[Wolfe Tone]

Originally Posted by southsiderosie

What kind of "price" are people "further down" paying? How much further down? This is all very vague.

Considering I had just been talking about social welfare surely that is obvious.

[Wolfe Tone]

Originally Posted by phantom_lord

Why don't they try and work on as being successful as leincar instead of essentially stealing his money?

Capitalism rewards success and innovation making huge strides in enriching society as a whole and ensuring the efficient allocation of resources. Socialism retards growth and basically makes everyone poorer. what kind of incentive is there to be successful or work hard in a society where your money is taken and given to someone on the dole?

Oh yeah, cause everyone can get to that level? There aint room at the top.

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by leincar

Why do people feel(this is not a reflection on you personally) in this country that we should come down to a certain level. Why not buck the trend and try and raise people up.

Because they don't understand the nature of capital. They imagine that every billionaire keeps his stack of gold bars locked away in his safe, and won't let anyone else touch them—so we need an activist government to "spread the wealth around." Not so. Private capital is the lifeblood of the economy, flowing through new ideas, new enterprises, and providing jobs for billions of people. When we transfer wealth from private hands to the public coffers, capital gets used much less efficiently, productive enterprises are starved of capital, and the economy as a whole (and that means everyone) suffers.

[southsiderosie]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Considering I had just been talking about social welfare surely that is obvious.

Well it's not. What is "too high a price" for not being a lawyer or in some other high-paid profession? What exactly do people with high paying jobs owe others in society who do not earn as much money? You seem to think this is self-evident, but it is not.

[southsiderosie]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Oh yeah, cause everyone can get to that level? There aint room at the top.

Not everybody is going to be rich. But I fail to understand how, for example, my working at a private law firm in some way kept down the bike messenger who delivered legal documents to me, or the city clerk who stamped them.

[phantom_lord]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Oh yeah, cause everyone can get to that level? There aint room at the top.

There's also no level of serfdom like you seem to imply.

[Wolfe Tone]

On the one hand donegalfella is pointing to the advances and increased wealth of the lower classes, and on the other he is moaning that it is just this which is undesirable as it eats into profits.

[nesf]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Oh yeah, cause everyone can get to that level? There aint room at the top.

Screw that crap, my great-grandfather was an itinerant farm labourer (i.e. very poor), my grandfather drove a bulldozer for a living, his kids went on to be a stockbroker, carpenter, manager and a small business owner. We aren't born fixed in our class like in the 1700s.

[leincar]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Because they don't understand the nature of capital. They imagine that every billionaire keeps his stack of gold bars locked away in his safe, and won't let anyone else touch them—so we need an activist government to "spread the wealth around." Not so. Private capital is the lifeblood of the economy, flowing through new ideas, new enterprises, and providing jobs for billions of people. When we transfer wealth from private hands to the public coffers, capital gets used much less efficiently, productive enterprises are starved of capital, and the economy as a whole (and that means everyone) suffers.

Sadly, I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I think people get the impression I'm a 'master of the universe' from Bonfire of the vanities. I'm just someone who got on by being good at his job, and after sending out many, many letters getting an unpaid internship with Harvey Goldsmith back in 1985.

[Wolfe Tone]

Originally Posted by nesf

Screw that crap, my great-grandfather was an itinerant farm labourer (i.e. very poor), my grandfather drove a bulldozer for a living, his kids went on to be a stockbroker, carpenter, manager and a small business owner. We aren't born fixed in our class like in the 1700s.

Oh so you are saying that it is possible, for everyone, to get to the tippy top and make tons of money? As long as they work hard?

[leincar]

Originally Posted by nesf

Screw that crap, my great-grandfather was an itinerant farm labourer (i.e. very poor), my grandfather drove a bulldozer for a living, his kids went on to be a stockbroker, carpenter, manager and a small business owner. We aren't born fixed in our class like in the 1700s.

Yep, my old man left for the U.S. in 1938 with the clothes on his back and a spare pair of underpants( he told the story often). He landed on Utah beach on D-Day with the 4th infantry division, later becoming a radio technician. Due to his political beliefs he came back to Ireland just as the era of McCartyism was happening. He spent the rest of his working life in R.T.E. working a couple of jobs to get us through collage.

[nesf]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Oh so you are saying that it is possible, for everyone, to get to the tippy top and make tons of money? As long as they work hard?

Which part of "don't contribute quips, contribute points" don't you get?

[Eliot Rosewater]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Oh so you are saying that it is possible, for everyone, to get to the tippy top and make tons of money? As long as they work hard?

I think you're shifting the goalposts here. Before on this thread you have argued, in effect, for a maximum wage, yet here you have raised the standard of success to the "tippy top" i.e. far above what one would envisage to be a maximum wage.

I think this "the rich getting richer; poor getting poorer" mantra doesn't hold true to reality, nor this notion that the majority haven't benefited. When I look around my middle-class estate I see at least two cars outside most houses, and Sky dishes on the roof.

[Wolfe Tone]

Originally Posted by nesf

Which part of "don't contribute quips, contribute points" don't you get?

Its a genuine question, and a perfectly valuable point, you seem to be suggesting that under our current system if people work hard everyone can achieve financial success. In your charming anecdote you made no mention that someone else has taken the "lower class" place of your ancestors.

[nesf]

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone

Its a genuine question, and a perfectly valuable point, you seem to be suggesting that under our current system if people work hard everyone can achieve financial success. In your charming anecdote you made no mention that someone else has taken the "lower class" place of your ancestors.

You are completely missing my point. The problem isn't what you're saying but how you're saying it. Making a reasonable argument that social mobility is all well and good but that it doesn't solve the problem of economic inequality is completely acceptable on this forum. Making that point by making a cheeky statement misrepresenting someone's point is disruptive and not welcome on this forum.

It is perfectly possible to argue almost every position (and definitely your's) reasonably without being disruptive, so either you do that or you no longer get to post here. Taking someone's point that clearly says X and saying "oh so you're saying Y" because you want to talk about Y is not behaviour that is acceptable here and you need to cut it out.

What you're doing is not conducive to neutral argument on this forum but will provoke poor reactions by others. This is trolling whether you intend it or not.