Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on January 18, 2016, 08:56:31 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475
I don't think that this is in any way new. I seem to remeber having a discussion on very similar figures (if not identical) with my father when I first qualified back in the 70s. Have had discussions with other folk since, including economists and politicians.
I'd be interested to see how folk here would "take action on inequality" in the way that Oxfam are asking world leaders meeting in Davos this week to act. Note this isn't simply here in the UK, or Europe; not even the G20. It's context is the global situation.
-
I think inequalities are inevitable. We are never going to have a situation where everyone in the world owns a suburban 4 bedroom home, two cars and drives around on holidays with his wife, two kids and a dog.
Extreme poverty and starvation can perhaps be eradicated with some effort....but there are always going to be the wealthy 1 or 2 % and the rest 99 or 98% (with of course a large gradient among them).
We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.
-
We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.
This is probably truer now than it was say 100 years ago, when the wealth of the 'top people' was largely inherited, whilst an increasing number of the top people are entrepeneurs and business folk who do at least pay others to work for them.
-
This is an interesting take on the figures.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7871947/oxfam-wealth-statistic
As to the second part of your post, I don't think, and doubt that Oxfam thinks, that there is an easy set of actions to take. Rather if the trend of the figures is going in this direction, we probably have to look to change something or understand the affects of it. The complexity of actions in the area of global economics and the interaction it has with politics is, I would argue, past any possibility of grand plans.
I think we can only concentrate on tactical solutions here, looking where there are specific areas of control, in national terms aiming to support those in most need, and in terms of the figures used in the Oxfam headline, that's going to be looking at reducing personal debt, and the property bubble in parts of the country.
Globally we can look best to reducing conflicts, as if that were easy, and dealing with areas ravaged by climactic extremes. That said, other ways of looking at figures point to a glass at least half full, if not getting fuller.
-
We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.
Do they do this by planting wealth trees? The generation of wealth is, I would suggest, some what more complex than this sort of ' top people' hand waving. If anything, it is the system that does it as an emergent property.
-
We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.
No it isn't. The wealth is generated by the rest and commandeered by the "top" greedy people.
-
No it isn't. The wealth is generated by the rest and commandeered by the "top" greedy people.
So, are you sayng thats someone like James Dyson, who created a number of new concepts in cleaning equipment couldn't have made his money without the 'rest'? Surely, there is a pattern whereby someone like Dyson invests time and money into such designs and prototypes, and then employs 'the rest' the produce the ideas that help to pay them. Are you suggesting that the pattern is the other way round?
-
So, are you sayng thats someone like James Dyson, who created a number of new concepts in cleaning equipment couldn't have made his money without the 'rest'? Surely, there is a pattern whereby someone like Dyson invests time and money into such designs and prototypes, and then employs 'the rest' the produce the ideas that help to pay them. Are you suggesting that the pattern is the other way round?
Just to point out 'making money ' and 'creating wealth' don't seem to be synonyms to me. Further there are lots of people 'making money' who don't work as Dyson has.
-
Dear Leonard,
No it isn't. The wealth is generated by the rest and commandeered by the "top" greedy people.
Sounds about right to me, but this kind of story always reminds me of that bloke who owns microsoft, his goal before he shuffles off is to be totally skint when it happens, we need more just like him, more rich to say, right I have my wealth now how can I thank the world for my incredible good luck.
Gonnagle.
-
There did use to be a theatre group called 7:84 which was based on the figure that 7% of the population owned 84% of the wealth - it would seem that this situation has worsened - although that figure may have applied only to the Uk (I can't remember exactly).
Anyhow it is clearly ridiculous that this situation exists given the absolute poverty that so many people around the globe are subjected to. Whilst I do not wish to discourage entrepeneurs like James Dyson I would suggest there are only so many luxury yachts one can own.
It is clear however that any claims that the "trickle down theory" works are complete and utter dog doo.
-
So, are you sayng thats someone like James Dyson, who created a number of new concepts in cleaning equipment couldn't have made his money without the 'rest'? Surely, there is a pattern whereby someone like Dyson invests time and money into such designs and prototypes, and then employs 'the rest' the produce the ideas that help to pay them. Are you suggesting that the pattern is the other way round?
I am saying that the wealth generated by the producing members of society should be shared among all members, not finish up in the pockets of a few.
I say "should" because I am judging according to a moral code. I am perfectly aware that human nature runs contrary to the code, hence the impossibility of achieving true equality.
We can, however, try to keep the inequality within bounds.
-
Ah, dear old 7:84. It is a UK figure though I would note that the difference in numbers doesn't necessarily mean things have got worse since 1:50 could then simply be part of a 7:84 figure, I.e. the next 6 % could own 34% of the assets. It's not clear that the method of calculation of the figures is the same and,I suspect, the 7:84 calculation is more based on assets rather than assets minus debts but anyway here is a link to 7:84's most famous production:
http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=X-r_J14n100
-
Dear Leonard,
Sounds about right to me, but this kind of story always reminds me of that bloke who owns microsoft, his goal before he shuffles off is to be totally skint when it happens, we need more just like him, more rich to say, right I have my wealth now how can I thank the world for my incredible good luck.
Gonnagle.
Fine, but it would be far better to share that wealth before he goes! I know that he is very generous with it already and that is to his credit.
-
Dear Leonard,
Yes I think that is part of his problem ( lucky man to have that kind of problem ) how best to distribute his wealth, he has looked at what ails the world, and one of his ventures is sanitation, building toilets, it not only has created jobs but is saving millions of lives.
Although the documentary I watched regarding the history of toilets, one of the ventures he is investing in, zapping poo with lazers, something to do with saving water, it was a fascinating programme. :o
Gonnagle.
-
It is clear however that any claims that the "trickle down theory" works are complete and utter dog doo.
Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all? Doesn't it simply end up with a few being more equa than the rest?
Seriously, how best can we solve the problem?
-
I am saying that the wealth generated by the producing members of society should be shared among all members, not finish up in the pockets of a few.
I say "should" because I am judging according to a moral code. I am perfectly aware that human nature runs contrary to the code, hence the impossibility of achieving true equality.
We can, however, try to keep the inequality within bounds.
As I asked Trent, how do we do this?
-
Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all? Doesn't it simply end up with a few being more equa than the rest?
Seriously, how best can we solve the problem?
False dichotomy. Trickle down and Marxism are not opposite systems.
-
False dichotomy. Trickle down and Marxism are not opposite systems.
Isn't 'trickle down' just another name for capitalism? Perhaps I should have said communism, though.
-
Isn't 'trickle down' just another name for capitalism? Perhaps I should have said communism, though.
No, it's a theory about how a version of capitalism might work in achieving a specific goal. Further it's simplistic to directly compare capitalism and communism as if they are simple statements on economics, or indeed as if economics necessarily is on a simple right/left split.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475
I don't think that this is in any way new. I seem to remeber having a discussion on very similar figures (if not identical) with my father when I first qualified back in the 70s. Have had discussions with other folk since, including economists and politicians.
I'd be interested to see how folk here would "take action on inequality" in the way that Oxfam are asking world leaders meeting in Davos this week to act. Note this isn't simply here in the UK, or Europe; not even the G20. It's context is the global situation.
It needs neo-liberal globalist economics to come crashing down.
-
Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all?
Has history shown Marxism qua Marxism - that is, the body of economic ideas as put forth by Marx himself in his writings, not his supporters or interpreters but Marx himself (the man who allegedly said: "All I know is, I'm not a Marxist") - ever to have been tried?
-
Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all? Doesn't it simply end up with a few being more equa than the rest?
Seriously, how best can we solve the problem?
Well I wasn't proposing the other system not being a Marxist either now, or in the past - and as already noted it is not an opposite system.
I think the best we can hope for is a more robust response to tax evasion and a fairer distribution of the wealth created.
It takes political guts (of which I see little sign of) to stand up to the corporations and individuals that control so much of the market that I don't know how their values can easily be changed - and I certainly don't see any sign in the West of a concerted effort to minimise the influnce of these malign organisations and individuals.
-
It needs neo-liberal globalist economics to come crashing down.
Ah, yes a depression always helps the poor.
-
As ever I am fairly close to Will Hutton
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/china-economic-crisis-world-economy-global-capitalism
-
Ah, yes a depression always helps the poor.
Ah yes! Because under the current system they're so much beter off, which is why the gap has increased rather than decreased, I assume? We do not have an economic system which enables the poor to exit poverty but one which gives greater profit to multinational corporations and their shareholders at the expense of the poor. Don't be fooled by it. What we have is a neo-liberal grab all.
-
Don't be fooled by it. What we have is a neo-liberal grab all.
I don't think people are necessarily disagreeing with your assessment - just the cure you are proposing.
-
Ah yes! Because under the current system they're so much beter off, which is why the gap has increased rather than decreased, I assume? We do not have an economic system which enables the poor to exit poverty but one which guves greater profit to mutlinational corporations and thrir shareholders at the expense of the poor. Don't be fooled by it. What we have is a neo-liberal grab all.
So why will a depression help the poor? You have an incredibly simplistic way of looking at this if you think that not wanting a full scale depression equals a support for untrammeled capitalism.the current system in a global context has seen improvements in living standards for billions. As already noted, the figures used in the link in the OP are not indicative of what is being claimed.
The idea that protectionism will somehow work while it is constantly undermined by technology was laughable a century ago. In part it is the hangover of that type of attitude which continues to haunt the current approach in that we use the language of anti regulation to back up incredibly large subsidies for areas such as fossil fuel energy.
-
I don't think people are necessarily disagreeing with your assessment - just the cure you are proposing.
It's the only way. Anything else is an implicit thumbs up to the status quo. Without the system crashing down they're far too powerful to force change upon them.
-
As I asked Trent, how do we do this?
I really don't know! I'm not a financial expert, but taxing high incomes and properties seems the right way to go. As I have already observed, human nature will resist giving up what it has, and injustice and poverty have always been with us.
The selfish rich will always find a way round legislation, and we can only keep trying to close the loopholes.
-
It's the only way. Anything else is an implicit thumbs up to the status quo. Without the system crashing down they're far too powerful to force change upon them.
And this new system which magically arise?
-
I think inequalities are inevitable. We are never going to have a situation where everyone in the world owns a suburban 4 bedroom home, two cars and drives around on holidays with his wife, two kids and a dog.
Extreme poverty and starvation can perhaps be eradicated with some effort....but there are always going to be the wealthy 1 or 2 % and the rest 99 or 98% (with of course a large gradient among them).
Relative all the humans tat have ever lived most people in the West are mega rich.
We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.
Bullshit.
-
And this new system which magically arise?
What exactly, who can tell, but an end to the Rothchild's & Co and their legalised brand of extortion which is usury, a system which keeps those in poverty poor.
-
What exactly, who can tell, but an end to the Rothchild's & Co and their legalised brand of extortion which is usury, a system which keeps those in poverty poor.
Jewish name, inevitably.
Obvious anti-Semite is obvious.
-
What exactly, who can tell, but an end to the Rothchild's & Co and their legalised brand of extortion which is usury, a system which keeps those in poverty poor.
Just spunked over your copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I take it?
-
Oh dear! It's a condemnation of a system of kerping the poor poor by lendng them money at excesive interest. There's a reason why the Church banned it for most of it's history. It's immoral.
-
Oh dear! It's a condemnation of a system of kerping the poor poor by lendng them money at excesive interest. There's a reason why the Church banned it for most of it's history. It's immoral.
So the so-called Rothschild 'connection' in your post was purely accidental. Riiiiiiiiight.
-
So the so-called Rothschild 'connection' in your post was purely accidental. Riiiiiiiiight.
No, it was quite deliberate as the name is synonymous with banking and the powerful elite.
-
Oh dear! It's a condemnation of a system of kerping the poor poor by lendng them money at excesive interest. There's a reason why the Church banned it for most of it's history. It's immoral.
So when it was banned people would have gotten richer quicker. Nothing wrong with that statement other than being factually wrong.
-
No, it was quite deliberate as the name is synonymous with banking and the powerful elite.
And anti-Semitism.
-
No, it was quite deliberate as the name is synonymous with banking and the powerful elite.
Likewise HSBC, the NYSE, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates but you didn't mention them.
-
Dear Forum,
A few notes from the Jeremy Vine show on the subject ( actually Vanessa Phelps is hosting, never had much time for that lady, maybe because she is Jewish ::) )
High profit margins low wages.
Seems that Bill Gates is not such a Saint, he has wonderful tax lawyers who makes sure he avoids the usual tax laws.
One guy from some kind of think tank say, there is no legislation to police how the rich give their money away ( something like that ) actually I may have misheard that bit.
One caller suggests that the like of Branson, Dyson have a duty of care to the people they employ, if a company is doing well surely the employees, all employees should benefit, or is that to simplistic.
Gonnagle.
-
And anti-Semitism.
Whatever. They're off limits because they're Jewish. I get it. Any criticism of the immoral practices the epitomise is "anti-semitic". They must love you.
-
Whatever.
Stunning response there. Must have taken, well, seconds.
-
Whatever. They're off limits because they're Jewish. I get it. Any criticism of the immoral practices the epitomise is "anti-semitic". They must love you.
No they are not off limits - it's just that plenty of other people (non-Jewish) do exactly the same thing. Therefore some people think it indicative of a certain mindset that you choose to name a Jew first and foremost.
However I give you this:
Do the Wall Street shuffle
Hear the money rustle
Watch the greenbacks tumble
Feel the Sterling crumble
You need a yen to make a mark
If you wanna make money
You need the luck to make a buck
If you wanna be Getty, Rothschild
You've gotta be cool on Wall Street
You've gotta be cool on Wall Street
I may be wrong but I don't think 10CC were anti-semitic.
-
Whatever. They're off limits because they're Jewish. I get it. Any criticism of the immoral practices the epitomise is "anti-semitic". They must love you.
No, using them as a dog whistle call to cover that you mean Jewish is anti semitic. Who are these 'they' that you are talking about?
-
The neo-libs must love you guys. They have you eating out of their hands. That, or you're just having a bubble bath.
-
The neo-libs must love you guys. They have you eating out of their hands. That, or you're just having a bubble bath.
No (and the phrase is "having a giraffe." But anyway). Trent and NS are correctly identifying the anti-Semitism at work in your choice of a Jewish name when other and in fact vastly more non-Jewish individuals and companies are engaged in what you decry.
We already know that you're the sort of basement-onanistic swivel-eyed conspiracy crank who believes in a secret international cabal of Americans, Jews and Muslims causing all the world's woes, so there's form to say the very least.
-
Dear Forum,
A few notes from the Jeremy Vine show on the subject ( actually Vanessa Phelps is hosting, never had much time for that lady, maybe because she is Jewish ::) )
Gonnagle.
Just to note that I thought that your satire reminds me of something, and then I realised it was the Charlie Hedbo cartoon.
-
No (and the phrase is "having a giraffe." But anyway). Trent and NS are correctly identifying the anti-Semitism at work in your choice of a Jewish name when other and in fact vastly more non-Jewish individuals and companies are engaged in what you decry.
We already know that you're the sort of basement-onanistic swivel-eyed conspiracy crank who believes in a secret international cabal of Americans, Jews and Muslims causing all the world's woes, so there's form to say the very least.
It's most definitely "bubble bath" though there are other variations. I was born and for a while bred in the East End. I know my stuff. http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/bubble_bath_1
As for the second part, I never have been a conspiracy theorist and therefore I do not believe in any outright organised conspiracy but there are definitely forces at work, hyper-capitalist, anti-Christian and anti-European.
-
Dear Shaker,
Actually the colloquialism "having a Giraffe" is the modern version of "having a bubble bath".
Strange the advert I am looking at on this forum is for ladies wigs "syrup of figs" :o
Gonnagle.
-
Ah yes! Because under the current system they're so much better off
Yes, in absolute terms.
-
Yes, in absolute terms.
The gap has increased. That means more has been taken away from the poorest.
-
The gap has increased. That means more has been taken away from the poorest.
Wrong.
Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago. It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.
-
Wrong.
Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago. It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.
So that's it, is it? To think it wrong that so much wealth is in the hands of so few is to "begrudge" others for doing better? You're way off, pal. It's not about begrudging others doing well, it's about greed and wealth off the backs of others. The latter is the neo-liberal, globalist way and the people pulling the strings are the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds.
-
Still wanking over the Protocols I see ::)
-
Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago.
Including the wealthy, who least need it.
It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.
What do we have to do ... applaud them for living off the backs of the poor?
-
Still wanking over the Protocols I see ::)
Er, no! Never have.
-
Wrong.
Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago. It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.
Not sure that globally, this is the case, jeremy - and I believe the 1:99 figures relate to the global context. Think, for intance about the Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees - the one's who could afford the boats and the people smuggling systems. The majority of them probably used the majority of their wealtth to escape Assad/ISIS/etc. Today, they probably have nothing.
-
Not sure that globally, this is the case, jeremy - and I believe the 1:99 figures relate to the global context. Think, for intance about the Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees - the one's who could afford the boats and the people smuggling systems. The majority of them probably used the majority of their wealtth to escape Assad/ISIS/etc. Today, they probably have nothing.
Whoosh
-
A thought, people in the West complaining about equality is like millionaires complaining they can't afford the private Jets that billionaires can.
-
A thought, people in the West complaining about equality is like millionaires complaining they can't afford the private Jets that billionaires can.
Seems a fairly lame comparison to me.
People complain about inequality wherever they perceive it to exist - the fact (if it can even be called a fact, as I don't know of any objective yardstick of such things) that an inequality over here is deemed to be lesser than another, greater inequality over there doesn't change the fact that that first inequality still exists.
-
Seems a fairly lame comparison to me.
People complain about inequality wherever they perceive it to exist - the fact (if it can even be called a fact, as I don't know of any objective yardstick of such things) that an inequality over here is deemed to be lesser than another, greater inequality over there doesn't change the fact that that first inequality still exists.
The politics of envy disguised to be that of compassion.
-
The politics of envy disguised to be that of compassion.
I don't really think so.
If we take the latest govt wheeze to allow landlords to get away with lower standards for rented property - is it really envy to point out that a lttile more money should be spent on such properties by hte more well off in society (in this case landlords) so that poorer sections of society can have adequate housing. Is that what you are saying?
-
The politics of envy disguised to be that of compassion.
campaigning for homosexual equality is just envy?
-
I don't really think so.
If we take the latest govt wheeze to allow landlords to get away with lower standards for rented property - is it really envy to point out that a lttile more money should be spent on such properties by hte more well off in society (in this case landlords) so that poorer sections of society can have adequate housing. Is that what you are saying?
No, you are incredibly rich relative to much of the rest of the human race and we should focus on making the poorest richer not the richest poorer.
-
No, you are incredibly rich relative to much of the rest of the human race and we should focus on making the poorest richer not the richest poorer.
I don't see why not.
It's not as though they're going to miss it.
-
I don't see why not.
It's not as though they're going to miss it.
As you are one of the rich (relative the poorest in the world) that is very kind of you.
-
As you are one of the rich (relative the poorest in the world) that is very kind of you.
Yes but still not one of the 1%.
So why not start the rebalancing there?
-
As you are one of the rich (relative the poorest in the world) that is very kind of you.
Yes, it is.
That's why I do it.
-
Yes but still not one of the 1%.
So why not start the rebalancing there?
Why not the top 10%, why not the top 50%?
Sure you are rich with enough to eat, a safe house and enough free time to spend frivolously on the internet, but look at him next door he has a nicer car, a better house, he can pay for it.
As I said its like millionaires complaining that billionaires are too rich.
-
Not sure that globally, this is the case, jeremy
That's because you don't do any research.
and I believe the 1:99 figures relate to the global context. Think, for intance about the Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees
You think a couple of million refugees can sway the overall statistics of a World population of 7 billion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vr6Q77lUHE
Here is a video that explains how the World has changed.
-
Dear Jakswan,
No, you are incredibly rich relative to much of the rest of the human race and we should focus on making the poorest richer not the richest poorer.
I kind of like that, kind of Biblical, what's that one about the old biddy giving her last penny. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
That's because you don't do any research.
Actually, I have done research; hence my comment.
You think a couple of million refugees can sway the overall statistics of a World population of 7 billion?
The context of this comment was that everyone is better off than they were 50 years ago. I suggested that this was incorrect and gave an example. I could have looked at the situations in Southern Sudan, Nepal, various parts of India - along with many other nations in the bottom third of the global wealth table, were starvation is at least as prominent than it was 50 years ago, simply because whilst people's incomes may have inched up (or should that be centimetred up?), prices have increased far quicker. We even have that situation here in the UK, where incomes have not increased anywhere near as fast as prices have. In £sd/$/€/¥/Rupee terms, people may be richer, but in purchasing terms they are often less well off.
-
I don't see why not.
It's not as though they're going to miss it.
Not quite sure of the number of billionaires and millionaires in the world today, but if we were to remove half their money from them and hand it out to the poorest 25%, it probably wouldn't make that much difference to that 25%.
When we living in Nepal, our monthly 'income' was the equivalent of about £350. On top of that we had rent, education and medical costs 'paid for' (well, it was paid for out of the monies we had managed to raise as support (and, where necessary, one person/family's over 100% support would be shared with those who had less than 100% support - usually single people brought in over 100%, whilst families less than 100%). We calculated that our effective monthly income was therefore nearer £700. That didn't allow us to live like royalty, but we were comfortably off.