Turn on thread page Beta

Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half' watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's to do with FAIRNESS.

    The real issue is not envy, but why on earth we allow them to get away with it.
    And what exactly is unfair? It's unfair to come up with something that helps lots of people and use that to make money? Nobody is stopping you, or anyone else from doing the same. Amazon, Windows and so on help millions of people daily. How many people do you help daily? There's nothing unfair about it

    Get away with what? Making money? Being successful? Yeah, lets stop people making money. All the most brilliant people will move away. Lets stop people being successful. Everyone should just stick to being medicore and not invent anything.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Oh here we go. "Politics of envy" - the standard war cry of right wing Tories down the ages. Yawn.
    Maybe it rings down the ages because it has some truth in it?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It has **** all to do with envy. I don't even fancy a small yacht, let alone one the size of Belgium. It's to do with FAIRNESS.
    It has everything to do with envy. You are a bright, talented girl. When you see others no cleverer, or more talented than you, possessing more, the green sickness takes over. Especially if they inherited the great wealth.

    You may not want a yacht, that is out of reach, but you want a better house than you have, a better car, a bigger collection of nicer shoes, better holidays and more of them..

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The real issue is not envy, but why on earth we allow them to get away with it. Part of the answer lies in the deep confusions that posts like yours illustrate - driven no doubt by too much reading of the Daily Mail.
    That is fine, you are entitled to that view. I find the Daily Mail a wonderful paper, as it happens, and am honoured that you feel I may have formed some opinions from reading it.

    But where is the confusion? Please elucidate. Then, as Mrs Merton put it. "Lets have a lively debate!"
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Ah, the typical response from people that don't know any better. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of accepting what is effectively facts.

    If I make an OS and sell it to millions for £100 then I'll be rich (Bill Gates)
    If I make a website that fulfills a niche, charge £4 and millions use it I'll be rich (Derek Sivers)
    If I offer a course for £50,000 and sell it to 200 people then I'll be rich (employed by lots of successful entrepreneurs)

    If I work as a bin man for minimum wage, help a few hundred people by taking their bins but ultimately am only helping my boss then I won't get rich. You are neither helping lots of people nor are you providing high value.

    Of course it's not just that, there are other important factors. But you will never get rich unless you either help loads of people and provide small value or help few people and provide large value. You can call me delusional all you like, it's a simple fact. But since you seem to think you know better do feel free to actually provide an argument rather than calling me names. Since you disagree, you must think it's possible for a small business that provides little value to somehow make millions? That's the opposite of what I'm saying. If you believe that then clearly you are the delusional one. Of course I can't blame you, most people don't think like this, hence why most people aren't rich.
    It's not like Bill Gates went around knocking on millions of doors selling CDs he had made at $100 a pop. Gates' fortune derives from the value of his stock, and the value of his stock derives from the productivity of his business, which derives from the workers doing the producing. Furthermore, it is simply not true that you can only get rich by providing value. For example, if I buy stock in a company, I have produced precisely nothing and provided zero value, and yet if the workers at that company go on to produce a world-changing product, I get to reap the rewards of that innovation.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    lol wage slaves worshiping the oppressors again. "Inequality is not a problem" and they say socialists are deluded. Stockholm syndrome is rife in these forums.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Ah, the typical response from people that don't know any better. It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of accepting what is effectively facts.

    If I make an OS and sell it to millions for £100 then I'll be rich (Bill Gates)
    If I make a website that fulfills a niche, charge £4 and millions use it I'll be rich (Derek Sivers)
    If I offer a course for £50,000 and sell it to 200 people then I'll be rich (employed by lots of successful entrepreneurs)

    If I work as a bin man for minimum wage, help a few hundred people by taking their bins but ultimately am only helping my boss then I won't get rich. You are neither helping lots of people nor are you providing high value.

    Of course it's not just that, there are other important factors. But you will never get rich unless you either help loads of people and provide small value or help few people and provide large value. You can call me delusional all you like, it's a simple fact. But since you seem to think you know better do feel free to actually provide an argument rather than calling me names. Since you disagree, you must think it's possible for a small business that provides little value to somehow make millions? That's the opposite of what I'm saying. If you believe that then clearly you are the delusional one. Of course I can't blame you, most people don't think like this, hence why most people aren't rich.
    Like Trump University?

    And funny all your other examples are tech.

    At the end of the day what's all your money if no one cleans for you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    To an extent you are correct. However poor people in third world countires are not worse off because Bill Gates is rich. The people getting poorer there are people buying Windows for example. In that scenario the people getting poorer are the ones buying the service that the rich person offers.

    The point I was making is that there isn't a finite amount of money that circulates evenly around everyone. If Bill Gates wasn't around his money woulnd't be distributed to the poor, his money would be with the people that originally paid for Microsoft services. I might be £100 better off because I didn't buy a Windows license but it has absolutely no impact on people that are actually poor or had nothing to do with Micrsoft in the first place.

    Incidentally you're also using poorer as a verb here, whereas I was using it as a noun. Yes, people paying rich people for things makes the consumer poorer because they have to trade money. It does not make them poor though.
    Yeah, I agree with that. I don't think I wrote that out properly lol
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    It's not like Bill Gates went around knocking on millions of doors selling CDs he had made at $100 a pop. Gates' fortune derives from the value of his stock, and the value of his stock derives from the productivity of his business, which derives from the workers doing the producing. Furthermore, it is simply not true that you can only get rich by providing value. For example, if I buy stock in a company, I have produced precisely nothing and provided zero value, and yet if the workers at that company go on to produce a world-changing product, I get to reap the rewards of that innovation.
    No but what we have today is derived from something that started completely differently. Nobody has stock worth a lot of money as soon as they start. Yes, his value may partially be defined by stock nowadays but that wasn't always the case. Microsoft still makes a large amount of it's income from selling Windows licenses to millions of people. The premise of helping millions still rings true. By continuing to help millions, the value of stock rises, which continues to increase net worth.

    Since this evolved from an argument about business I refraimed from looking at the other methods of getting rich. There are of course others methods, such as stocks, winning the lottery, inheriting and so on. However many of those methods are not reliable. Stocks/investing is the only somewhat reliable method but it also requires skill and something to invest with in the first place.

    Stocks also remain reliant on the previous model. Your stocks are dependent on the company, which is dependent on making money, either by helping few people and making large sums or lots of people and smaller sums. The process is still there, you are simply separated from it via the stocks. But that was never part of the original argument. Investing is a key part in business but it was mostly not the business plan. The business plan was still help many/help few.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    It's not like Bill Gates went around knocking on millions of doors selling CDs he had made at $100 a pop. Gates' fortune derives from the value of his stock, and the value of his stock derives from the productivity of his business, which derives from the workers doing the producing. Furthermore, it is simply not true that you can only get rich by providing value. For example, if I buy stock in a company, I have produced precisely nothing and provided zero value, and yet if the workers at that company go on to produce a world-changing product, I get to reap the rewards of that innovation.
    How quaint, some variation of the surplus theory of value!

    It is nonsense. A diamond is worth the same if it is found on the street, or if it was the product of the labour of tens of miners.

    .
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Like Trump University?

    And funny all your other examples are tech.

    At the end of the day what's all your money if no one cleans for you.
    At this point I'm pretty sure you're just a troll.

    Not all the examples are tech. I gave 3 examples. One is Facebook from the original example, one is my own example (Sivers) and one is not tech (courses). Nice try. But since you brought it up, tech is one of the best ways to make money right now. Why do you think Bill Gates is at the top of that list? Amazon and Facebook founders not far behind. Tech makes up most of the top 8. You want non-tech? Amancio Ortega, Zara founder (clothing), also on the list. Liliane Bettencourt (L'Oreal) ranks not far below. Someone closer to home? J.K. Rowling has been incredibly successful writing childrens books. Once again, we have 3 more people who are impacting millions of lives.

    We've already established that the binmen fallacy people keep bringing up is irrelevant so I really have no more to say on the matter there.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Scottish Person)
    lol wage slaves worshiping the oppressors again. "Inequality is not a problem" and they say socialists are deluded. Stockholm syndrome is rife in these forums.
    So who's being oppressed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalism breaks down when there is a lack of redistribution of wealth.

    Money tends to move in only one direction, from the bottom to the top, where it stays, because those at the top can't possibly ever spend the money that they have... unfortunately, greed usually gets in the way of them doing anything useful with their riches like, giving it back to the poor. So it sits there in a pot, getting bigger and bigger, and the value of the remaining cash in the economy reduces and reduces. The economic system started by trading goods (pigs for potatoes, clothes for soap etc), people also liked shiny things and gold was found to be a great standard commodity to trade between other goods, so gold (and other precious metals) became a common item to use for trade when you lacked whatever it was that the other trader wished for. Then, when all the gold had been horded by the best traders and there wasn't enough to keep the bank vaults full, the banks created IOU's in the form of bank notes (notice that even today, bank notes still bear the words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £X"... although as there is no freely moving gold left, this statement no longer includes a reference to the value being an amount of gold, now it's just your little piece of the national debt). Then of course bank notes were found to continually devalue, and the production of more banknotes only compounded the issue... so now we have this plastic method of payment, which moves floating point numbers between one computer and another.

    At some point we're going to have to find another way to trade, but until that day comes, we'll just find ever more inventive ways to reduce the implicit value of the tradable tokens we use, and the richest in the world will keep sitting on their mountains of worthless bank notes, and the poorest will continue wishing they had just a little bit of the mountain.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    At this point I'm pretty sure you're just a troll.

    Not all the examples are tech. I gave 3 examples. One is Facebook from the original example, one is my own example (Sivers) and one is not tech (courses). Nice try. But since you brought it up, tech is one of the best ways to make money right now. Why do you think Bill Gates is at the top of that list? Amazon and Facebook founders not far behind. Tech makes up most of the top 8. You want non-tech? Amancio Ortega, Zara founder (clothing), also on the list. Liliane Bettencourt (L'Oreal) ranks not far below. Someone closer to home? J.K. Rowling has been incredibly successful writing childrens books. Once again, we have 3 more people who are impacting millions of lives.

    We've already established that the binmen fallacy people keep bringing up is irrelevant so I really have no more to say on the matter there.
    I am sure Zara managed to become so successful without many people working for him. You are so deluded it's funny.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I am sure Zara managed to become so successful without many people working for him. You are so deluded it's funny.
    At no point did I ever say Ortega was successful without many people working for him. Your inability to read and comprehend is funny. In fact your inability to argue is hilarious. Rather than replying to the post in context you just pick out random parts ot make flawed arguments against. Or just outright make up your own argument to argue against. Like I said, troll.

    Also doesn't change the fact that you can't hire employees until you're doing well enough to pay them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by kassinopious)
    the richest in the world will keep sitting on their mountains of worthless bank notes, and the poorest will continue wishing they had just a little bit of the mountain.
    Thing is that is precisely why the poor don't get anywhere. The rich actually take action to get that mountain. The poor sit and wish they had it.

    It's also unfair to say that the money is exclusively hoarded. Companies invest profits back into the company. They are then able to produce more goods for people. Companies and individuals also pay employees and donate to charity. The money isn't ust sat at the top.

    The fact that rich people have money has no impact on the poor. Bill Gates being rich does not cause poor people to be poor. There are many reasons poor people are poor, ranging from poor life decisions and the lack of action to unfortunate circumstances. The rich are not making everyone else poor. In many cases the poor make themsevles poor or fail to do something about their situation. In third world countries where they may not be given much of a choice that is aresult of circumstances. The rich are not responsible for any of this.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    Bill Gates being rich does not cause poor people to be poor.
    That is exactly right.

    The left, the Oxfam idiots, who should be helping the poor rather than wasting their donors' money on pointless political posturing, don't get that, and the naive, wet behind the ears students and ex students on here don't get that either.

    The rich don't cause the poor to be poor.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    It's not like Bill Gates went around knocking on millions of doors selling CDs he had made at $100 a pop. Gates' fortune derives from the value of his stock, and the value of his stock derives from the productivity of his business, which derives from the workers doing the producing.
    And the monopolies copyright and patent laws give.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)

    And funny all your other examples are tech.
    Funny how most of the Oxfam examples were tech founders also.

    Leaving aside all the money these guys have given back (Gates himself will give it all back to good causes on his death) these billionaires have transformed our entire planet.

    Yet because they are rich, this charity's cretins, single them out as evil.

    Like I said earlier there is a crisis in the charity sector. Pubic trust in it is at record lows.

    Oxfam has just provided a perfect example of why that is. I used to donate to it, back in the past, but I won't any more. There are other good causes that are more responsible and deserving. It is the same with the Red Cross who said that the fact that people are waiting a few minutes longer in A+E was a "humanitarian crisis."

    I had a standing order to donate to them. I stopped it the same day.

    I won't pay the salaries of the morons who produce these piles of $hit.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Funny how most of the Oxfam examples were tech founders also.

    Leaving aside all the money these guys have given back (Gates himself will give it all back to good causes on his death) these billionaires have transformed our entire planet.

    Yet because they are rich, this charity's cretins, single them out as evil.

    Like I said earlier there is a crisis in the charity sector. Pubic trust in it is at record lows.

    Oxfam has just provided a perfect example of why that is. I used to donate to it, back in the past, but I won't any more. There are other good causes that are more responsible and deserving. It is the same with the Red Cross who said that the fact that people are waiting a few minutes longer in A+E was a "humanitarian crisis."

    I had a standing order to donate to them. I stopped it the same day.

    I won't pay the salaries of the morons who produce these piles of $hit.
    Aren't you a good human, donating to charities.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kassinopious)
    Capitalism breaks down when there is a lack of redistribution of wealth.

    Don't you dare bash capitalism! Don't you read? All these capitalist make the world such a better place and their money just reflects how valuable a contribution they have made towards humanity!

    How dare you!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Your naivety to how the world works is insane.
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Aren't you a good human, donating to charities.
    And here we have soemone incapable of quoting anything unless they are condescending
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.