- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,739
- Reaction score
- 2,223
- Country
not much to do with billionaires though.
Billionaire, morally defensible?
- Thread starter diy_fun_uk
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Betty lacks knowledge
shock
Betty:
Where would you rather live? A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?
Britain and the US are poor societies with some very rich people
When it comes to average household incomes, the UK may soon need to ask migrant labourers to take a pay cut
www.ft.com
Sponsored Links
Why not cap it at £10,000? Everybody gets the same, just like in a communist country... oh wait. Is that what this thread is really all about?
Now I'm wondering what the comrades who advocate caps and redistribution are willing to sacrifice themselves in the pursuit of equality? Lots of people in the world who will be looking on very enviously at those smart phones, cars, fridges full of food...
Or, we leave capitalism to keep working its magic and see more and more people live longer and enjoy higher living standards over time... regardless of whether some have more than others?
Yes, I think that's probably best. Rather than re-running the disaster of Maoist China and Cambodia under Pol Pot so that jealous losers get to feel better about themselves...
Now I'm wondering what the comrades who advocate caps and redistribution are willing to sacrifice themselves in the pursuit of equality? Lots of people in the world who will be looking on very enviously at those smart phones, cars, fridges full of food...
Or, we leave capitalism to keep working its magic and see more and more people live longer and enjoy higher living standards over time... regardless of whether some have more than others?
Yes, I think that's probably best. Rather than re-running the disaster of Maoist China and Cambodia under Pol Pot so that jealous losers get to feel better about themselves...
But everything to do with your foolish post that I replied to.
In U.K.:
Child poverty has gone up
Pensioner poverty has gone up
Food poverty has gone up
Fuel poverty has gone up
Berty says: “that’s magic”
Apparently it's referred to as limitarianism. Here's the woman I was referring to:
Limitarianism: The case for capping personal wealth
Wealth inequality is a huge problem in society, yet we rarely pause to ask: how much inequality can be justified? Reflecting on this question, Ingrid Robeyns calls for placing limits on how much pe…
blogs.lse.ac.uk
Trickle down economics, I think it's quite widely accepted it didn't work.
What I'm about to type might not be factually correct i.e. I'm maybe looking back through rose-tinted glasses to a time that didn't exist as I imagine. However, I'd assert jobs for the masses, those who are never going to achieve much in a career sense, were more plentiful decades ago when the country was more industrial. With a decline in our manufacturing industry and increasing tech meaning less human resource is required, there are surely less opportunities now to walk into a half decent job. Government will talk about low unemployment etc, however many are working in the zero hour contract sector, fine for some but probably not for most.
Just one example, I remember watching a tv prog years back about a small steel factory. The owner said along the lines of 'I used to employ 50 people however thanks to advances in technology and computers the entire factory can now run with a workforce of 10.'
Scale that scenario across the country. We get waffle from politicians and 'experts' that these people can simply retrain and there are plentiful opportunities for them elsewhere in the workplace. MMmmm ...
I think the biggest problem is actually not related to the job market, it is this:
Over the last 30-40 years:
Wealth of governments has dropped
Wealth of individuals has dropped
Wealth of the wealthy has risen a huge amount
Basically the wealth from governments and people has gone to the wealthy.
The wealthy store the money….where they can buy more assets from the poor and control.
Gary Stevenson, who was a top city trader explains how it works:
No, we were a poorer country then. With the passage of time we have grown more wealthy and can afford safer work places, higher environmental standards, and a ban on child labour. The wealth has been generated by capitalism.
The state might intervene, but it is ultimately parasitic on the capitalist process and tends to slow down the basic wealth generating process - usually in favour of vested interests (crony capitalism) and client groups.
If I am wrong then you will be able to provide examples of non capitalist societies with higher standards of Iiving than ones that are essentially capitalist.
China might be a good start... has it been more or less economically successful since adopting capitalist economic principles? I seem recall tens of millions starved to death during the communist era...
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,739
- Reaction score
- 2,223
- Country
nope - you were desperately trying to suggest the EU had a solution to Billionaires tax hopping and the best you came up with was a corporation tax treaty, which sets the minimum tax rate at 15%. But it is a good example of a race to the bottom. Good old EU, setting world class standards, that almost all were already adhering to.
I'd assert it is related to the job market which in turn has suffered due to some of the points you've listed along with a change in direction that some (many?) individuals simply aren't geared up to adapt to.
Again yes it's a simplistic way to look at things, however I think of the multiple scenarios where towns had a main employer that essentially sustained that area. When that industry declined and the employer closed, the required backfill of other employers didn't happen.
I know there are other factors e.g. those who simply can't be ar5ed to work or educate themselves, however it's a multi-faceted issue for sure.
I'm sure I watched a tv doc that featured Gary Stevenson. He made some good points about the structure of society and how said structure essentially ensures the poor will (generally) always be poor and the rich will keep on getting richer. Can we ever break that model? I doubt it ...
Sponsored Links
