Inequality

[Section_31]

I don't think under capitalism man does always exploit man, only in the post industrial world of mass production. 

 

A farmer, or a plumber, or a shopkeeper is not exploiting anyone, the head of a vast factory or business who creams off money for a handsome living while his workers don't have a pot to piss in is exploiting people - in that sense we've gone backwards rapidly since Reagan and Thatcher destroyed the unions. 

[Bjornebye]

Can they just print a shit load of money and give it to me? Cheers.

[Jairzinho]

I don't think under capitalism man does always exploit man, only in the post industrial world of mass production. 

 

A farmer, or a plumber, or a shopkeeper is not exploiting anyone, the head of a vast factory or business who creams off money for a handsome living while his workers don't have a pot to piss in is exploiting people - in that sense we've gone backwards rapidly since Reagan and Thatcher destroyed the unions. 

 

What we're experiencing now isn't capitalism really. Adam Smith would think most of those in charge of society are complete cunts.

[polymerpunkah]

I'm pretty sure he'd have some issues with an economy like, say, Canada's, where the two richest men control more wealth than the bottom 30%.

 

I think I need to go shopping.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Truper-Manure-Fiberglass-10-Inch-50-Inch/dp/B005Q7CRNU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484701579&sr=8-2&keywords=pitchfork

[Hades]

What we're experiencing now isn't capitalism really. Adam Smith would think most of those in charge of society are complete cunts.

Slavery and child labour were around in his time.

[Section_31]

What we're experiencing now isn't capitalism really. Adam Smith would think most of those in charge of society are complete cunts.

 

Agreed. I have no problem with capitalism as a concept as long as it's restrained, and as said above, plenty of countries - notably the nordic nations - and us and the USA in the past have managed it. 

 

The problem I have is rampant 'shackles off' capitalism which quite clearly destroys itself eventually and countless lives in the process. 

 

I didn't know this, but apparently the boardgame Monopoly was invented to show how shit capitalism is, which is why it gets so boring towards the end. The other person gets so wealthy that you simply can't come back and challenge them, they can lend you a bit of money but that only prolongs the inevitable. Sounds familiar.

[Stickman]

 

I didn't know this, but apparently the boardgame Monopoly was invented to show how shit capitalism is, which is why it gets so boring towards the end. The other person gets so wealthy that you simply can't come back and challenge them, they can lend you a bit of money but that only prolongs the inevitable. Sounds familiar.

 

 

I remember watching a documentary on the invention of Monopoly (originally called The Landlords Board Game) a good few years back in which the inventor who was a woman can't remember her name, at first made two sets of rules in which the first game was anti-monopolist in which everyone was rewarded when wealth was created, and a second game in which the game was to crush your opponents..(sounds familiar??).

This was to show the first game was more morally ethical.

The game was eventually picked up by Charles Darrow who changed it and sold it for millions to Parker brothers while the original inventor got fuck all.....

I guess that's classic Capitalism in a nutshell.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

They should make it so that the top hat or the racing car start out with 100 times the money of everyone else, plus all the positive Chance cards.

 

And an army.

[njackets]

are you really so stupid? You sound like the shite that the red tops come out with in order to fire up the mentally subpar. Fuck off with that shit njackets - it offers nothing to the debate, and no-one on here (apart possibly you) is stupid enough to be exercised by that crap.

In a thread were people are arguing for equality, people think it's fine for the executives to earn 100k whilst they ask the people at the bottom to work for free.

 

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer-with-us

 

Strange bunch in here.

[Section_31]

In a thread were people are arguing for equality, people think it's fine for the executives to earn 100k whilst they ask the people at the bottom to work for free.

 

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer-with-us

 

Strange bunch in here.

 

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

In a thread were people are arguing for equality, people think it's fine for the executives to earn 100k whilst they ask the people at the bottom to work for free.

 

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer-with-us

 

Strange bunch in here.

 

Except volunteers are people who chip in as and when they can to help a worthy cause. It's not their job. They usually have another job. Or are semi-retired etc.

[stringvest]

What we're experiencing now isn't capitalism really. Adam Smith would think most of those in charge of society are complete cunts.

 

 

Correct.  It's Neoliberalism. 

[stringvest]

In a thread were people are arguing for equality, people think it's fine for the executives to earn 100k whilst they ask the people at the bottom to work for free.

 

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/volunteer-with-us

 

Strange bunch in here.

 

 

I know many people who earn over 100K who spend significant portions of their spare time helping others through voluntary work.  

 

I think you're just a bit thick if you can't understand why you need someone with intelligence, organisational, financial and influential skills,  to be able to define and communicate a strategy, build or oversee the implementation of a a multitude of planned works, and be able to use skill and judgement to delegate and prioritise.  To work with peers in NGOs and Government, and to take responsibility for a huge fundraising organisation.  

 

you may be very lucky and find someone like that who has retired, but more likely, given the huge commitment the role requires, to have to go to the market to resource it.  Unless of course, you think that job can be done for £200/week by the sort of mouth breather that shares your political views?  I think you do believe that, and that's why I think you're thick.  

[SasaS]

I'm pretty sure he'd have some issues with an economy like, say, Canada's, where the two richest men control more wealth than the bottom 30%.

 

I think I need to go shopping.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Truper-Manure-Fiberglass-10-Inch-50-Inch/dp/B005Q7CRNU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484701579&sr=8-2&keywords=pitchfork

 

I can easily picture Adam Smith crying over terrible inequalities and suffering of the hungry and opressed masses in Canada.

 

[Section_31]

It is genuinely fascinating that capitalism gives rise to a breed of people whose main skill is usery. It's very rarely the scientists or the engineers or the creatives who reap the benefits of their efforts, nor is it the people at the bottom manufacturing them, it's the people in the middle who know how to spin everything to their own advantage. The man who invented the Big Mac probably dies with a three bedroom house in suburbia to show for it, the burger flipper a shared flat, meanwhile the chap who marketed the thing is sending his kids to the Baird School and driving a Bentley. Feels like 90% of the people in our economies don't do anything at all these days except take your sweat and sell it to someone else for twice the price.

[njackets]

I know many people who earn over 100K who spend significant portions of their spare time helping others through voluntary work.

 

I think you're just a bit thick if you can't understand why you need someone with intelligence, organisational, financial and influential skills, to be able to define and communicate a strategy, build or oversee the implementation of a a multitude of planned works, and be able to use skill and judgement to delegate and prioritise. To work with peers in NGOs and Government, and to take responsibility for a huge fundraising organisation.

 

you may be very lucky and find someone like that who has retired, but more likely, given the huge commitment the role requires, to have to go to the market to resource it. Unless of course, you think that job can be done for £200/week by the sort of mouth breather that shares your political views? I think you do believe that, and that's why I think you're thick.

This inequalities argument is bullshit then, people earn what they should depending on responsibilities.

 

The people right at the bottom earning £200 a week are mouth breathers and probably have different political views then yourself?

[stringvest]

This inequalities argument is bullshit then, people earn what they should depending on responsibilities.

 

The people right at the bottom earning £200 a week are mouth breathers and probably have different political views then yourself?

 

 

The inequalities thing is bullshit?  Is it fuck.  People do not earn what they should.  For almost four decades, the top 1 or 2% have been grabbing away an ever increasing proportion of revenue to the detriment of the bottom 50%.  

 

And not everyone earning £200/week is a mouth breather.  I reserve that phrase to those who voted for brexit.  There are plenty of them earning much more than that too.  

[stringvest]

It is genuinely fascinating that capitalism gives rise to a breed of people whose main skill is usery. It's very rarely the scientists or the engineers or the creatives who reap the benefits of their efforts, nor is it the people at the bottom manufacturing them, it's the people in the middle who know how to spin everything to their own advantage. The man who invented the Big Mac probably dies with a three bedroom house in suburbia to show for it, the burger flipper a shared flat, meanwhile the chap who marketed the thing is sending his kids to the Baird School and driving a Bentley. Feels like 90% of the people in our economies don't do anything at all these days except take your sweat and sell it to someone else for twice the price.

 

It's still the 1 or 2% Mark.  Big Pharma may in some cases pay it's scientists and biochemists reasonably well, but those guys won't see a fraction of the profits that those at the top will.  

 

Don't get me going on Marketing.  It's like Estate Agents, can't stand them.  But, in Marketing's case, the reason they're there is because they pay for themselves several times over, and if they don't, they're out on their arse.  

 

I'm doing my bit to remove estate agents from the landscape.  In a couple of weeks I'm putting a house for sale on the internet.  The cost savings are enormous.  

[Rico1304]

It is genuinely fascinating that capitalism gives rise to a breed of people whose main skill is usery. It's very rarely the scientists or the engineers or the creatives who reap the benefits of their efforts, nor is it the people at the bottom manufacturing them, it's the people in the middle who know how to spin everything to their own advantage. The man who invented the Big Mac probably dies with a three bedroom house in suburbia to show for it, the burger flipper a shared flat, meanwhile the chap who marketed the thing is sending his kids to the Baird School and driving a Bentley. Feels like 90% of the people in our economies don't do anything at all these days except take your sweat and sell it to someone else for twice the price.

Bill gates, Elon Musk

[Section_31]

Bill gates, Elon Musk

Walter White. Everyone else.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Bill gates, Elon Musk

Like the man said "very rarely".

[Rico1304]

Aren't most of the people in the top 10 self made?

 

Edit: I also heard at weekend that in 90% of cases family money is gone by the third generation. Unbelievable.

[SasaS]

Apart from self made or not, it is also important how - is it through business and/or technical innovation or, as is the case with Carlos Slim, just by seizing the monopoly through political connections.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

.

[Rico1304]

The richest bloke in Europe made his cash through clothes shops - Id never had guessed at that.