Turn on thread page Beta

Mr Howards Beliefs watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Yes; fair enough. Howard (the other one), however, did.

    My point still stands though, "normally" one does lead to the other, where it doesn't is an exception.
    Well, I think the reverse!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    We could. Indeed, we could never use it up.

    But it still would be finite.
    Sure. But exploring for it, bringing it up from the ground, processing it, and using it to create wealth wouldn't create poverty would it?

    I'm still waiting for a causal link between wealth creation and the exacerbation of poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm still waiting for a causal link between wealth creation and the exacerbation of poverty.
    A causal link, fine.

    The vast majority of "wealth creation" as you put it, is based on the exploitation of labour.

    Worker does work to the value of X.
    Worker gets paid X/3.

    The rich take the difference, further exacerbating poverty.

    Capitalism needs a "flexible", cheap working class to survive, the state ensures that this is available.

    That is how "wealth creation" causes poverty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    A causal link, fine.

    The vast majority of "wealth creation" as you put it, is based on the exploitation of labour.

    Worker does work to the value of X.
    Worker gets paid X/3.

    The rich take the difference, further exacerbating poverty.

    Capitalism needs a "flexible", cheap working class to survive, the state ensures that this is available.

    That is how "wealth creation" causes poverty.
    I certainly agree that a worker does X value of work and get's paid somewhat less than that.....quite possibly X/3, leaving X/2 as profit for the company.

    But if the worker got paid X, then there'd be no company in the first place as there'd be no profit attached to what the company produces. Where there is no profit there is no incentive, and where there is no incentive there is no production.

    So, if the company ceased to exist then that worker would receive precisely X-X =0 and would be an awful lot poorer than before.

    Profit doesn't exacerbate poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Where there is no profit there is no incentive, and where there is no incentive there is no production.
    And this, in a nutshell, is where we differ.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    And this, in a nutshell, is where we differ.
    You can see what happens to production when you take away the "profit factor" by taking a look at the USSR's record as compared to the USA's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You can see what happens to production when you take away the "profit factor" by taking a look at the USSR's record as compared to the USA's.
    I'm not advocating the USSR approach.

    Really though, let's not turn this into a general thread on ideology, there are enough of them already.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    I'm not advocating the USSR approach.

    Really though, let's not turn this into a general thread on ideology, there are enough of them already.
    Fair enough. Ciao fo now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I certainly agree that a worker does X value of work and get's paid somewhat less than that.....quite possibly X/3, leaving X/2 as profit for the company.

    But if the worker got paid X, then there'd be no company in the first place as there'd be no profit attached to what the company produces. Where there is no profit there is no incentive, and where there is no incentive there is no production.

    So, if the company ceased to exist then that worker would receive precisely X-X =0 and would be an awful lot poorer than before.

    Profit doesn't exacerbate poverty.
    What I was hinting at in my original post is that right wing ideals (or capitalism) allow discrimination at a fundamental level simply on the basis of one's social class at birth. They boast that people better themselves though their willpower and potential yet hypocritically accept that people, solely depending on what economic class they were born into, have access to shockingly differing levels of education, healthcare (thankfully we have the NHS), social activities (even things like restaurants meals), and general wellbeing- all of which being pivotal for any child’s development, who will become an adult with the same "willpower" and "potential".

    I know too many snobs who contribute little to society and society gains little from their potential. I was reading in the BBC news that one wealthy family effectively owns a US state (Maine??). They effectivly take most of that state's money away from the people in the form of assets. I wonder how much work they have to do in their entire lives though. Another example is Mr Bush, I wonder how many successful things he has done in his entire life?
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.