Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    You naively assume that everyone who is wealthy enough to send their children to public schools has earned their money. What about those who live off their parents fortune?
    Firstly, I am not naive, if i was naive and idealistic I would have joined your party. Secondly, living off their parents fortune, personally i believe this group has really declined in the last 20 or so years and it is really only the hereditary aristocracy who are the main grouping here. I see the number of people who live off the earnings of their parents as very much a minority and as such they arent really key to this discussion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    Firstly, I am not naive, if i was naive and idealistic I would have joined your party. Secondly, living off their parents fortune, personally i believe this group has really declined in the last 20 or so years and it is really only the hereditary aristocracy who are the main grouping here. I see the number of people who live off the earnings of their parents as very much a minority and as such they arent really key to this discussion.
    Again with the personal attacks :p:

    You have to admit though that people are poor by virtue of their background and not just by non-achieving? Poverty begets more poverty. You cannot become a CEO of a major corporation without having money to start off with. Private Schools are simply unattainable for a large number of British Citizens.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Again with the personal attacks :p:

    You have to admit though that people are poor by virtue of their background and not just by non-achieving? Poverty begets more poverty. You cannot become a CEO of a major corporation without having money to start off with. Private Schools are simply unattainable for a large number of British Citizens.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar

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

    To name but two.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oriel historian)
    Oh dear lord. That's awful. Sorry but, "black race"? Are you kidding me? We are human beings irrespective of what colour our skin happens to be, there is no such thing as a division of "race". It is more just that we study the history of people as people rather than some trumped up excuse to atone for some 'sin'.
    I totally agree with you that all humans are the same. It's just that in our society the division of race exists, and thus should be studied as such. In an ideal world, the idea of race wouldn't exist, but we are nowhere near that yet. Perhaps the term "black race" was objectionable, but i'll use your age-old excuse and say I was tired (and jetlagged):p:

    (Original post by oriel historian)
    As for 'using history to prevent the mistakes of the past', as a historian I find that extremely objectionable.
    Obviously it is not the primary use of the study of History, but surely you can't dismiss the effectiveness of seeing the effect of things to prevent catastrophe? Economic highs based on credit borrowing and speculation end up causing an economic crash, as shown in 1929 and 1992, and the detailed study of this could have prevented people from borrowing on credit/speculation before this forthcoming "recession". Awful example, but i'm rambling.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Both of them came into the computer industry at a time when it was simple enough for uneducated people to understand. It was a time where people with no qualifications managed to start up businesses, it was the birth of an industry. I would hesitate to say that that situation is current nowadays.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Both of them came into the computer industry at a time when it was simple enough for uneducated people to understand. It was a time where people with no qualifications managed to start up businesses, it was the birth of an industry. I would hesitate to say that that situation is current nowadays.
    :no:

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.P._Singh

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Mittal and co
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    I totally agree with you that all humans are the same. It's just that in our society the division of race exists, and thus should be studied as such. In an ideal world, the idea of race wouldn't exist, but we are nowhere near that yet. Perhaps the term "black race" was objectionable, but i'll use your age-old excuse and say I was tired (and jetlagged):p:
    By artificially dividing people on the simple basis of the colour of their skin you perpetuate the so-called race divisions in society. It's flawed, it's problematic, and is entirely wrong to do. Look at the economic or social conditions which enabled slavery to persist and for West Africans to be enslaved but do not seek to create a new history on the very flawed basis of race.

    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Obviously it is not the primary use of the study of History, but surely you can't dismiss the effectiveness of seeing the effect of things to prevent catastrophe? Economic highs based on credit borrowing and speculation end up causing an economic crash, as shown in 1929 and 1992, and the detailed study of this could have prevented people from borrowing on credit/speculation before this forthcoming "recession". Awful example, but i'm rambling.
    It has no use in the study of history at all save for those who do not understand what the study of history is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Both of them came into the computer industry at a time when it was simple enough for uneducated people to understand. It was a time where people with no qualifications managed to start up businesses, it was the birth of an industry. I would hesitate to say that that situation is current nowadays.
    Eh? Surely in the days before GUIs and in an era of text-based calculations in computing the industry was much MORE complicated than it is now? I don't buy that UKE.

    I would also like to point to Michael Marks - he migrated from Russia, spoke no English and started off working for a Jewish company in Leeds.

    There are examples of successful business people going from rags to riches which I think overrides your blanket insistence earlier. In the majority of cases you're right. But that's not all, is it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think people talking about the landed aristocracy (even if by this we mean it as a more colloquial, Callum Best, Paris Hilton sort of way) have missed the boat somewhat. I think they make up such a minute element of society now that talking about them in any political sense is like conservatives bemoaning beggers on the street. This aint 1850.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oriel historian)
    Think of it in these terms - the working class generally pay more tax as a proportion of their income than any other section of society.
    Below which income does someone according to you become working class? Middle class? Upper class? Please explain, as your source does not seem to back up that statement.

    Oh, I wouldn't be keeping on at this if you hadn't tried to make out I was just being pernichity, which I was not.

    Do you still stand by your original statement?

    Oh, and I was using statistics provided by you. Did you think none of us would look at the link, that we would all just assume your graph backed up your point?

    (Original post by oriel historian)
    The sharpest rises in taxation occur for those at the bottom end of society and there is less of an incline for those in the middle. As such, working-class families are hit hardest by our taxation system. As I said.
    This was not what you said, you clearly stated that the working class pay a higher proportion of there income as tax than any other group of society.
    Which your own statistics clearly disprove, unless you have some seriously strange views about the income of working class. You now are trying to deflect the fact that your original statement was wrong by going on about the gradient of the graph.

    So, do you still believe the working class pay a greater proportion of there income than any other groups of society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fisherman)
    Below which income does someone according to you become working class? Middle class? Upper class? Please explain, as your source does not seem to back up that statement.
    Class, of course, isn't solely limited to what people earn. I'm not going to go down that road because it is inherently subjective.

    (Original post by fisherman)
    Oh, I wouldn't be keeping on at this if you hadn't tried to make out I was just being pernichity, which I was not.
    Oh well.

    (Original post by fisherman)
    Do you still stand by your original statement?
    Yep.

    (Original post by fisherman)
    Oh, and I was using statistics provided by you. Did you think none of us would look at the link, that we would all just assume your graph backed up your point?
    Nope. I expected precisely this course of action from you all.



    (Original post by fisherman)
    So, do you still believe the working class pay a greater proportion of there income than any other groups of society?
    Absolutely yes.


    And yes, I am being needlessly flippant. However, this entire debate is a subjective one; and as I've pointed out previously, my sympathies with the middle class is pretty limited.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I heard that all dogs are green!

    Really! It's true!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    I think people talking about the landed aristocracy (even if by this we mean it as a more colloquial, Callum Best, Paris Hilton sort of way) have missed the boat somewhat. I think they make up such a minute element of society now that talking about them in any political sense is like conservatives bemoaning beggers on the street. This aint 1850.
    Surely the fact that "aristocracy" is smaller only makes the problem worse. There are less of them, but they still control most of the wealth. That just means the power's divide between even less people.

    And while capitalism supposedly creates a fluid society, it's only a theory; if you have £2 billion, put it in a bank and just spend some of the interest, you'll continue to control that wealth. It's fluid only to the extent that people take risks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Surely the fact that "aristocracy" is smaller only makes the problem worse. There are less of them, but they still control most of the wealth. That just means the power's divide between even less people.
    Well, originally I raised the point in relation to the idea that "not all rich people are hard working." It's true, of course, but I think it's a considerably smaller problem now than it has been at any time in recorded history before, insomuch as I think a lot, lot more of the people who can afford to live a very comfortable life have earnt it and aren't just living off their family's wealth. The grand scheme of people and power is another issue, really.

    And while capitalism supposedly creates a fluid society, it's only a theory; if you have £2 billion, put it in a bank and just spend some of the interest, you'll continue to control that wealth. It's fluid only to the extent that people take risks.
    But they only earn that interest because the bank is taking risks with the money. The bank is loaning people money, which they spend on products (mortages, new cars, property extensions, whatever) which stimulates the economy, or they lend money to business start-ups or other businesses that need a boost. This is a risk, and the bank might not recoup its money. It will probably make money, but either way, it's injecting money into the economy. Obviously, the person with the £2b in the bank isn't aware of the day to day runnings of this, and can remove their money with little notice, but just because they aren't directly investing it, doesn't mean it's not being invested. The banks NEED to do this for them to make money.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Well, originally I raised the point in relation to the idea that "not all rich people are hard working." It's true, of course, but I think it's a considerably smaller problem now than it has been at any time in recorded history before, insomuch as I think a lot, lot more of the people who can afford to live a very comfortable life have earnt it and aren't just living off their family's wealth. The grand scheme of people and power is another issue, really.
    But wealth certainly isn't proportional to work-ethic. While working hard increases your chances of getting rich in certain circumstances, there's no relationship between the two. Luck/connections/nepotism and so on are huge factors in gaining wealth.

    But they only earn that interest because the bank is taking risks with the money. The bank is loaning people money, which they spend on products (mortages, new cars, property extensions, whatever) which stimulates the economy, or they lend money to business start-ups or other businesses that need a boost. This is a risk, and the bank might not recoup its money. It will probably make money, but either way, it's injecting money into the economy. Obviously, the person with the £2b in the bank isn't aware of the day to day runnings of this, and can remove their money with little notice, but just because they aren't directly investing it, doesn't mean it's not being invested. The banks NEED to do this for them to make money.
    That's all true on a theoretical leve, but my point - and I don't think you'll disagree here - is this: in practical terms, if a billionaire has no desire to get any richer, they can choose to preserve their fortune without risk. Proponents of the free-market like to make out that capitalism is nihlistic and temperemental, that if you don't stay alert you could one day wake up and find that your riches have gone. It's simply not true; there's security in wealth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    But wealth certainly isn't proportional to work-ethic. While working hard increases your chances of getting rich in certain circumstances, there's no relationship between the two. Luck/connections/nepotism and so on are huge factors in gaining wealth.
    I think saying that there's no relationship between the two is going a bit far - to do so suggests that people who started life poor and ended it rich are just as likely to have not worked hard as to have done so. I appreciate there is by no means a correlation, but you said yourself, working hard increases your chances of getting rich - so there is a relationship.

    As for luck, well yeah. I mean, that's not a construct of capitalism, that's a construct of nature. 1000 years ago it might have been a minor earthquake shaking silt deposits onto your land, causing the earth to be super-fertile. Today it might be a massive crash on the M25 causing everyone but you to miss a job interview. Stuff happens. I'd say connections are a skill, to be honest. It's a social skill, and as you've demonstrated, one that's very useful in finding work. As for nepotism, yeah, it's a problem, but there are two issues there - one is that nepotism will rarely get you rich, it'll merely get you oppertunities. Short of being related to the CEO, if you're not pulling your weight you'll get fired in most places. Sure, it might have helped you (a great deal) to get the job, but rarely will it help you keep one if you're not good enough.

    The other issue is that companies that rely on nepotism tend not to be massively efficient. Just like a company that only employed white people even if there are better migrant workers is innefficient, if you see a gap in the market, capitalism encourages you to fill it. If Big Bank Corp is run by a bunch of family members who employ only members of their golf club, then go employ a bunch of people who care about making money and you'll "win". I know it's not exactly an easy thing to do, but it happens.

    That's all true on a theoretical, but my point - and I don't think you'll disagree here - is this: in practical terms, if a billionaire has no desire to get any richer, they can choose to preserve their fortune without risk. Proponents of the free-market like to make out that capitalism is nihlistic and temperemental, that if you don't stay alert you could one day wake up and find that your riches have gone. It's simply not true; there's security in wealth.
    It's not a quick thing, but you'd need quite a lot of money to support your life, and fight inflation. Assuming, then, that it's not in a bank and is under a matress somewhere (and thus preserved, but not adding to anyone elses tally) then yeah, if the person were careful, they could live without losing too much of it. But.. so? I mean, that's hardly going to happen en masse, or even at all. It's potentially possible, but so is the fact that, one day, all the banks might decide to close of their own will. It could happen, but I think the chances of it happening are so slim that to base any kind of political inclination over its possibility is silly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    I think saying that there's no relationship between the two is going a bit far - to do so suggests that people who started life poor and ended it rich are just as likely to have not worked hard as to have done so. I appreciate there is by no means a correlation, but you said yourself, working hard increases your chances of getting rich - so there is a relationship.
    That's like saying, "People who buy lottery tickets have a statistically greater chance of becoming millionaires than those who do not"; therefore, there's a relationship between the two and lottery tickets are the route to wealth in the free market. (I confess I have extrapolated your argument here for the purposes of my analogy - but the libetarian rhetoric does tend to be: "work hard, be smart, and you can get rich". Forgive me if that misrepresents you.)

    As for luck, well yeah. I mean, that's not a construct of capitalism, that's a construct of nature. 1000 years ago it might have been a minor earthquake shaking silt deposits onto your land, causing the earth to be super-fertile. Today it might be a massive crash on the M25 causing everyone but you to miss a job interview. Stuff happens.
    We're just heading down ideological lines now. But the big problem with free-market economics is that it places far too much emphasis on things "just happening". The free marlet isn't nihlistic for those at the top, but it is for those at the bottom, those on the climb. That crash on the M25 can lead to five generations of effortless wealth.

    Socialism, whatever other flaws you believe it has, tries to impose order and correct those injustices.

    I'd say connections are a skill, to be honest. It's skill, a social and as you've demonstrated, one that's very useful in finding work.
    But again, a lot of them are luck, a lot of them aren't necessarily obtained through morally applaudable means, and a lot of them are related to nepotism.

    As for nepotism, yeah, it's a problem, but there are two issues there - one is that nepotism will rarely get you rich, it'll merely get you oppertunities. Short of being related to the CEO, if you're not pulling your weight you'll get fired in most places. Sure, it might have helped you (a great deal) to get the job, but rarely will it help you keep one if you're not good enough.

    The other issue is that companies that rely on nepotism tend not to be massively efficient. Just like a company that only employed white people even if there are better migrant workers is innefficient, if you see a gap in the market, capitalism encourages you to fill it. If Big Bank Corp is run by a bunch of family members who employ only members of their golf club, then go employ a bunch of people who care about making money and you'll "win". I know it's not exactly an easy thing to do, but it happens.
    But opportunities are everything in a capitalist economy! They're the luck, the credit from which you get anything else. And yes, if you employ a sub-standard engineer taht will lead to inefficiency. But white collar jobs are more generic; and it's very hard to quantify the opportunity cost of, say, choosing to employ a relative as a sub-editor for a newspaper. (Newspaper sub-editors have a reputation for getting their jobs through nepotism.)

    Besides which, there's the less sinister form on nepotism, in that wealth is just passed on from one generation to the next - both in direct monetary terms, and through proxies like educational opportunity.

    It's not a quick thing, but you'd need quite a lot of money to support your life, and fight inflation. Assuming, then, that it's not in a bank and is under a matress somewhere (and thus preserved, but not adding to anyone elses tally) then yeah, if the person were careful, they could live without losing too much of it. But.. so? I mean, that's hardly going to happen en masse, or even at all. It's potentially possible, but so is the fact that, one day, all the banks might decide to close of their own will. It could happen, but I think the chances of it happening are so slim that to base any kind of political inclination over its possibility is silly.
    Okay, then; but if we're going to talk in realistic terms, rather than theoretically: we both know that someone with a large fortune could spread their wealth amongst various banks and low-risk investment, and have virtually no risk of losing the greater part of their money. They wouldn't have to do anything and they would have permenant economic security. Capitalism isn't fluid. The vast majority of people who become rich will stay rich.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This was posted in another thread.

    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Girls, girls: enough of this petty bickering - concentrate your efforts on UoL.

    Woops, I forgot: :p:
    So the question for the Socialists is this - when are you planning to remove this embarrassment from your Party? Do you think his deliberately offensive attitude and posts serve to improve the working nature of the House? Are you keeping him on as side entertainment?

    Further, do you agree with this comment of his:

    (Original post by Grape190190)
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    First off, thanks for calling me a moron. I'm sure it does your street cred a world of good with the other Socialists.
    It will, actually.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    This was posted in another thread.



    So the question for the Socialists is this - when are you planning to remove this embarrassment from your Party? Do you think his deliberately offensive attitude and posts serve to improve the working nature of the House? Are you keeping him on as side entertainment?

    Further, do you agree with this comment of his:
    On that occasion he was obviously making a joke, as evidenced by the ":p:" And no I do not agree with his comment, but we allow our MP's freedom of speech.

    However, I would say with the greatest of respect that it is the decision of our party whether or not to remove a member, not the leader of the opposition. I can therefore tell you that he is staying, unless someone in the party calls a VonC or Motion of Censor, something which I think highly unlikely.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    On that occasion he was obviously making a joke, as evidenced by the ":p:" And no I do not agree with his comment, but we allow our MP's freedom of speech.

    However, I would say with the greatest of respect that it is the decision of our party whether or not to remove a member, not the leader of the opposition. I can therefore tell you that he is staying, unless someone in the party calls a VonC or Motion of Censor, something which I think highly unlikely.
    I wasn't suggesting it was my decision to make I was merely enquiring what it would take for your Party to consider his attitude more of a burden than a bonus and therefore remove him.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

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.