How 10 men at the bar took the wrong option, more or less
In this parable the barman decided to give these men a 20% reduction on the price of beer, from €100 to €80.
Mr Coffee showed how this reduction was spread fairly between the men, with the highest earner getting the lowest percentage cut on what he owed.
However, I believe his solution to this parable was the wrong one. The 20% reduction in price could surely have been replaced with a 25% increase in what they were receiving.
The men could have decided that rather than spread this reduction among themselves there and then, the extra €25 could have been spent possibly on beer, but why not tell the barman to use the money to improve the bar. That way no one would have been paying any more than the original arrangement and they would all have been getting a better service.
In Mr Coffee’s parable the five poorest men who had been paying nothing for their beer argued that they got nothing from the reduction. This implied they should have been happy to have their wealthier friends pay for their beer but, conversely, if the wealthier men had been happy to cover their poorer friends for the €100 bill, then why shouldn’t they be happy to pay exactly the same amount for this better service for all of them.
In Mr Coffee’s example the poorest men were right, I believe. They may not have lost anything if the reduction was redistributed but neither did they gain anything, whereas the others did.
If the money generated during the Celtic Tiger era had been used to develop the infrastructure and services of the country long term rather than giving it back to the wealthier 50% of people so they could have a few years of luxury, then we could all be living in a better country than the one we find ourselves in now with seriously inadequate infrastructure and health and education systems.
Ronan Treacy
Cherbury Mews
Booterstown Ave
Blackrock
Co Dublin
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
