I know that it's very cheap in Luxembourg...

Olivier

Lithuania currently:
SP 95 is 0,90 Euro

Latvia:
0,80-0,90 Euro

[magpie]

The German prices can be found here (up to date) and here (historical).