Turn on thread page Beta

Which of the world's injustices would you want to see abolished? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    The rule of the masses
    Elaborate?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gwagon)
    *rants about capitalism whilst typing away in a laptop forged through the free enterprise system*
    Technology isn't exclusive to free market societies smh
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    Access to free healthcare
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    why? how is having a gap inherently bad? what if a gap leads to the poor having more in terms of the raw amount that they tend to have? surely the want of a lessened gap is just an emotional desire for aesthetics that please society more so than they actually help society? what would happen if you took from the rich to give to the poor via taxation? I'll answer with some generalities: typically you'd get less jobs, less production, more tax avoidance, more migration of the rich, less tax revenue for government spending etc. compare countries which were formerly (relatively) resourceless: hong kong/singapore, and vietnam/laos.
    no if you look at countries like Brazil or Nigeria etc it causes a lot of problems there is no need for excessively rich people and excessively poor people Im not talking about a form of socialism just closing that gap. Also you argument about tax only applies to countries my system would be for the whole world and would involve the top 5% of the richest people giving 5 % of their income to the poorest
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    no if you look at countries like Brazil or Nigeria etc it causes a lot of problems there is no need for excessively rich people and excessively poor people Im not talking about a form of socialism just closing that gap. Also you argument about tax only applies to countries my system would be for the whole world and would involve the top 5% of the richest people giving 5 % of their income to the poorest
    "problems"? I've actually looked at this issue. it *is* true that although countries with more inequality are overall wealthier (as a result), they have more social issues like more crime, teen pregnancies - but how is that the fault of the wealthy? surely that's the issue that the poor have themselves to blame for? how does this logically stem from economic inequality? I would say this is a matter of poor social discipline. if wealth inequality trends towards poor social discipline, then the poor ought to work on themselves to remedy this. the wealthy shouldn't be expected to clean up the messes of the poor in this sense just because they happen to do better. money isn't communal property to just dish around like that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Technology isn't exclusive to free market societies smh
    free markets create the conditions and incentives necessary to invent these technologies. socialist societies pretty much all just steal the inventions of the capitalist countries. things like computers and ipads are consumer goods, not government provisions. a government would *never* be able to create goods like the market does. the government was never able to manage the economy in the former socialist republics of eastern europe, russia etc, so why would they be better at managing the creation of technologies?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    trump not being the king of the USA
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The unfair oppression of my previous account!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    "problems"? I've actually looked at this issue. it *is* true that although countries with more inequality are overall wealthier (as a result), they have more social issues like more crime, teen pregnancies - but how is that the fault of the wealthy? surely that's the issue that the poor have themselves to blame for? how does this logically stem from economic inequality? I would say this is a matter of poor social discipline. if wealth inequality trends towards poor social discipline, then the poor ought to work on themselves to remedy this. the wealthy shouldn't be expected to clean up the messes of the poor in this sense just because they happen to do better. money isn't communal property to just dish around like that.
    The very rich are largely rich due to the hard work of other people. The society is what made them rich in a globalist capitalist world. They wouldn't be rich if they lived on their own on a remote island. Also money is used to subjugate and control it is not a virtuous thing to own billions. If you look at Nigeria where the rich are rich because they stole oil wealth as well as in Russia where the rich are in bed with the government. Also if you look at companies like wal mart who pay a pittance and control the whole market they stifle small business. Capitalism is a flawed illegitimate system so the people who own billions have no legitimacy to own it in my view.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    let's look at each of these statements in turn to demonstrate how each of them are wrong:

    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    The very rich are largely rich due to the hard work of other people.
    they are rich from contracts. e.g. "I'll give you this if you give me that". if one party didn't think that the terms were worth it, why would they contract in the first place? therefore, logically, they would be better off contracting, whenever they do contract, and they would be enriched no matter if they became wealthy or only theoretically slightly better off. contracts benefit all. the "hard work" of other people, if it really was so valuable, wouldn't sell for low amounts. I could be a hard worker with no skills and I wouldn't be entitled to anything much if those skills, which I work hard through, were useless to other people. getting money is about satisfying demands, and if you work hard yet can't satisfy demand, then that's not somebody else's fault simply because they happen to do this and you don't. people who satisfy demand are wealthy because they make other people happy. people who are poor don't make people happy like this.

    The society is what made them rich in a globalist capitalist world.
    no, individuals in a market are. individuals get given their rewards for the work they put out through (as I've mentioned) contracts. for example, bill gates got rich "from society" by selling his PCs, but he's already paid me with a computer (enriches my life by giving me entertainment and makes tasks which I get paid for easier) so why should he pay me a second time in the way you're implying he should for being wealthy?

    They wouldn't be rich if they lived on their own on a remote island.
    so what? if there were no people to please then sure, I'd have no way of getting money for something like that. I wouldn't have anybody's life to improve.

    Also money is used to subjugate and control it is not a virtuous thing to own billions.
    that's not the fault of the rich, that's the fault of reality. human beings are persuaded by money. giving people money gives others happiness. happiness is good. money exists in either capitalism or socialism. it will subjugate people in any system because you can't get rid of the concept of value.

    If you look at Nigeria where the rich are rich because they stole oil wealth as well as in Russia where the rich are in bed with the government.
    right so this obviously looks like a strawman because you're implying that crony capitalism or countries like russia = the free market, which is absolute nonsense. a free market is based on competition. crony capitalism is based on the oppoite of this (monopolism via government aid)

    Also if you look at companies like wal mart who pay a pittance and control the whole market they stifle small business. Capitalism is a flawed illegitimate system so the people who own billions have no legitimacy to own it in my view.
    government stifles small businesses by making poorer companies have to pay minimum wages, regulation costs. these are examples of big business promoting uncompetitive practices with cronyism. these barriers to entry make life so much easier for the bigger businesses because they can afford to pay for these costs whereas small businesses can't afford to in a lot of cases. and "the people who own billions" don't "own" capitalism. that's a strange concept. capitalism is simply the freedom of people to trade and own. you can't "own" a concept like this. it's like saying "I own listening" or "I own speaking".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    they are rich from contracts. e.g. "I'll give you this if you give me that". if one party didn't think that the terms were worth it, why would they contract in the first place? therefore, logically, they would be better off contracting, whenever they do contract, and they would be enriched no matter if they became wealthy or only theoretically slightly better off. contracts benefit all. the "hard work" of other people, if it really was so valuable, wouldn't sell for low amounts. I could be a hard worker with no skills and I wouldn't be entitled to anything much if those skills, which I work hard through, were useless to other people. getting money is about satisfying demands, and if you work hard yet can't satisfy demand, then that's not somebody else's fault simply because they happen to do this and you don't. people who satisfy demand are wealthy because they make other people happy. people who are poor don't make people happy like this.

    that doesn't make any sense what are you on about 'contracting'. People work because they need money to live they can realistically often only work in a low paid job in order to line the pockets of executives/shareholders. If you are unfortunate to live in China or Bangladesh then you will be even more exploited.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    no, individuals in a market are. individuals get given their rewards for the work they put out through (as I've mentioned) contracts. for example, bill gates got rich "from society" by selling his PCs, but he's already paid me with a computer (enriches my life by giving me entertainment and makes tasks which I get paid for easier) so why should he pay me a second time in the way you're implying he should for being wealthy?

    Gates created a brilliant product and deserved to be rich but he also tried to prevent other IT companies from competing with him he also wouldn't have been able to achieve that if he grew up in poverty in India or China. Bill Gates also decided to give most of his money to charity.
    Offline

    1
    Welfare state.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    let's look at each of these statements in turn to demonstrate how each of them are wrong:



    they are rich from contracts. e.g. "I'll give you this if you give me that". if one party didn't think that the terms were worth it, why would they contract in the first place? therefore, logically, they would be better off contracting, whenever they do contract, and they would be enriched no matter if they became wealthy or only theoretically slightly better off. contracts benefit all. the "hard work" of other people, if it really was so valuable, wouldn't sell for low amounts. I could be a hard worker with no skills and I wouldn't be entitled to anything much if those skills, which I work hard through, were useless to other people. getting money is about satisfying demands, and if you work hard yet can't satisfy demand, then that's not somebody else's fault simply because they happen to do this and you don't. people who satisfy demand are wealthy because they make other people happy. people who are poor don't make people happy like this.



    no, individuals in a market are. individuals get given their rewards for the work they put out through (as I've mentioned) contracts. for example, bill gates got rich "from society" by selling his PCs, but he's already paid me with a computer (enriches my life by giving me entertainment and makes tasks which I get paid for easier) so why should he pay me a second time in the way you're implying he should for being wealthy?



    so what? if there were no people to please then sure, I'd have no way of getting money for something like that. I wouldn't have anybody's life to improve.



    that's not the fault of the rich, that's the fault of reality. human beings are persuaded by money. giving people money gives others happiness. happiness is good. money exists in either capitalism or socialism. it will subjugate people in any system because you can't get rid of the concept of value.



    right so this obviously looks like a strawman because you're implying that crony capitalism or countries like russia = the free market, which is absolute nonsense. a free market is based on competition. crony capitalism is based on the oppoite of this (monopolism via government aid)



    government stifles small businesses by making poorer companies have to pay minimum wages, regulation costs. these are examples of big business promoting uncompetitive practices with cronyism. these barriers to entry make life so much easier for the bigger businesses because they can afford to pay for these costs whereas small businesses can't afford to in a lot of cases. and "the people who own billions" don't "own" capitalism. that's a strange concept. capitalism is simply the freedom of people to trade and own. you can't "own" a concept like this. it's like saying "I own listening" or "I own speaking".
    I didn't say own capitalism or whatever. Huge companies would pay you £.5 an hour if they could get away with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    I didn't say own capitalism or whatever. Huge companies would pay you £.5 an hour if they could get away with it.
    and you would be paid £1,000,000,000,000 an hour if you could get away with it
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    and you would be paid £1,000,000,000,000 an hour if you could get away with it
    that doesn't make sense the point is people are not paid by the value of their labour but by how powerful the market is and what the company can get away with Why should people work for a pittance when the companies are raking in billions on the back of their hard work?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    that doesn't make sense the point is people are not paid by the value of their labour but by how powerful the market is and what the company can get away with Why should people work for a pittance when the companies are raking in billions on the back of their hard work?
    lol so you're saying that they should share the money for the sake of sharing and not for the sake of assessing their relative value?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    lol so you're saying that they should share the money for the sake of sharing and not for the sake of assessing their relative value?
    no if you read what I wrote they should be paid for their labour and value they add
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    no if you read what I wrote they should be paid for their labour and value they add
    they are paid the highest the market is willing to pay them for - what else woul they be paid based on other than their value?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    lol so you're saying that they should share the money for the sake of sharing and not for the sake of assessing their relative value?
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    no if you read what I wrote they should be paid for their labour and value they add
    The system that we live in defines our value.
    For instance, you could be in a system where teachers get paid 1/2 of what they should do, assuming increased educational requirement slightly to PhD to make teaching better quality.
    Sleepysnooze you seem to miss the existence of power structures. People work low wages for often similar amounts of work to others who earn substantially more.
    Essentially slave labor in some parts of the world - India, China, Africa, South Americas, etc.
    Corporate capitalism run amok isn't a free society - where you can see what is becoming a sort of financial slave labor (where the rich have all of the power, to command the poor, regardless of educational attainment etc. - in a system where education provision is very poor, as is health).
    Sorry rambled, but think my point makes sense, at least to some degree :P
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,872

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.