Would you rather have an equal share of nothing or £5000

[llamatron]

Let's not say "disallowed."

 

Let us rather say that, because there is no way to prevent it, the person who agrees to take £25,000 and is nominated to tell the gameshow host who gets what, will then say "I get £500,000" and there's nothing you can do about it; he will get £500,000 because the other nine of you have already said "we will take what this guy tells you we are going to take."

 

Consequently it's not a valid solution to the problem, since you can't enforce the agreement.

 

Ok new answer, I don't reckon I would bother turning up because even if I took the £5000 everyone would argue about the £15000.

[MrSmith]

Ok new answer, I don't reckon I would bother turning up because even if I took the £5000 everyone would argue about the £15000.

 

You are probably right.

 

But based on the poll most members would be happy with the lowest amount.

[Cyclone]

You are probably right.

 

But based on the poll most members would be happy with the lowest amount.

 

That probably just means that they're lying to themselves.

[Amykayleigh]

£5000 is better than nothing.

[Jim Hardie]

To most people, it seems not to be. An amazingly large number would prefer an equal share of nothing to an unfairly small share of something.

 

You can see that even in political arguments; very rarely do you see comparisons between how well off the worst 5% of society is compared to how well off it was ten years ago; you always see them compared to the top 5% and arguments raging about gross unfairness. Personally, if I'm twice as well off as before and some other people are ten times as well off as before, I'm very happy.

 

I suspect the OP intended this as an allegory for capitalism and was intended to flush out those with a twisted sense of entitlement.

[MonkeyLover]

I would take the lowest amount, but I suspect that many other people would too, so in actual fact, we couldn't agree, thereby we would get nothing.

[MrSmith]

I suspect the OP intended this as an allegory for capitalism and was intended to flush out those with a twisted sense of entitlement.

 

It is a little surprising that most people would appear to be happy with a little whilst someone else as a lot considering the opinions on here about the wealthy.