Turn on thread page Beta

Why do the richest 10% own 85% of the worlds wealth? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darknessbehold)
    Because 49% have to put up with the person 51% voted in. Basically means a big F*** you to the 49% who didn't vote for the winner.
    Do you really think that anything more than a tiny minority in this country actually want any available alternative to capitalism?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by (:Becca(:)
    My grandma always used to tell me "It's not what you know, it's who you know."
    Most of the politicians/investment bankers/top 1% come from Eton and other top public schools. And this is the problem.
    It's only a problem if they aren't the best; maybe if you take the kids of some of the most succesful people in the country who've had parents encouraging and nurturing their intellectuality and tutors whenever they need, then make them do an entrance exam where only the best are put into a school with massive resources and amazing pedigree they will end up doing extraordinarily well?! It may not be that fair but it's not fair some people look like susan boyle, you're a splicing of your parents DNA and as such are tied pretty strongly to the way they are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Surely all that actually disagrees with what your gran used to tell you though.
    Because if you are born into a "lower" family, then you can work as hard as possible and be as intelligent as you possibly can, but you won't get anywhere because of the family you were born into?
    That isn't what I said. If you are intelligent and hard working, then you will rise up the classes, and your children will be just like you. As time goes on and all these people rise up, and all the less intelligent in the upper classes go down, it will probably stabilise and the rate of movement will decrease. Now of course, that begs the question why are intelligent and hard working people still being born into the working classes? Well, we haven't had a meritocracy for long. It's going to take a long time for such stabilisation to occur. Probably another 5 generations at least.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    That's capitalism.... and If you have communism you have the exact same thing because you still have rulers at the top and workers at the botom.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The inequality in the world is not a result of capitalism it is result of government. It is in the self interest of government to stop immigrants finding work in their countries which pushes down wages. It is in the self interest of government to protect its own industries. It is in the self interest of government to distribute aid to control foreign nations. It is in the self interest of government to distribute welfare for its own gain.

    The inequality in the world is not a product of capitalism but a product of democracy. It makes no sense that stupid and lazy people in the UK have much higher living standards than intelligent industrious African people to a free marketeer. The reason is that government has protected the stupid lazy people because they for the government that protects them at the expense of everybody else.

    If we had free borders and free markets the concentration of inequality would reduce.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    But surely they should think "I don't want to be like this forever" and use that as their motivation?
    If you're surrounded by people in the same situation as you, you don't think it's possible.

    True, but chav is about an attitude and whole demeanour. I wouldn't want to be treated by a chav tbh. Maybe so, but why is that a problem? I want the best doctors to treat myself and my family, and if they're all privately educated, so be it. If they're all state educated, that's fine too. Whoever is best for the job and the like.
    Not saying that we should let anyone be a doctor, just that familial wealth plays a HUGE part in career opportunities.

    True, but I could have wallowed in self pity and had the mindset of "the world's screwed me over so I'm going to be a miserable sod to everyone I encounter". Although it's not the same as being poor, everyone has difficulties of some kind or another. It's far too easy to blame something going wrong on your problems. Instead you work around it.
    Again, commendable, but some difficulties aren't simply difficulties, but near impossibilities.

    Likelyhood vastly decreases. [/QUOTE]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Workers of the world unite!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    So what would be the incentive to go beyond the most simple form of store managemnt, or Public relations or something?

    And I'd disagree. I know at least 3 or 4 people with a story like that. Just in mine and my parents social circles. But I'd say the stories are few because few people have the drive and right skills to succeed.
    Enjoyment of that area of work perhaps.
    I can guarantee you, very few people from "poor" families go on to earn £100,000+ pa.

    But that's the world we live in, if you pay more you get a better service. Would you like to see all brands done away with and simpley have one model of every product? They tried that in the USSR, didn't turn out so well. And anyway, I don't see the problem with Public schools.
    The reason it didn't work is it wasn't done correctly. There is a reason Lenin and Trotsky are regarded as a heroes, and Stalin not.

    And you'd have what? Wealth equally spread? No thank you, why should some one stake a claim to money I have earned through hard work? Is a 50% tax rate not enough? When will you be happy? When you strip wealthy families down their bare boards? Have them hand over their inherited wealth and live in council flats? Tell them that it's just not fair that they aren't giving their money away?
    I like how you've gone utterly insane by the end of our debate.
    Firstly, I would advocate a near 100% inheritance tax.
    Secondly, Communism can't work as humans are greedy, (see "why would I want to do X if the money isn't good?")
    Thirdly, excellent strawman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The amount of commie in that op was disgusting. You should be ashamed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    I'm not blaming the universities - it's the lazy thing to do. Hence the politicans boring oxbridge and medical school bashing. Oxbridge particularly has made pretty good attempts to widen access, as have a number of medical schools. The problem is right at the heart of the obvious class system in the UK. I don't think it's simply the education system that is rotten - I think a section of British society is actually quite disconnected from the UK that myself and most people on this forum know - and this is manifested in low educational attainment.
    I would agree, but would say that if the education system was fairer, aspirations would change, and that in itself should bring about the changes you were talking about.

    Oxbridge and other universities have made good attempts but private school students still make up about 45% of the student population at Oxbridge. More than 6 times the 7% they represent nationally.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Enjoyment of that area of work perhaps.
    I can guarantee you, very few people from "poor" families go on to earn £100,000+ pa.



    The reason it didn't work is it wasn't done correctly. There is a reason Lenin and Trotsky are regarded as a heroes, and Stalin not.



    I like how you've gone utterly insane by the end of our debate.
    Firstly, I would advocate a near 100% inheritance tax.
    Secondly, Communism can't work as humans are greedy, (see "why would I want to do X if the money isn't good?")
    Thirdly, excellent strawman.
    That's because they have not the drive or skills. There are people in this world who are driven to succeed, and those sated bny mediocraty.

    Uh-huh. I'd go as far to say that it is fundamntally flawed and unworkable. Lenin and Trotsky both had their fair share of ideas that would have ended the same way. Communism doesn't work in the real world.

    And I would not. If I earn money, it's my decision where it goes. By the time it's in my pocket I will have already payed heavy tax on it. Why should I not be allowed to give it to my children? I want them to be secure and to have everything I can provide for them. What right has the State to take that money, when I've already payed my tax on it?

    And no, Communism can't work because it is not a fair system. People are not equal. Some are smarter, some are stronger, and some are useless. Those that excell should be rewarded in real terms, not with a pat on the back. Anyway, that's just with that gross simplification, their are a myriad of reasons Communism cannot work.

    And that was no Strawman. They were questions addressed to you. I never proposed to speak for you or your viewpoint.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    That's because they have not the drive or skills. There are people in this world who are driven to succeed, and those sated bny mediocraty.

    Uh-huh. I'd go as far to say that it is fundamntally flawed and unworkable. Lenin and Trotsky both had their fair share of ideas that would have ended the same way. Communism doesn't work in the real world.

    And I would not. If I earn money, it's my decision where it goes. By the time it's in my pocket I will have already payed heavy tax on it. Why should I not be allowed to give it to my children? I want them to be secure and to have everything I can provide for them. What right has the State to take that money, when I've already payed my tax on it?

    And no, Communism can't work because it is not a fair system. People are not equal. Some are smarter, some are stronger, and some are useless. Those that excell should be rewarded in real terms, not with a pat on the back. Anyway, that's just with that gross simplification, their are a myriad of reasons Communism cannot work.

    And that was no Strawman. They were questions addressed to you. I never proposed to speak for you or your viewpoint.
    Ok, I'll just quickly state my answers and move on because I'm bored now.

    "Money" does not exist. It is provided by the state for your use. This is the main reason you should have to give some it back if you're lucky enough to have over £375,000 (or maybe £345,000, can't remember) when you die.
    Also, you choose to live in this country, the country's rules state that this is how things happen, don't like it, move or try and change the law.

    You seem to be verging on the edge of advocating eugenics, which I have to say is just lovely, and I'm not going to attempt to defend Communism, as I've already said, it can't work.

    Finally, yes, it was a strawman. I can't recall ever saying that I'd "strip wealthy families down their bare boards, have them hand over their inherited wealth and live in council flats and tell them that it's just not fair that they aren't giving their money away." I simply said wealth stays within the wealthy due to the system we have.

    So, yeah, you magicked up some idea of what I was saying and used it to defend your point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Ok, I'll just quickly state my answers and move on because I'm bored now.

    "Money" does not exist. It is provided by the state for your use. .
    Rubbish. The state doesn't have any money - it's all provided by tax.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Archaos)
    Rubbish. The state doesn't have any money - it's all provided by tax.
    What I meant is, the state provides fiat money, without which, no transactions could feasibly be executed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lion and a zebra are put in a cage. After 24 hours the lion owns 100% of the cage space.......

    it's called survival of the fittest!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Because that's the way capitalist societies tend to work, and I don't think it's going to change in the near future. Communism cannot physically work... although you can get closer to it, admittedly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    A lion and a zebra are put in a cage. After 24 hours the lion owns 100% of the cage space.......

    it's called survival of the fittest!
    ...Unless it's a really violent zebra, or a very sedate lion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People like to blind themselves from the truth.

    Even in the UK, the GDP per capita is ~33k $. Do you think they are the problem? That they don't contribute towards humanity's well-being? Or is it instead the interest of those earning millions that are detrimental towards the achievement of a more egalitarian wealth distribution? When a person will earn THOUSANDS of times more than another, it doesn't matter how special you claim he is, there's no way there's any justice to that.

    There are many more factors than just having access to a library and the Internet that are stopping a person from a low income background to strive to overcome his situation. What kind of a future do you think a parent who works all day on a construction site will influence his child to have? What then when the kids you grow up with have the same situation in their home? I'm sure a sociologist can enumerate many many more.

    It doesn't even matter; like someone well said, people will take up servitude so that they can have the infinitesimally small chance that they might live like Kings.

    In our day and age, the chains of slavery are invisible. That doesn't mean you're not a slave, just that you don't realize it. And for some, that is enough. Appearance over reality. Something of a roman heritage.

    Alas, in the end, you can only hope to free yourself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Democratic Communism is one of the best solutions to this radical and exploitative capitalist inequality.

    Look at what it did to Kerala. This state, in India has some of the bets human rights present on earth, a huge amount of doctors per person, and the highest quality of life as well as the number 1 Human Development Index in the whole of India.

    All this was a result of extremely fair and open communist rule.

    " HDI increase 0.814 (high)
    HDI rank 1st (2005)

    Literacy 94.59%

    " Elections for the new Kerala Legislative Assembly were held in 1957; this resulted in the formation of a communist-led government headed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad. Radical reforms introduced by the E. M. S. Namboodiripad's (Indian communist) government in favour of farmers and labourers helped change, to a great extent, the iniquitous social order that had prevailed in the land for a long time. "

    Kerala is its mainificent stage of development today because of the radical communist reforms that took place there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.M.S._Namboodiripad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hi I'm Vivi)
    What kind of a future do you think a parent who works all day on a construction site will influence his child to have? What then when the kids you grow up with have the same situation in their home? I'm sure a sociologist can enumerate many many more.
    If the construction worker needs to be told to encourage their child, perhaps they shouldnt have had children??
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.