Economics.
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It certainly can be, of course.
It is entirely possible for somebody to be successful, become wealthy and pass that on as an inheritence all without cost to the poor.
Thats not to say social injustice does not exist, it does. In every society of any political compass.
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
But not in the case of many (if not all) MP's I suspect.
Not really. It's just a matter of degree.
Any inherited wealth from more than a hundred and fifty years ago is unlikely to have been earned or even paid for.
Today the cost to the poor may be insignificant to the individual, but it is still there if it results in millions or billions of accumulated profit.
If Bill Gates is worth sixty three billion pounds, that is nine pounds from every single person in the world.
Therefore there must be some scope for price reductions or paying the workers in China (or where ever) more.
Sponsored Links
Of course.
It would be difficult in the context of a forum post to even begin comparing the comparisons between capitalism and socialism.
My basic point really is that to make the inference that one person being wealthy results in the causation of somebody being poor is rhetoric not meaningful in any way.
Capitalism encourages individuals to be generate wealth. Wealth generates work and income for others and generates taxes. Taxes mean the disadvantaged can be helped. Which is the flipside to saying wealthy people are the result of poor people.
Its easier to become richer if you start wealthy of course. But social mobility and social justice is needed to ensure a fair society.
Im sure there are lots of builders on here that make a very good living building extensions for wealthy customers.
That may be true but exploitation is still rife and usually has to figure somewhere in the process.
Redistribution of wealth by ripping off the rich.
Yes, I remember reading the first time David Beckham had his head shaved, it cost him £80.
Redistribution of wealth by ripping off the rich.
Whereas the National Lottery, and the gambling trade as a whole, is the reverse.
"The Royal Opera House has won pounds 55m of National Lottery money - and a strong hint of another pounds 23m still to come - towards its pounds 213m redevelopment."
"Up to pounds 23m more will be given at a later stage to the Royal Opera House, in Covent Garden, central London, when it provides the Arts Council with clearer details about the use of a second auditorium, and its plans for the closure period."
"Among other lottery decisions yesterday, the Arts Council awarded pounds 1.38m to the English National Opera"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/royal-opera-house-wins-up-to-pounds-78m-lottery-cash-1592417.html
"In 2016, operating profit excluding High
Rollers and exceptional items was £101.7 million. This is between
Goal 2 (£100 million) and Goal 3 (£110.0 million). This strong
financial performance, combined with successful delivery of his
individual objectives, resulted in an annual bonus for the Chief
Executive Officer of £613,095 which is 68.6% of maximum.
Further details on the 2016 bonus targets and resulting bonus
outcomes can be found on page 79."
"Chief Executive Officer’s total reward summary for 20166
Jim Mullen
Salary £542,000
Benefits £13,000
Annual bonus £613,000 –
Pension contributions £122,000
Total £1,290,000"
"Share award levels – the increase of the Chief Executive Officer’s
award under the Performance Share Plan from 175% to
200% of salary;"
http://ar2016.ladbrokescoralplc.html.investis.com/ui/downloads/pdf/ladbrokes-coral-directors-remuneration-report-2016.pdf
Good, I enjoy opera
The lottery:
Over 80 per cent of its funds go to voluntary and community organisations.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
That is an oversimplistic way of putting it, but the concept holds: one person gaining wealth is at the cost to one or many others. But to say a poor person is poor because someone became wealthy is false. There is not a causality, but it is a zero sum system, i.e. wealth is redistributed. Therefore someone gaining wealth must be at the cost of someone else being poorer.
The problem with a system that encourages individuals to become wealthy is when the checks and balances are skewed in favour of those wealthy.
Especially when those individuals lack the moral value as to how they gain(ed) their wealth.
Builders gaining wealth by building extensions for wealthy customers is entirely and morally different from cowboys doing a shoddy job, and skipping off with an exaggerated sum of money, or even worse, not doing any work at all and taking the money.
Last edited:
'Gaining wealth is at the cost to one or many others'
It does not hold.
It states if one person gains wealth, another is poorer or cant gain wealth.
Makes no sense at all.
There is a spectrum, in which at one end there is exploitation and at the other wealth generation that benefits the poor.
It does not hold.
It states if one person gains wealth, another is poorer or cant gain wealth.
Makes no sense at all.
There is a spectrum, in which at one end there is exploitation and at the other wealth generation that benefits the poor.
How about we try a system that prevents individuals from becoming wealthy. Thatll work
Of course checks and balances are needed, Thats the purpose of government.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Often populated by wealthy individuals.
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,726
- Reaction score
- 64
- Country
Money does not grow on trees!
It is a zero sum system.
That is because you have bastardised the philosophy.
Guess where the majority of wealthy people sit on that spectrum.
And that really is true in the European commission
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
