Wealth inequality grows.
Discussion
NicD said:
turbobloke said:
How many $millions does it take to influence and control Obama and/or the legislature on a policy issue where he/they agree anyway? Nil. But then there's been no influence exerted.
Those selling access describe it as influence, it's surprising to see you buying the sizzle without thought for the sausage, or indeed soup
forget the sizzle/sausage/soup confusion, are you seriously putting forward the proposition that the world is controlled by the ordinary voting population rather than the trill/billionaires?Those selling access describe it as influence, it's surprising to see you buying the sizzle without thought for the sausage, or indeed soup
In the U.K. we now witness some blustering about how wages are now, as if by miracle, rising faster than inflation. The growth in job vacancies, employment numbers rising and growth looking good. All good news of course and the Government have done quite well all things considered. However much of this is very low grade jobs with poor pay, part time work, zero hours contracts and Umbrella Companies creaming off profit leaving sub contract Companies with a pittance for it's continued prosperity, along with its workers.
I do wonder just what a World of work my Grandson will find in 20 years time.
turbobloke said:
eccles said:
AJS- said:
My take on it is that as an economy grows and more wealth is created equality will naturally rise, as some people remain on or close to zero and others rise higher and higher.
Equality will rise? I doubt it while directors pay rises at many times the rate of the average worker.Are you saying minor league gutbuckets should match Lionel Messi's pay performance from apprentice to retirement?
Gaps remain only of material interest to apparatchik types.
To re-iterate as some seem to have forgotten, it is not the fact that a wealth gap in itself is a bad thing, most of us agree it is a good thing. The problem lies at the uber wealth at the very top, it is this that is a possible threat in Society by the misuse of this wealth which brings power.
Edited by crankedup on Thursday 22 January 12:01
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
eccles said:
AJS- said:
My take on it is that as an economy grows and more wealth is created equality will naturally rise, as some people remain on or close to zero and others rise higher and higher.
Equality will rise? I doubt it while directors pay rises at many times the rate of the average worker.Are you saying minor league gutbuckets should match Lionel Messi's pay performance from apprentice to retirement?
Gaps remain only of material interest to apparatchik types.
crankedup said:
How brilliant they are and 'if I could do the job I should go do it' along with a whole load of other bull...
Apply - an updated CV is all you need, the world is your oyster with a bogof on it. Even if you can't offer much, every little helps Rogue top footballers also get called to account, it doesn't mean the entire ranks of the galacticos can be outplayed by minor league gutbuckets and nor does it mean the galacticos' salary and bonus after winning trophies should increase in the same proportion.
Obvious really, my hope is that you don't miss the obvious next time.
Should their be any of PH'ers Directors on the panel I would likely be offered a Directorship, such is some misguided nonsense posted in here
. But really, me, sell spuds!! no,no.no. My own little start-up keeps me occupied and is far more fun than a grocery store for sure. I may even be looking for a partner this time next year.turbobloke said:
edh said:
turbobloke said:
NicD said:
crankedup said:
To re-iterate as some seem to have forgotten, it is not the fact that a wealth gap in itself is a bad thing, most of us agree it is a good thing. The problem lies at the uber wealth at the very top, it is this that is a possible threat in Society by the misuse of this wealth which brings power.
+1
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
The Laurel and Hardy lookalikes!
Ah but which two...a whoosh parrot could be waiting in the wings 
Take another look
crankedup said:
They have been doing the steam-ups/vintage car shows for a few years now, a right good laugh them two. Not sure why you chose to post a pic' of them in here though
Vintage car shows?! Those two comedians were doing stand-up in the House of Commons for years.Afterwards one became rather more wealthy than the other. See
at the top of the post for the other reason for posting 
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
Nobody has convinced me that extreme wealth in just a few hands is a good thing, and that extreme wealth is growing within those same few hands. Nobody can see a problem with that, except a couple of other posters.
We don't have to convince you, as we're happy with the way the system works. You want to change how it works for, frankly, bizarre and seemingly unclear reasons, so you need to make the case for change.Did I say I wanted to change the current system, no I did not! As a debate it is an interesting topic, as shown with the number of posts, last time I thought about it this is exactly what a forum is intended for.
Turning to your 'frankly bizarre and seemingly unclear reasons' (I don't want to change anything')maybe it's your lack of understanding of the subject matter that is the problem for you. True I haven't put a case as such but I have given a number of examples of how extreme wealth can influence World Politics within differing Countries. If that is not enough for you why not come back, with you're reasoning, and dispute the examples?
Last night's 'Newsnight' featured a piece regarding wealth distribution, as others have mentioned poverty base lines have risen over the past decades. The use of snowballs and toys were used to demonstrate how far those poverty base lines have rose. Worth watching if this type of subject analysis interests you.
don4l said:
crankedup said:
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
Nobody has convinced me that extreme wealth in just a few hands is a good thing, and that extreme wealth is growing within those same few hands. Nobody can see a problem with that, except a couple of other posters.
We don't have to convince you, as we're happy with the way the system works. You want to change how it works for, frankly, bizarre and seemingly unclear reasons, so you need to make the case for change.Did I say I wanted to change the current system, no I did not!
If you think that we could have a better system, then please feel free to share your views.
Mali and Chad have a much smaller "wealth gap" than the UK. Even the poorest people in the UK have unimaginable wealth compared to the poor in those parts of Africa.
I get the impression that you would be much happier if we didn't have a few hundred wealthy people even if it meant that 10's of thousands would die of starvation.
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
What's with the 'we', do you imagine you're in an internet clic or is it the Royal 'we'?
Did I say I wanted to change the current system, no I did not! As a debate it is an interesting topic, as shown with the number of posts, last time I thought about it this is exactly what a forum is intended for.
Turning to your 'frankly bizarre and seemingly unclear reasons' (I don't want to change anything')maybe it's your lack of understanding of the subject matter that is the problem for you. True I haven't put a case as such but I have given a number of examples of how extreme wealth can influence World Politics within differing Countries. If that is not enough for you why not come back, with you're reasoning, and dispute the examples?
We in this instance is the people you seem to think should be convincing you of something rather than simply pointing out that your views as you've expressed them are illogical and irrational.Did I say I wanted to change the current system, no I did not! As a debate it is an interesting topic, as shown with the number of posts, last time I thought about it this is exactly what a forum is intended for.
Turning to your 'frankly bizarre and seemingly unclear reasons' (I don't want to change anything')maybe it's your lack of understanding of the subject matter that is the problem for you. True I haven't put a case as such but I have given a number of examples of how extreme wealth can influence World Politics within differing Countries. If that is not enough for you why not come back, with you're reasoning, and dispute the examples?
Extreme wealth differentials become increasingly irrelevant the more polarized the top set become. Make every billionaire into a trillionaire and I'll feel zero impact and nor will you. Normal people aren't competing against them for food, housing, education, or work. It matters not how rich Britains top one percent are; it matters to me & mine only how much wealth I have with which to house, feed, and educate my family.
The problem you perceive with wealth inequality is really just jealousy and envy. Socialism, in a word.
You perhaps need to understand that it is a subject under discussion by a wide extreme of leading Global leaders, not just me
If you genuinely feel that you're statement is you're reality then fair enough. Being so however you miss the important points regarding wealth = power and how that affects every person living within the developed World, to suggest I am envious and jealous of the uber wealthy is a rather juvenile and flaccid comment demonstrating you're apparent lack of consideration into the debate topic. You may well be comfortable with the notion that uber wealth is not affecting you're life, in which case you represent one of the benign masses within the population, if we all reacted as such the World would be a poorer place.
oyster said:
Forget the billionaires, invariably their success generates wealth further down the tree and they've had to risk their own money to get there .
For me the real story is the multiple between top earner and bottom earner in medium/large companies. Companies where the guys at the top are not risking their own money but are taking rewards commensurate as if they had invested their capital.
And company success is not rewarded proportionately to employees and shareholders.
100% agree with this, as many of my fellow posters will know and understand, much to many gasps of their angst! Just thought it was time to have a debate about the extreme wealth.For me the real story is the multiple between top earner and bottom earner in medium/large companies. Companies where the guys at the top are not risking their own money but are taking rewards commensurate as if they had invested their capital.
And company success is not rewarded proportionately to employees and shareholders.
Dr Jekyll said:
crankedup said:
Are you completely at ease with the likes of Murdock and the Late Maxwell for example manipulating and affecting 'ordinary lives'. These are the questions which bring the debate forward and add interest.
What on earth have Murdoch and Maxwell got to do with wealth inequality? Maxwell was a negative millionaire by the time he finished. And how do they manipulate 'ordinary lives'?Murdoch has manipulated his own agenda by using his wealth through his media empire and directly into Governments. That is power through wealth.Only extreme wealth can give rise to these examples as neither seem(ed) gifted with intelligence above a fairly basic level.
The continuing problem in the thread is confusion between extreme wealth and working man wealth, this confusion is partly my error in including 'the top 1%' as a parameter.
Oh, you will have to excuse me for an hour or so, my cheese on toast is ready
Edited by crankedup on Friday 23 January 11:57
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
You perhaps need to understand that it is a subject under discussion by a wide extreme of leading Global leaders, not just me
You perhaps need to understand the difference between talking and delivering.
Pretty well every poster in this and any other economics/wealth thread tries their best to educate you, and still you actively refuse it. Your chips are showing.
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
Well if it's going to turn into pit'a pat try this : the educators are just fine and I'm happy to learn, as I have frequently acknowledged many times. However, you are wide of the mark with this accusation regarding this particular thread. The examples I have offered have been ignored in the main, this illustrates to me a disengagement to debate, I assume owing to a lack of open -mind and broader thought. Moving on the exception to those who offer education appears to be you, I have yet to read anything in you're posts that could vaguely resemble common sense yet alone educational.
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
No chip on my shoulders that count for much, in this debate it seems I share a platform with those in here of a higher Societal and monetary knowledge than myself and you. At least President Obama and I share the common POV on the subject, along with many other Global leaders
Billionaires have marginal affect on food prices for they consume no greater quantity than you or I. They influence not the price of mud huts in Africa or semi's in Luton, for they have interest in neither. They might use a little more gas and electric, but then, so do we compared to most of the world.
You've yet to post a coherent explanation of why their amassing vast wealth has even the least impact upon the rest of us.
As regards to power. Murdoch et al aren't powerful because they are rich. They got uber rich because of being well connected, and knowing everything about those with power, thus co-opting that power for themselves. I'll agree there's a start up cost here, but the vast wealth differential comes from the power, the power doesn't come from the wealth.
See Tony Blair for evidence of the above. A few million and he gets access to more powerful people. Networking, negotiation, and whatever other unsavoury behaviours later, and his exit from power allowed him to accrue significant wealth far beyond the reaches of his previous power.
Edited by LucreLout on Friday 23 January 14:38
Yes of course the extremely wealthy are well connected, and they use that to their own advantage not to the advantage of the general population. With you're example of Blair you seem to be agreeing with me that wealth brings power, it is how this power is used that either brings forth change of a beneficial nature or otherwise. For example Richard Branson airline, he had the money which brought him the knowledge and skills to fight other airlines regarding routing and costs. Thanks to him we, the general public have enjoyed a benefit in terms of more choice, lower cost flights. The same can be said of other operators going back decades.
Equally I will continue my stance that extreme wealth within small numbers of holders can bring about negativity to the general population. Two examples I have already offered, another example I offered at the start of the thread was the elimination of competition which in the short term can be of benefit to the G.P. but ultimately is a bad thing. This is why the U.K. has a Competitions Authority, currently investing the big 6 power suppliers. This Authority is in being for the reason that I am advocating that wealth = power (no pun) An uber rich individual, should they so wish and likely do hold massive shareholdings within these types of businesses, please don't come back and tell me that this is not wealth = power.
turbobloke said:
The Competition and Markets Authority looks at amassed wealth and inter-company inequality? Is Apple safe?! What happened to looking at mergers, cartels, compliance with consumer regs, all independent of market capitalisation or total asset figures. As stated previously, access is sold as influence/power, these are different. If the access involves lobbying for what the really powerful entity was going to do anyway, it looks like the access delivered power; if not, then it looks like there was a higher 'bid', that's wrong in both instances. If wealth was automatic power, it wouldn't need access (to where the power really is).
Its all about how an individual wishes to use or abuse the power that wealth brings. Yup mention competition authorities, but how long is it taking for these people to act in my example of the big 6 power suppliers. The BIG shareholder will soon jump ship onto a more lucrative boat knowing that time lags are his friend. Edited by crankedup on Friday 23 January 16:21
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
As a Lib-Dem I am of course in favour of a higher degree of financial equilibration, that is not to say taking from the wealthy bring them to the financial level of the poor. For example, years ago the extremely wealthy would spend some of the wealth by provision of housing for workers. Cadbury being a good example of that, how often do we hear or see the uber wealthy contribute to Society, they seem more interested in amassing more wealth for themselves.
Not sure if serious.crankedup said:
That is of course entirely their prerogative, but they shouldn't be surprised to witness the growing disdain from those in much less fortunate financial situations (Greece).
When it went titsup I thought straight away, damn all those billionaires in Greece no doubt they also slowed the velocity of money out of spite.
crankedup said:
Personally, some of my pals are very wealthy individuals, by that I mean many times multi-millionaires, they own assets without debt.
Do they let you look at their wad?LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
I simply cannot agree that Murdoch was not without power derived from his wealth. I maintain that both are interlinked to various degrees. Why do you dismiss Murdock as a extremely wealthy man who has not used his wealth to exercise power, I simply cannot agree with you that you're case is that he is not a man with power through wealth.
Wealth != power, but they are also not mutually exclusive.I've never suggested Murdoch hasn't exercised his power, only that this stems more from connections, scandals, and planning than it does from wealth. Most people with 10x the wealth are not half as powerful as Murdoch.
You don't need money to have power and you don't get gifted money because you have power. You have to choose to use one in pursuit of the other. Either can be acquired in isolation.
Given that, wealth equalisation will not achieve the equalisation of power. Bankrupt Murdoch and he'll still know what he knows about people and he'll still be acquainted with those who hold the powers through which he acts.
Power is an irrelevant sideshow to the wealth or incomes equality discussion. Wealth is wealth, power is power, either can beget the other, just as hard work, good luck, or intelligence can.
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
No I cannot accept the premise of you're POV, just as you cannot accept my POV. Wealth will always bring power which can be used or abused or ignored imo. Clearly we hold opposite POV neither of us are likely to change each others it seems. Such is life, shall we move on!
In which case we won't agree either, as in my viewpoint wealth brings more options in life and it can buy access to those with power - if this is what people regard as power itself, then I disagree for reasons already stated. The genuinely powerful sell access branded as influence or power, but it's just more snake oil and another revenue stream boosting cashflow.' " " " " " We would seem to agree that wealth does bring with it power then.
turbobloke said:
Martin4x4 said:
...rational evidence would over coming irrational greed...
Then again, the rational evidence in this thread doesn't coincide with your viewpoint.As to greed - defined as an 'inordinate' desire to possess (etc), where inordinate means disproportionate, unwarranted - there's nothing irrational, disproportionate or unwarranted within the implications and ramifications following from the compelling evidence countering as-yet unsubstantiated assertions from what may broadly be termed the left field.
It's entirely rational and reasonable.
It is wholly inappropriate to define assertions 'broadly leftfield' simply because it is not fitting into you're own assertions.
don4l said:
crankedup said:
don4l said:
crankedup said:
LucreLout said:
crankedup said:
Nobody has convinced me that extreme wealth in just a few hands is a good thing, and that extreme wealth is growing within those same few hands. Nobody can see a problem with that, except a couple of other posters.
We don't have to convince you, as we're happy with the way the system works. You want to change how it works for, frankly, bizarre and seemingly unclear reasons, so you need to make the case for change.Did I say I wanted to change the current system, no I did not!
If you think that we could have a better system, then please feel free to share your views.
Mali and Chad have a much smaller "wealth gap" than the UK. Even the poorest people in the UK have unimaginable wealth compared to the poor in those parts of Africa.
I get the impression that you would be much happier if we didn't have a few hundred wealthy people even if it meant that 10's of thousands would die of starvation.
I am not saying that the current system is perfect. I don't know how to improve it, so I don't complain about it.
You seem to think that it is bad if some people have more wealth than other people and at the same time you are part of the globally wealthiest 1%.
You don't complain about a system that you wouldn't know how to change, OK that's a statement of fact concerning you as an individual. However, that is not a precursor for you to implant you're own thought methodology onto other's, such as me. The freedom to complain is a further bedrock of democracy, is this something that you wish to see defeated and those that do not have an answer to suit critics should not speak out?
You're last para' is a wild assumption on you're part, it's meaningless and spiteful in it's nature.
fblm said:
crankedup said:
If you took the time and trouble to read my posts in this thread you will have seen that I have proposed that a system of taxation and policy changes within competition authorities changed, this could form a bedrock of change.
Earlier in this thread I showed that just to maintain the ratio of wealth between the top 10 with 50% of global wealth and everyone else due to population change alone would require an annual fiscal transfer of over $200bn from rich to poor. To reiterate that is simply to maintain the current level of inequality where it is for one year due to population growth. The solution you propose above is utterly delusional and unworkable not to mention would fail. Google a list of countries by gdp per capita and look at the bottom 20. You want to improve the lot of the worlds poor improve their health (plenty of evidence this alone decreases birthrate) and security. It's what the UN is supposed to be for. Get that useless organisation to do its job or replace it with one with teeth.Why is taxation not workable? And why can't it work alongside changes within Competition authorities. You're solution is to ignore all and let matters continue unchecked I assume, a certain recipe for Social discontent and upheaval. It is not simply a matter of bringing prosperity to the under-privileged, it is the continuing and growing problem arising from the multi=billionaires wealth and the consequences that has on Society.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff