Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Duggys Housemate

Jonny7 wrote: »

They are employee's.. just like everyone else.

Why would you single them out as servants? in that case most of us are "servants".

Whether a pilot works for an airline or a private individual, they are still an employee regardless. I wouldn't be so quick to scoff at them

Who said I scoffed. I used a term most people would use. As usual you are not anwering the question. What is the difference between a nineteenth century cook, a cook on a yacht, or a cook in a billionaire's house in 2012?

Anyway, back to the super-rich. Due to the nature of capitalism in its many forms, its pretty unavoidable that we have a very wealthy class, it's part and parcel really - it's just up to government, economists, society how much we want to tax the super-wealthy. Too much and they bugger off somewhere else which will very gladly take them.. too little and the public coffers suffer.

Actually, the rich used to be poorer. The term super-rich is new. And the economies of the west were growing faster when the rich got less. It means a sea change across the West, in policy, so the rich cant flee.

As others have mentioned.. the simple way of looking at it is the corporate tax model in Ireland - low corporation tax - we attract more business.. which provides more benefits than the lower relative net tax income.

As even others have pointed out - that is irrelevant to the super-rich. The super rich don't employ that many people, it was your attempt to prove they employ lots of people which drove us to the whole servant class side topic.

Canvasser

The peasants of Cavan certainly don't think it's time to take on the super rich. They are out marching in support of them!

Jonny7

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Who said I scoffed. I used a term most people would use. As usual you are not anwering the question. What is the difference between a nineteenth century cook, a cook on a yacht, or a cook in a billionaire's house in 2012?

So if someone showed a picture of McDonalds employees your comment would have been any diff?

Actually, the rich used to be poorer. The term super-rich is new. And the economies of the west were growing faster when the rich got less. It means a sea change across the West, in policy, so the rich cant flee.

And "we" used to be a lot poorer. Its all relative. I am grotesquely "super-rich" compared to the median sub-Saharan African, something should be done about me?

As even others have pointed out - that is irrelevant to the super-rich. The super rich don't employ that many people, it was your attempt to prove they employ lots of people which drove us to the whole servant class side topic.

The "super-rich" tag is completely subjective. I was tackling the issue on what the **** is a servant class? which was your label not mine.

Many of those in the Forbes top 400 list have built companies from scratch which employ millions across the globe.

What's your solution? let's take Ireland, how would you change the current system?

Icepick

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Who said I scoffed. I used a term most people would use. As usual you are not anwering the question. What is the difference between a nineteenth century cook, a cook on a yacht, or a cook in a billionaire's house in 2012?

salary
work conditions
recognition
...so everything

Valmont

So the rallying call is for people to parasitise the parasites?!

With all this blood sucking going on, I'm left wondering who produces real wealth in the first place?

Canvasser

Valmont wrote: »

So the rallying call is for people to parasitise the parasites?!

With all this blood sucking going on, I'm left wondering who produces real wealth in the first place?

Chinese workers in sweat shops

Valmont

Canvasser wrote: »

Chinese workers in sweat shops

So said Karl Marx over one hundred years ago -- surely we're not sticking to the labour theory of value now in 2012?!

I would argue those who invested the capital and created the jobs are producing the real value. For without this initial investment these workers wouldn't have jobs in the first place, no?

Canvasser

Valmont wrote: »

So said Karl Marx over one hundred years ago -- surely we're not sticking to the labour theory of value now in 2012?!

I would argue those who invested the capital and created the jobs are producing the real value. For without this initial investment these workers wouldn't have jobs in the first place, no?

Why can't the workers control the capital? What makes you think only Sean Quinn and Sean Fitzpatrick are allowed control the capital?

Jonny7

Canvasser wrote: »

Why can't the workers control the capital? What makes you think only Sean Quinn and Sean Fitzpatrick are allowed control the capital?

What?

Are you aware of the catastrophic attempts at this?

Canvasser

Jonny7 wrote: »

What?

Are you aware of the catastrophic attempts at this?

What catastrophic attempts are these?

Jonny7

Canvasser wrote: »

What catastrophic attempts are these?

I presume you are referring to various forms of communism.. ? if not, what system..

Suryavarman

Canvasser wrote: »

Why can't the workers control the capital? What makes you think only Sean Quinn and Sean Fitzpatrick are allowed control the capital?

There's nothing stopping workers from saving their money and buying company shares or setting up their own companies.

Canvasser

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's nothing stopping workers from saving their money and buying company shares or setting up their own companies.

Yes there is. Workers barely get paid enough to pay their bills and raise their kids let alone buy their places of work. If you seriously think there's nothing stopping a worker in sweatshop buying their factory then you're off your head.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I presume you are referring to various forms of communism.. ? if not, what system..

If you mean the USSR and China then it's debatable whether the workers ever controlled the capital. The state certainly controlled investment. However the Russian and Chinese revolutions did turn those respective countries into global superpowers. When there was private ownership of capital Russia and China were 3rd world and undeveloped countries.

Jonny7

Canvasser wrote: »

Yes there is. Workers barely get paid enough to pay their bills and raise their kids let alone buy their places of work. If you seriously think there's nothing stopping a worker in sweatshop buying their factory then you're off your head.

What's the solution?

If you mean the USSR and China then it's debatable whether the workers ever controlled the capital. The state certainly controlled investment. However the Russian and Chinese revolutions did turn those respective countries into global superpowers where as when the capital was in private ownership there was all most no development and those countries remained in the 3rd world.

USSR and China are better off than in the past. This is because they've adopted respective models that fundamentally work.

What is the alternative to state controlling investment in those situations? I'm a bit lost as to your point exactly.

Canvasser

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's the solution?



USSR and China are better off than in the past. This is because they've adopted respective models that fundamentally work.

What is the alternative to state controlling investment in those situations? I'm a bit lost as to your point exactly.

I've already said that I believe in public ownership of the factors of production.

The USSR doesn't exist anymore but when Russia went back to capitalism it's economy shrunk by 50%. The Yeltsin years were a time of great poverty and hardship for the average Russian. The only way China became a world power was by abandoning the anarchy of the market and using strong state investment and intervention.

The countries of Africa have all been using free market economics for 4 decades and none of them have developed. The countries of Latin America have realised the mistakes of free market capitalism and are slowly begining to abandon in in favour of more public ownership.

Jonny7

Canvasser wrote: »

I've already said that I believe in public ownership of the factors of production.

Marxism basically. How does your version work in the real world?

The only way China became a world power was by abandoning the anarchy of the market and using strong state investment and intervention.

It's been called "state capitalism", it's light years apart from the old collectivisation and command systems.

Suryavarman

Canvasser wrote: »

Yes there is. Workers barely get paid enough to pay their bills and raise their kids let alone buy their places of work. If you seriously think there's nothing stopping a worker in sweatshop buying their factory then you're off your head.

There's nothing stopping people cutting back on their bills (Using less electricity, getting rid of digital TV or many other things) and saving up some money to buy stock. If people choose not to do that then that is their problem.

ejmaztec

Canvasser wrote: »

I've already said that I believe in public ownership of the factors of production.

The USSR doesn't exist anymore but when Russia went back to capitalism it's economy shrunk by 50%. The Yeltsin years were a time of great poverty and hardship for the average Russian. The only way China became a world power was by abandoning the anarchy of the market and using strong state investment and intervention.

The countries of Africa have all been using free market economics for 4 decades and none of them have developed. The countries of Latin America have realised the mistakes of free market capitalism and are slowly begining to abandon in in favour of more public ownership.

That was probably mostly due to prospective oligarchs taking advantage of the situation, and getting super-rich quick while the rest of the people were celebrating democracy. The world now seems to be riddled with the likes of Abramovich, who went from nothing to a multi-billionaire in a very short space of time.

Canvasser

ejmaztec wrote: »

That was probably mostly due to prospective oligarchs taking advantage of the situation, and getting super-rich quick while the rest of the people were celebrating democracy. The world now seems to be riddled with the likes of Abramovich, who went from nothing to a multi-billionaire in a very short space of time.

Celebrating democracy? I don't think there was any democracy in the Yeltsin years. He even had the parliament shut down and the opposition killed or arrested when they disagreed with him. Look up the 1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis. Yeltsin was a brutal dictator who destroyed his country by handing over all the states assets to private individuals.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

So the rallying call is for people to parasitise the parasites?!

With all this blood sucking going on, I'm left wondering who produces real wealth in the first place?

The people who produce 'real' wealth (By which you largely mean manipulating financial, commodity and currency markets, a form of modern witchcraft that will only be tolerated by conscious groups of citizens for so long) will be fine, just like they always have. The welfare of the average billionaire doesn't make it anywhere near the list of my priorities, nor should it for any compassionate or sentient person, not when children have to forego trips to the dentist because their parents can't afford it 'this month'.

Icepick

Denerick wrote: »

The people who produce 'real' wealth (By which you largely mean manipulating financial, commodity and currency markets, a form of modern witchcraft that will only be tolerated by conscious groups of citizens for so long) will be fine, just like they always have. The welfare of the average billionaire doesn't make it anywhere near the list of my priorities, nor should it for any compassionate or sentient person, not when children have to forego trips to the dentist because their parents can't afford it 'this month'.

Are rich people supposed to pay the visits because they are rich?

Jonny7

Denerick wrote: »

The people who produce 'real' wealth (By which you largely mean manipulating financial, commodity and currency markets, a form of modern witchcraft that will only be tolerated by conscious groups of citizens for so long) will be fine, just like they always have.

You mean the financial markets which have been around since the 13th century and currently employ millions around the globe?

The welfare of the average billionaire doesn't make it anywhere near the list of my priorities, nor should it for any compassionate or sentient person, not when children have to forego trips to the dentist because their parents can't afford it 'this month'.

Have a workable solution that doesn't involve adopting a failed system?

Denerick

Jonny7 wrote: »

You mean the financial markets which have been around since the 13th century and currently employ millions around the globe?

The financial markets slowly developed into the behemoth they are today from its relatively humble beginnings in its modern manifestation (Big bucks provided credit to nations in order to fight the Napoleonic wars) to the stage where they can decide the fate of a nation of people in one fell swoop, almost instantly. Billions are made in seconds, speculation has gone completely out of control. To compare the modern system with the medieval one which lent relatively and proportionally tiny amounts to monarchs so they could fight wars is so absurd it doesn't require a response.

Have a workable solution that doesn't involve adopting a failed system?

And that failed system would be? I would consider the present system to have 'failed', at least in terms of providing a decent standard of living to the poorest (It does do a good job in providing healthy living standards to the wealthy, I'll grant you that)

Denerick

Icepick wrote: »

Are rich people supposed to pay the visits because they are rich?

Yes, they are. They're wealthy as a direct result of their relationship with the poor. They are wealthy because someone else is poor and willing to work for relatively smaller wages (If the poor person worked for proportionally higher wages the wealthy person would by definition become proportionally poorer)

Tell me, is it revolution you people are after? People will only take so much. The gap between the wealthy and the average is the largest it has been since the industrial age. Common sense, social democratic solutions will stave off the revolution that I believe is inevitable if the west maintains its present economic orthodoxy and allow the wealthy to keep (some) of their wealth.

Jonny7

Denerick wrote: »

The financial markets slowly developed into the behemoth they are today from its relatively humble beginnings in its modern manifestation (Big bucks provided credit to nations in order to fight the Napoleonic wars) to the stage where they can decide the fate of a nation of people in one fell swoop, almost instantly. Billions are made in seconds, speculation has gone completely out of control.

Like any system, its not perfect, and it's one of the main factors why we are in a double-dip recession at the moment. We learnt from 1929, from the early 80's and, judging from the controls and regulations constantly coming in we'll learn from this.

To compare the modern system with the medieval one which lent relatively and proportionally tiny amounts to monarchs so they could fight wars is so absurd it doesn't require a response.

I didn't compare it to any modern system I merely pointed out the length of time it has been in place - you are the one who compared it with "witchcraft"

And that failed system would be? I would consider the present system to have 'failed', at least in terms of providing a decent standard of living to the poorest (It does do a good job in providing healthy living standards to the wealthy, I'll grant you that)

The "present system", where? in Ireland? in Sweden? in Spain? if, as I suspect you are using a sweeping generalisation of capitalism across the globe (!!!), then what is your working solution?

Blowfish

Denerick wrote: »

And that failed system would be? I would consider the present system to have 'failed', at least in terms of providing a decent standard of living to the poorest (It does do a good job in providing healthy living standards to the wealthy, I'll grant you that)

Rather obvious question for you, would you rather live as a poor person now, or a poor person 100 years ago? If you choose now, how exactly has the 'modern' system failed?

No matter what way you look at it, the poorest in Ireland have never been better off than now.

Canvasser

Icepick wrote: »

Are rich people supposed to pay the visits because they are rich?

They should give back what they stole from the people.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

The people who produce 'real' wealth (By which you largely mean manipulating financial, commodity and currency markets,

Before this gets crazy -- I don't know where you pulled that idea from but it definitely wasn't from anything I've said.

I asked that considering you're proposing to parasitise the parasites, who produces the wealth in the first place? I don't think it just 'exists' in a pot somewhere for all to take and distribute as they please.

Denerick wrote:

They're wealthy as a direct result of their relationship with the poor. They are wealthy because someone else is poor and willing to work for relatively smaller wages (If the poor person worked for proportionally higher wages the wealthy person would by definition become proportionally poorer)

So we just need to spread the word to 'poor' people to be willing to work for a higher wage? And somehow the supposedly fixed pie of wealth will be magically realigned in a fair and equitable manner?

Jonny7

Canvasser wrote: »

They should give back what they stole from the people.

Who stole what from you now?

Drumpot

Blowfish wrote: »

Rather obvious question for you, would you rather live as a poor person now, or a poor person 100 years ago? If you choose now, how exactly has the 'modern' system failed?

No matter what way you look at it, the poorest in Ireland have never been better off than now.

Ive had this debate with a friend of mine who in the end throws out the same sentance highlighted. Thats a very poor excuse for the way things are setup today. To me, its basically saying "be thankful for what you have" as if that excuses the tragic actions of the few at the cost of the majority of us. The only way society progress's is by looking forward, not back. You should only look back to see how you got to where you are and find your barings. Being thankful for something usually means you dont look for better and who does that benefit other then the current status quo?

You could say to a rape victim "be thankful you were raped today instead of 100 years ago because at least you have a better chance of getting support and of the criminal getting caught". My extreme point being that if somethings wrong, its not right because its better then it was 100 years ago! We grow up in an environment that is our world. It doesnt matter what happened in the past, only how we live today and how society improves during our lives.

The middle income earners of the world are being raped for financial mistakes they didnt make and while they can still afford to feed themselves, the mental anguish that this has caused is difficult to gauge or compare with things 100 years ago. This is all to feed and appease a financial system that takes risks and threatens to punish an entire country if a private institution collapses. I mean its completely ridiculous . .

People might not be dieing as much as they were in other era's of depression, but families are being torn apart, people are suffering serious mental illness's (depression) and entire countries are being psychologically bullied into forcing harsh austerity not simply because of the actions of their people, but also the actions of private investors (specifically in our case) and the pressure of our EU friends who felt we couldnt let a bank fail for the greater good.

When you benchmark anything against something thats obviously worse, it doesnt mean its a success, it just means its not as bad as it used to be . .