The rich - poor gap

[pork911]

johnfm said:

pork911 said:

bad morning honey?

No - just not sure what the point is od posting a link to a news article on a discussion forum.

Anyhoo - wealthy people get wealthier quicker than not wealthy people - quelle surprise!

an article on a book about wealth inequality. yep, no point at all.

[anonymous-user]

Why do the lentalists think it's ok to post Guardian links without apology? It's the communist version of the Daily Mail, nothing more, nothing less.

[Ali G]

pork911 said:

johnfm said:

pork911 said:

bad morning honey?

No - just not sure what the point is od posting a link to a news article on a discussion forum.

Anyhoo - wealthy people get wealthier quicker than not wealthy people - quelle surprise!

an article on a book about wealth inequality. yep, no point at all.

There is a point!

Piketty has made a point which may have some validity.

When wealthier people get wealthier than not wealthy people (ad infinitum) - despite doing sod all for this - then there may be (ultimately) a breakdown in society.

c.f Aristocracy.

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

pork911 said:

johnfm said:

pork911 said:

bad morning honey?

No - just not sure what the point is od posting a link to a news article on a discussion forum.

Anyhoo - wealthy people get wealthier quicker than not wealthy people - quelle surprise!

an article on a book about wealth inequality. yep, no point at all.

There is a point!

Piketty has made a point which may have some validity.

When wealthier people get wealthier than not wealthy people (ad infinitum) - despite doing sod all for this - then there may be (ultimately) a breakdown in society.

If those not wealthy people cannot get wealthier under their own steam, but 'society' somehow makes them wealthier, what other than sod all will they have done for their enrichment?

If this is nevertheless OK, how is it not OK for the already wealthy people?

[johnfm]

turbobloke said:

Ali G said:

pork911 said:

johnfm said:

pork911 said:

bad morning honey?

No - just not sure what the point is od posting a link to a news article on a discussion forum.

Anyhoo - wealthy people get wealthier quicker than not wealthy people - quelle surprise!

an article on a book about wealth inequality. yep, no point at all.

There is a point!

Piketty has made a point which may have some validity.

When wealthier people get wealthier than not wealthy people (ad infinitum) - despite doing sod all for this - then there may be (ultimately) a breakdown in society.

If those not wealthy people cannot get wealthier under their own steam, but 'society' somehow makes them wealthier, what other than sod all will they have done for their enrichment?

If this is nevertheless OK, how is it not OK for the already wealthy people?

Hmm, so the wealthy make a return on their capital in total isolation to the rest of society?

How do they manage that?

Is it at all possible that your views are slightly skewed?

[AstonZagato]

It's not a zero sum game

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

If those not wealthy people cannot get wealthier under their own steam, but 'society' somehow makes them wealthier, what other than sod all will they have done for their enrichment?

If this is nevertheless OK, how is it not OK for the already wealthy people?

I'll need to disassemble your response, if that's OK.

turbobloke said:

If those not wealthy people cannot get wealthier under their own steam

There is, currently, no presumption that this cannot happen.

turbobloke said:

'society' somehow makes them wealthier

'society' - i.e 'all of us' should enrich all of those with whom we live with. There are many ways we can do this - although the transfer of knowledge through education and an understanding of 'right' and 'wrong' (in all of its aspects) may be the most important. Honesty may be an important lesson to be taught, particularly for those who do not have an inherent grasp of this basic principle.

turbobloke said:

what other than sod all will they have done for their enrichment

We're assuming you mean 'financial' enrichment'. And we are hoping that there will be considerable 'enrichment' provided by 'society' for those able to make full use of the above. You have provided significant benefit to those seeking a knowledge on 'climate change' - which has benefited us all.

turbobloke said:

what other than sod all will they have done for their enrichment?

Worked hard, learned hard, as you must have done.
Then reap the rewards.
This is a 'capitalist' economy where 'nepotism' must have no role to play - survival of the fittest etc.
What 'Daddy' did, or what 'Mummy' did should have no refection on what the offspring can accomplish - genetics put to one side

turbobloke said:

If this is nevertheless OK, how is it not OK for the already wealthy people?

None of the above should give any concern to the 'already wealthy'

From my understanding of Picketty, he may have a concern that wealth 'passed down through generations' (my interpretation) may accumulate t
o unreasonable levels and thereby distort society (in time) - there is already a rebuttable presumption that too much wealth, and thereby too much influence, is held by too few members of society.

Economics, however, is not a 'science', so cannot be disproved.



I'm sure a book could be written about all of this...

[turbobloke]

That may work for you but not for me and yes, as per the thread title (Rich Poor gap) we're talking moolah here not friendship on farcebook or similar.

Similar assumptions claimed when defending the not-wealthy can apply to the already-wealthy, and getting something for nothing (our definition of nothing appears to differ!) under any scheme of forced redistribution of wealth isn't something I can support.

[RYH64E]

Ali G said:

This is a 'capitalist' economy where 'nepotism' must have no role to play - survival of the fittest etc.
What 'Daddy' did, or what 'Mummy' did should have no refection on what the offspring can accomplish - genetics put to one side

I'm not sure that this is possible. Most of us want the best for our children and if Mummy and Daddy are successful they can give their children a real head start in life.

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

Ali G said:

This is a 'capitalist' economy where 'nepotism' must have no role to play - survival of the fittest etc.
What 'Daddy' did, or what 'Mummy' did should have no refection on what the offspring can accomplish - genetics put to one side

I'm not sure that this is possible. Most of us want the best for our children and if Mummy and Daddy are successful they can give their children a real head start in life.

Also, where does this egalitarian delusion stop given that mummy and daddy will help or hinder via their genes which cannot be put aside. Genetic engineering to ensure women pop out sprogs uniform in mediocrity across all talents...wouldn't that be nice. Otherwise all that's left is that we remain in the real world.

[pork911]

TopOnePercent said:

Why do the lentalists think it's ok to post Guardian links without apology? It's the communist version of the Daily Mail, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm very far from a lentalist but don't restrict my reading to confirming my preconceptions.

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

RYH64E said:

Ali G said:

This is a 'capitalist' economy where 'nepotism' must have no role to play - survival of the fittest etc.
What 'Daddy' did, or what 'Mummy' did should have no refection on what the offspring can accomplish - genetics put to one side

I'm not sure that this is possible. Most of us want the best for our children and if Mummy and Daddy are successful they can give their children a real head start in life.

Also, where does this egalitarian delusion stop given that mummy and daddy will help or hinder via their genes which cannot be put aside. Genetic engineering to ensure women pop out sprogs uniform in mediocrity across all talents...wouldn't that be nice. Otherwise all that's left is that we remain in the real world.

As an aside, I was dreading what I might have posted - having had a rather relaxing Friday evening.



Not inconsiderable incriminating evidence was found some time on Saturday!

However, wealth or lack of wealth should, ideally, have little consequence for the future of the best and brightest, and all parents should wish the best for their offspring. However, there may be cases where undue influence may be exerted by wealthy parents to place a less than best and brightest junior into a lucrative position, which may be bad news for all of those around and below them.

Again, this is probably not the norm and not really worthy of further discussion.



p.s. It was heartening to hear that JKR is now wealthier than the Queen. Not sure who would be the more surprised - Queeny or JKR!

[turbobloke]