Who wants to be a Billionaire ?
07 October 2011, 10:42 AM
#1
Who wants to be a Billionaire ?
Does anyone else find it slightly strange that such a small number of people control that much of the worlds wealth, is it part of the current problem that individuals have ended up with so much, I am thinking Abramovich, Phillip Green and all the Ol Billionaires.
Do they serve a useful purpose, should any one person control that much of the worlds wealth and what is the point if you can never possibly spend it all ?
Not saying its good or bad, just interested to see what you think, I have nothing against wealth but think its kind of got a bit out of hand.
Is it a sort of club, do they try to outdo wach other like neighbours keeping up with the Joneses ?
Are there good reasons for all that wealth being tied up, would it be dangerous if were all released at one time ?
Do they serve a useful purpose, should any one person control that much of the worlds wealth and what is the point if you can never possibly spend it all ?
Not saying its good or bad, just interested to see what you think, I have nothing against wealth but think its kind of got a bit out of hand.
Is it a sort of club, do they try to outdo wach other like neighbours keeping up with the Joneses ?
Are there good reasons for all that wealth being tied up, would it be dangerous if were all released at one time ?
07 October 2011, 12:06 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the nature of capitalism, the more comitted to captialism a nation is the larger the inequality becomes. At its most basic we are all slaves to the machine sacrificing true quality of life for the benefit of the super elite. The trouble is its the choice people en mass have made, I guess we cannot blame the elite for our own stupidity. We let the billionaires and bankers screw us over in some misguided belief that a few flat screen TV's and a German Saloon on the drive somehow qualifies as living well.
07 October 2011, 01:03 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it slightly strange that you find it strange. Why WOULDN'T it happen? If you have an individual who uses his income to invest in more incoming generating companies then assuming they choose wisely then that is the expected outcome. You are merely seeing the end result of a string of successful (or lucky if you prefer) investments.
Income distribution follows the same pattern as loads of other distributions, tapering to the limits. Whats puzzling about that?
Income distribution follows the same pattern as loads of other distributions, tapering to the limits. Whats puzzling about that?
07 October 2011, 01:11 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn, fine, go live in North Korea, and save us your whinging
Last edited by warrenm2; 07 October 2011 at 01:14 PM. Reason: typo
07 October 2011, 01:31 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Its the nature of capitalism, the more comitted to captialism a nation is the larger the inequality becomes. At its most basic we are all slaves to the machine sacrificing true quality of life for the benefit of the super elite. The trouble is its the choice people en mass have made, I guess we cannot blame the elite for our own stupidity. We let the billionaires and bankers screw us over in some misguided belief that a few flat screen TV's and a German Saloon on the drive somehow qualifies as living well.
True quality of life? Can you define that please?
Trending Topics
07 October 2011, 01:41 PM
#8
Its the nature of capitalism, the more comitted to captialism a nation is the larger the inequality becomes. At its most basic we are all slaves to the machine sacrificing true quality of life for the benefit of the super elite. The trouble is its the choice people en mass have made, I guess we cannot blame the elite for our own stupidity. We let the billionaires and bankers screw us over in some misguided belief that a few flat screen TV's and a German Saloon on the drive somehow qualifies as living well.
Luan, people arent all that stupid, some are but still manage to enjoy life, some are very intelligent and wealthy and are misery ***** and kill themselves, we are under some kind of social control but I don't think its all one big "Animal Farm" style pseudo Capitalistic sheen over enforced labour, we are all masters of our own destiny and most of the control is to protect us from ourselves, our aggression, stupidly and greed, not for the benefit of Big Brother.
People like shiny stuff, they like showing off and status and will work hard to get it, that's why communism doesn't work, work hard, all to be equal, whats the point.
My point is that "there are too many fat *******s eating all the pie" at one end and to many expecting free pie at the other so there is a lot less pie for those who do most of the work !
07 October 2011, 01:42 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Where exactly is this wealth that's 'tied up'? What are they doing with it? And how would you release it? What would the new owners or 'users' then do with it?
07 October 2011, 02:36 PM
#10
What are they doing with it ? usually it is there making more money, being used to purchase more property, art, private jets, day to day expenses and perhaps the odd company.
I am not proposing releasing it, its not mine
and redistributing it doesn't fit with capitalism but like I said the other day this feels like the end of a game of Monopoly with some with the whole bank and the rest with nothing but its not a game you can declare a winner and start again.
07 October 2011, 03:13 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression that all that money is like some sort of drug to them. They could never spend it in their lifetimes and I suspect like J4CKO that they have this irresistible impulse to keep making more and more of it, maybe even in competition with the other billionaires.
What a life eh?
Les
What a life eh?
Les
07 October 2011, 03:23 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
That's the point of the question, I don't know, am guessing that if you are a Billionaire then you have a 1000 million of some kind of currency, i.e. Dollars or Pounds, I also guess it isnt in tenners under a mattress so will be in property, gold, commodities, shares, gilts, bonds and Green Shield Stamps, i.e. not liquid cash.
What are they doing with it ? usually it is there making more money, being used to purchase more property, art, private jets, day to day expenses and perhaps the odd company.
I am not proposing releasing it, its not mine and redistributing it doesn't fit with capitalism but like I said the other day this feels like the end of a game of Monopoly with some with the whole bank and the rest with nothing but its not a game you can declare a winner and start again.
What are they doing with it ? usually it is there making more money, being used to purchase more property, art, private jets, day to day expenses and perhaps the odd company.
I am not proposing releasing it, its not mine
and redistributing it doesn't fit with capitalism but like I said the other day this feels like the end of a game of Monopoly with some with the whole bank and the rest with nothing but its not a game you can declare a winner and start again.If you really are interested, you should probably read some Liberal philosophy. The idea of capitalism and a market is not just for the reason of economic efficiency. It goes a lot deeper than you'd expect. Yes, at a glance it can sometimes seem like massive inequality when you see large differences in wealth, but I promise you, if you understand the idea it all stems from, you'll see it all in a totally different light.
This all came about with the enlightenment, and the idea that no one was any better or was born with any privilege to have hereditary wealth and power over others. It led away from something authoritarian towards something where everyone has a chance to work and, through mutual agreement, exchange whatever they want with someone else. It might not mean that everyone gets an equal opportunity at birth, but it means that everyone is, or should be, equal before the law to do as they like. Anyway, giving people who aren't even born yet a god given right to something is not part of the philosophy.
With socialism, everyone is responsible for you. Who forces them? The central authority. Where does the central authority get that right to assume it is the one valid system for humanity to which it should force everyone to dedicate their life to? ???
The main fallacy there is that it's the way people are supposed to live - like an absolute truth. If it's so natural for everyone to redistribute wealth, why doesn't everyone already do it? The truth is that it's simply the fulfillment of the desire of the leaders of the system. They think it's the way things should be done, so they force everyone else to obey. They forget that in a system where every individual has equal power to choose, people are free to set up charities to redistribute wealth, or have companies run by the workers. You can do anything you like, as long as you get the agreement of the people you are doing something with. The socialist option is that you coerce others into helping you reach your goal "for the good of humanity" - really just what you (or the leaders) see as good. You've already established a goal that you think humanity should be heading towards, and you're going to use the life of others as the raw materials to achieve that. But who says these individuals want the same thing? Where does the right come from to discard their personal wishes and assume power over them? Because you think it's what would be good for them? Not a good enough reason, in my opinion; they will naturally pursue what is 'good' for themselves. The principle of you having power over them is as if it was hereditary, a god-given right to think for mankind and use them as the clay for whatever fantasy you come up with.
Anyway, as this is a long post and there are much, much better people at explaining this than me, I'll leave it there.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 07 October 2011 at 04:43 PM.
07 October 2011, 04:45 PM
#13
But, but, but.
If you really are interested, you should probably read some Liberal philosophy. The idea of capitalism and a market is not just for the reason of economic efficiency. It goes a lot deeper than you'd expect. Yes, at a glance it can sometimes seem like massive inequality when you see large differences in wealth, but I promise you, if you understand the idea it all stems from, you'll see it all in a totally different light.
This all came about with the enlightenment, and the idea that no one was any better or was born with any privilege to have hereditary wealth and power over others. It led away from something authoritarian towards something where everyone has a chance to work and, through mutual agreement, exchange whatever they want with someone else. It might not mean that everyone gets an equal opportunity at birth, but it means that everyone is, or should be, equal before the law to do as they like. Anyway, giving people who aren't even born yet a god given right to something is not part of the philosophy.
With socialism, everyone is responsible for you. Who forces them? The central authority. Where does the central authority get that right to assume it is the one valid system for humanity to which it should force everyone to dedicate their life to? ???
The main fallacy there is that it's the way people are supposed to live - like an absolute truth. If it's so natural for everyone to redistribute wealth, why doesn't everyone already do it? The truth is that it's simply the fulfillment of the desire of the leaders of the system. They think it's the way things should be done, so they force everyone else to obey. They forget that in a system where every individual has equal power to choose, people are free to set up charities to redistribute wealth, or have companies run by the workers. You can do anything you like, as long as you get the agreement of the people you are doing something with. The socialist option is that you coerce others into helping you reach your goal "for the good of humanity" - really just what you (or the leaders) see as good. You've already established a goal that you think humanity should be heading towards, and you're going to use the life of others as the raw materials to achieve that. But who says these individuals want the same thing? Where does the right come from to discard their personal wishes and assume power over them? Because you think it's what would be good for them? Not a good enough reason, in my opinion; they will naturally pursue what is 'good' for themselves. The principle of you having power over them is as if it was hereditary, a god-given right to think for mankind and use them as the clay for whatever fantasy you come up with.
Anyway, as this is a long post and there are much, much better people at explaining this than me, I'll leave it there.
If you really are interested, you should probably read some Liberal philosophy. The idea of capitalism and a market is not just for the reason of economic efficiency. It goes a lot deeper than you'd expect. Yes, at a glance it can sometimes seem like massive inequality when you see large differences in wealth, but I promise you, if you understand the idea it all stems from, you'll see it all in a totally different light.
This all came about with the enlightenment, and the idea that no one was any better or was born with any privilege to have hereditary wealth and power over others. It led away from something authoritarian towards something where everyone has a chance to work and, through mutual agreement, exchange whatever they want with someone else. It might not mean that everyone gets an equal opportunity at birth, but it means that everyone is, or should be, equal before the law to do as they like. Anyway, giving people who aren't even born yet a god given right to something is not part of the philosophy.
With socialism, everyone is responsible for you. Who forces them? The central authority. Where does the central authority get that right to assume it is the one valid system for humanity to which it should force everyone to dedicate their life to? ???
The main fallacy there is that it's the way people are supposed to live - like an absolute truth. If it's so natural for everyone to redistribute wealth, why doesn't everyone already do it? The truth is that it's simply the fulfillment of the desire of the leaders of the system. They think it's the way things should be done, so they force everyone else to obey. They forget that in a system where every individual has equal power to choose, people are free to set up charities to redistribute wealth, or have companies run by the workers. You can do anything you like, as long as you get the agreement of the people you are doing something with. The socialist option is that you coerce others into helping you reach your goal "for the good of humanity" - really just what you (or the leaders) see as good. You've already established a goal that you think humanity should be heading towards, and you're going to use the life of others as the raw materials to achieve that. But who says these individuals want the same thing? Where does the right come from to discard their personal wishes and assume power over them? Because you think it's what would be good for them? Not a good enough reason, in my opinion; they will naturally pursue what is 'good' for themselves. The principle of you having power over them is as if it was hereditary, a god-given right to think for mankind and use them as the clay for whatever fantasy you come up with.
Anyway, as this is a long post and there are much, much better people at explaining this than me, I'll leave it there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post