I Know It's Wrong But...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Erm...all the staff in my office ARE wage earners.

 

Anyway, you seem to be getting all confused by not reading exactly what I have written. I am not advocating taxing rich people very heavily, as I would think this would stymie profitmaking. The incentive that drives many aspects of productivity would disappear were there to be a very heavy tax on businesses and individuals.

 

And you are right, in this 'capitalist' system where jobs are created from entrepreneurs who seek to make profit. But I don't condone a system where people see wealth as the things to makes them want to produce and contribute.

[jimbms]

I can't for the life of me think of any other reason than wealth that would make me take on the hassle of running a company and employing people.

[Chinahand]

LDV I think you are missing the point people are trying to make to you.

 

You seem to be saying, with your desire to abolish property, that the success a person creates isn't theirs, but rather it is to be taken from them and held in common and the creator of that successs should no more benefit from it than anyone else.

 

You've said multiple times that these people do not deserve their success - for me that is an incredible arrogance - who are you to judge? Who is going to descide who should benefit from someone elses work, and who should not?

 

It is very hard not to see envy in your attitude - I see the creation of wealth as something to celebrated - you seem to see it as a wrong which must be corrected with that wealth taken from them.

 

And you seem oblivious as to why people react strongly against you when you preach this and claim you are more moral than those who, like me, say people should be able get on and trade their skills for as much as anyone else will think they are worth.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

...in fact if we went by your ideals then why should anyone be bothered to run transport or even work for a living just to give the service to others...

Why, because most people want to do something productive with their time and most people want to contribute to their society, but also in a selfish manner in wanting others to recognise their input their society. Why do so many people volunteer? Why do many undertake tasks for a nominal fee to help others?

And I do think there is a great incentive to producing a social good directly

 

Now please send me half of whatever savings you have as you have more than me and I deserve and demand the right to be equal to you as you are exploiting me by having more than me.

I think you probably have more savings than me, at a guess. Feel free to send them to me if you think you should, but the issue isn't a give and take of personal wealth and property today but the sharing of the former in society and the elimination of the latter.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV I think you are missing the point people are trying to make to you.

 

You seem to be saying, with your desire to abolish property, that the success a person creates isn't theirs, but rather it is to be taken from them and held in common and the creator of that successs should no more benefit from it than anyone else.

But the wealth that is created by the inventor, entrepreneur, or footballer is rarely proportionate to the amount/effort of work done, yet the 'rewards' that they reap are massively different to those who do the same amount or even harder work day in and day out.

Such people may have contributed to their society in some form, even though it may be purely for profit, but I question their worth when other such people as binmen, mechanics, call centre operators also work their bum off and receive very very little and are in comparison very poor.

 

You've said multiple times that these people do not deserve their success - for me that is an incredible arrogance - who are you to judge? Who is going to descide who should benefit from someone elses work, and who should not?

They deserve their success, but not in the form of property and wealth. Nobody should.

 

It is very hard not to see envy in your attitude - I see the creation of wealth as something to celebrated - you seem to see it as a wrong which must be corrected with that wealth taken from them.

I see much to celebrate about wealth, but not when a system exists to place it in a small group of people.

 

And you seem oblivious as to why people react strongly against you when you preach this and claim you are more moral than those who, like me, say people should be able get on and trade their skills for as much as anyone else will think they are worth.

I understand why some may react strongly. But to clarify, I am not saying that such people have no worth, just that their worth should not be reflected by their wealth and that such wealth should be theirs to have in the form of assets and property.

[Lao]

Well good for him! You can't expect to be rich and not think that others should have some of it, because you've never earned it and don't deserve that much money.

 

Such people may have contributed to their society in some form, even though it may be purely for profit, but I question their worth when other such people as binmen, mechanics, call centre operators also work their bum off and receive very very little and are in comparison very poor.

 

i dont think you are explaining yourself very well LDV, because the above two quotes (both you) appear to me to be very conflicted.

 

you question if the rewards are equal to the contribution to society, but at the same time congratulate a thief on his ill gotten gains.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not sure quite where you see the contradiction, but I will answer on the presumption that I think I have an idea of what you mean.

 

It is an unjust society where private property is endorsed and encouraged. The rich have no more 'entitlement' to the wealth or property they own than the person who takes from them. But the person who takes from them in no doubt much much less well off. And that person is probably someone whose financial (and social) position is such to offer some incentive to take that property.

That person will no doubt be one of the many who earn little or nothing when their wealth (whether socially shared or private) should be more.

[Right-Wing]

The rich have no more 'entitlement' to the wealth or property they own than the person who takes from them.

 

Except for the fact that they earnt it?

 

But the person who takes from them in no doubt much much less well off.

 

Because they couldn't be arsed to earn it?

 

I'm sorry LDV but I'm absolutely convinced that you and I don't share a single view. If you argued that I was a good person, I would have to argue that I was a bad person, just because I know that I 100% disagree with every thought that you're ever likely to have.

 

What is the point of getting out of bed in the morning if it isn't to earn money in order to own things? Why do you go to work? Maybe you don't. Let's face it, if the state is going to hand you everything on a plate, why bother striving for anything?

 

Surely we should have a system whereby people who want to work hard can live in one society, and the state handout lot can go and live somewhere else and live off the state and not bother to get out of bed in the morning, and not pay any taxes and not have any services and live in a hole? I'd happily contribute to the one way ticket.

[jimbms]

I will tell you what LDV, I will share everything I have with you in proportion i.e. you will get a share equal to what you are capable of doing, how long you have done it, how experienced you are at doing it, how hard you work and how much extra initiative you show in development of what you can do, also your standard of accommodation and the security of tenure of such shall be in proportion to the above and how much you contribute to the building of that accomodation, oh wait a minute we already have a fair system such as that where those who work hardest get a better life and those who can't be bothered can become leeches on those who do everything.

[mæŋksmən]

Are you talking civil service again jim at the end of your above post?

Or just some of our elected reprisentitives.

[Alias]

But the wealth that is created by the inventor, entrepreneur, or footballer is rarely proportionate to the amount/effort of work done, yet the 'rewards' that they reap are massively different to those who do the same amount or even harder work day in and day out.

Such people may have contributed to their society in some form, even though it may be purely for profit, but I question their worth when other such people as binmen, mechanics, call centre operators also work their bum off and receive very very little and are in comparison very poor.

It's proportionate to the value of the work - it's not just a reward, but a trade with mutual beneficiaries. This (in most areas) drives efficiency through competition of trading, and quantifies utility with value.

 

Money has so far proven to be the 'fairest' way of quantifying the reward for 'effort of work done' - how else should it be done? Assigning a value would be too artificial and static (and discrepancies between trading partners would reduce economic activity), and can not be done for all cases (say new sources of wealth).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What is the point of getting out of bed in the morning if it isn't to earn money in order to own things? Why do you go to work? Maybe you don't. Let's face it, if the state is going to hand you everything on a plate, why bother striving for anything?

You don't sound like you know what I am talking about at all. What has the State got to do with this?

 

I am quite aware that people get out of bed to work in order to make sure they can survive. That's the point.

 

Except for the fact that they earnt it?

But they haven't earned it. If I write a book that sell millions of copies and receive millions in return I wouldn't think I have earned that money. People may like the book and sales generate the money, but I haven't worked for that much money.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It's proportionate to the value of the work - it's not just a reward, but a trade with mutual beneficiaries. This (in most areas) drives efficiency through competition of trading, and quantifies utility with value.

I agree. But I do not agree that those who are responsible for bringing this valued good or service to the public are deserving of the money that results from it given that such massive (or in fact any) amounts remain in private hands to the extent where you have individuals or businesses who end up with the ability to control and own larger and larger resources. My issue is primarily with the system which endorses this, not simply an issue with some of those who benefit most from it just because they do well from it.

 

Money has so far proven to be the 'fairest' way of quantifying the reward for 'effort of work done' - how else should it be done? Assigning a value would be too artificial and static (and discrepancies between trading partners would reduce economic activity), and can not be done for all cases (say new sources of wealth).

I am interested in the possibilities of a 'gift' economy.

[mæŋksmən]

27 million a day he earnt LDV.

 

3.37 million pound per hour for an 8 hour day seven days a week.

 

I am sure you dont begrudge his success tho.

 

009 will be remembered by millions of ordinary people as the year they lost their job, their house, or the prospect of an education. For the rich, however, it was a bonanza.

 

The world’s billionaires saw their wealth grow by 50 percent last year, and their ranks swell to 1,011, from 793, according to the latest Forbes list of billionaires.

 

The combined net worth of these 1,011 individuals increased to $3.6 trillion, up $1.2 trillion from the year before. On average, each billionaire had his or her wealth increase by $500 million.

 

Four hundred and three billionaires reside in the United States. They constitute just 0.00014 percent of the country’s total population, but control 8 percent of the national wealth. Each of these individuals holds over 300 million times more wealth than the average US resident.

 

The list included 21 hedge fund managers, who as a group more than made up for whatever losses they incurred in 2008. Some of them, including James Simons, John Arnold, and George Soros, raked in profits during both the collapse and the market recovery.

 

Topping the list of wealthiest hedge fund managers was John Paulson, at $32 billion. Paulson made billions in 2008 by betting that the housing market would collapse, and billions more through the stock market recovery of 2009.

 

Only one of the 21 hedge fund managers on last year’s Forbes list fell off. This was Raj Rajaratnam of Galleon Group, who was arrested last year on charges of insider trading.

 

Hedge fund managers James Simons, John Arnold, and David Tepper got average returns of 62, 52, and 31 percent, respectively, between 2008 and 2010. David Tepper made $2.3 billion over the past year, while John Paulson’s wealth grew by $6 billion.

 

The number of US billionaires grew to 403, up from 359 last year. The Asia-Pacific region had 234 billionaires, up from 130 the last year. Europe has 248 billionaires, despite having twice the population of the United States.

 

The 1,011 people on this list command a phenomenal amount of personal wealth. Their holdings are larger than the gross domestic products of every country besides China, Japan, and the United States. The wealth of the 403 US billionaires could more than cover the 2008 US federal deficit, with money left over for the states.

 

While the number of billionaires on the list is just short of the all-time high of 1,125 reached in 2008, it represents a phenomenal rebound. At this rate, the number of billionaires will once again hit record levels next year.

 

Carlos Slim Helú, a Mexican telecommunications tycoon, moved up to the first position on the list at $53.5 billion, beating out Americans Bill Gates ($53 billion) and Warren Buffet ($47 billion). The wealth of all three men rose dramatically. Over the last several years Slim Helú made roughly $27 million a day compared with the average daily income of $16.50 for Mexican workers.

 

The rich in India and China gained among the most. “For the first time, mainland China has the most billionaires outside the US,” Forbes said in its statement. “US citizens still dominate the ranks, but their grip is slipping.”

 

The hedge fund managers and financiers on the list benefitted directly from the bank bailout, which transferred huge sums of public funds into the accounts of the largest financial companies. But the billionaires in every other industry were the indirect recipients the government’s wealth transfer program also.

 

The Wall Street Journal, commenting on the figures, wrote, “How did the world’s rich get so much richer? Stock markets…. In short, what the stock market had taketh, the stock market hath giveth back–-at least to the billionaires.”

But the stock market recovery itself is no accident; it was the direct outcome of policies pursued by both US political parties. The bailout has been financed by a policy of fiscal austerity and high unemployment. The rapid increase in the wealth of the billionaires is the result of the impoverishment of tens of millions; it is the other face of mass unemployment, poverty, utility shutoffs, and foreclosures.

Aside from direct government handouts to the banks and super-rich, the major driver of the recovery of corporate profits—and thus the stock market—was productivity growth and corporate downsizing.

 

In 2009, the unemployment rate rose from 7.7 to 10 percent, three million jobs were lost, and wages fell dramatically. Millions of families lost their homes and became dislocated. But productivity, the amount of output that is produced from each hour of work, rose by 7 percent.

 

The money freed up through the destruction of social programs, higher employee output, and corporate restructuring has found its way into the pockets of the people on Forbes’ list.

[grant]

27 million a day he earnt LDV.

 

3.37 million pound per hour for an 8 hour day seven days a week.

 

I am sure you dont begrudge his success tho.

 

009 will be remembered by millions of ordinary people as the year they lost their job, their house, or the prospect of an education. For the rich, however, it was a bonanza.

 

The world’s billionaires saw their wealth grow by 50 percent last year, and their ranks swell to 1,011, from 793, according to the latest Forbes list of billionaires.

 

The combined net worth of these 1,011 individuals increased to $3.6 trillion, up $1.2 trillion from the year before. On average, each billionaire had his or her wealth increase by $500 million.

 

Four hundred and three billionaires reside in the United States. They constitute just 0.00014 percent of the country’s total population, but control 8 percent of the national wealth. Each of these individuals holds over 300 million times more wealth than the average US resident.

 

The list included 21 hedge fund managers, who as a group more than made up for whatever losses they incurred in 2008. Some of them, including James Simons, John Arnold, and George Soros, raked in profits during both the collapse and the market recovery.

 

Topping the list of wealthiest hedge fund managers was John Paulson, at $32 billion. Paulson made billions in 2008 by betting that the housing market would collapse, and billions more through the stock market recovery of 2009.

 

Only one of the 21 hedge fund managers on last year’s Forbes list fell off. This was Raj Rajaratnam of Galleon Group, who was arrested last year on charges of insider trading.

 

Hedge fund managers James Simons, John Arnold, and David Tepper got average returns of 62, 52, and 31 percent, respectively, between 2008 and 2010. David Tepper made $2.3 billion over the past year, while John Paulson’s wealth grew by $6 billion.

 

The number of US billionaires grew to 403, up from 359 last year. The Asia-Pacific region had 234 billionaires, up from 130 the last year. Europe has 248 billionaires, despite having twice the population of the United States.

 

The 1,011 people on this list command a phenomenal amount of personal wealth. Their holdings are larger than the gross domestic products of every country besides China, Japan, and the United States. The wealth of the 403 US billionaires could more than cover the 2008 US federal deficit, with money left over for the states.

 

While the number of billionaires on the list is just short of the all-time high of 1,125 reached in 2008, it represents a phenomenal rebound. At this rate, the number of billionaires will once again hit record levels next year.

 

Carlos Slim Helú, a Mexican telecommunications tycoon, moved up to the first position on the list at $53.5 billion, beating out Americans Bill Gates ($53 billion) and Warren Buffet ($47 billion). The wealth of all three men rose dramatically. Over the last several years Slim Helú made roughly $27 million a day compared with the average daily income of $16.50 for Mexican workers.

 

The rich in India and China gained among the most. “For the first time, mainland China has the most billionaires outside the US,” Forbes said in its statement. “US citizens still dominate the ranks, but their grip is slipping.”

 

The hedge fund managers and financiers on the list benefitted directly from the bank bailout, which transferred huge sums of public funds into the accounts of the largest financial companies. But the billionaires in every other industry were the indirect recipients the government’s wealth transfer program also.

 

The Wall Street Journal, commenting on the figures, wrote, “How did the world’s rich get so much richer? Stock markets…. In short, what the stock market had taketh, the stock market hath giveth back–-at least to the billionaires.”

But the stock market recovery itself is no accident; it was the direct outcome of policies pursued by both US political parties. The bailout has been financed by a policy of fiscal austerity and high unemployment. The rapid increase in the wealth of the billionaires is the result of the impoverishment of tens of millions; it is the other face of mass unemployment, poverty, utility shutoffs, and foreclosures.

Aside from direct government handouts to the banks and super-rich, the major driver of the recovery of corporate profits—and thus the stock market—was productivity growth and corporate downsizing.

 

In 2009, the unemployment rate rose from 7.7 to 10 percent, three million jobs were lost, and wages fell dramatically. Millions of families lost their homes and became dislocated. But productivity, the amount of output that is produced from each hour of work, rose by 7 percent.

 

The money freed up through the destruction of social programs, higher employee output, and corporate restructuring has found its way into the pockets of the people on Forbes’ list.

 

LDV is now most probably throwing up!