Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

Anyone having issues getting on the forum? Says invalid link if try and access the ram inn, was able to find this thread through a search

Had similar issues myself for a week now, also it keeps logging out, but suspect that might be an AF introduced bug, to stop reality invading his fantasy world of the 1960's which he misremembers! (that's was a joke before said person has a wobble!).

[Geoff Parkstone]

A wise man (as defined by himself) once said a couple of weeks ago that for something to qualify as a joke it needed to be funny. I refer the honourable gentleman to that post....

[Andy_Faber]

I find it frightening when I look at how large the increase in the wealth of the top 5% or so over the last 40 years compared to the rest of us. In the past 5 years the gap has grown enormously. Those rich folk have concluded that their immense wealth allows them to influence/own politicians and/or enter politics themselves. Examples? Putin has got exceedingly rich down the years, Trump, despite his many business failures, has managed to remain monied. Musk thought he'd got there without even having to go through an election, millionaires and billionaires the world over exert too great an influence on political policy.

As most of you have known for a while, I am not a fan of that system.

Do you mean the system of acquiring wealth or the system of being in the 'wealth club' where backs are scratched, folk are leaned on and rules are overlooked. I agree on the latter but not the former because the former drives ambition

[swaledale]

A wise man (as defined by himself) once said a couple of weeks ago that for something to qualify as a joke it needed to be funny. I refer the honourable gentleman to that post....

Touche

[swaledale]

Do you mean the system of acquiring wealth or the system of being in the 'wealth club' where backs are scratched, folk are leaned on and rules are overlooked. I agree on the latter but not the former because the former drives ambition

I think he means the system whereby the accumulation of excessive wealth with the resultant stark inequalities.

That system is currently the root cause of much of the dissatisfaction today. Few people would say that earning more through hard work is wrong, but when those that have also worked for and contributed to the acquisition of that wealth don't share in the success to a reasonable extent, then society as we know it is doomed.

[ramAnag]

I think he means the system whereby the accumulation of excessive wealth with the resultant stark inequalities.

That system is currently the root cause of much of the dissatisfaction today. Few people would say that earning more through hard work is wrong, but when those that have also worked for and contributed to the acquisition of that wealth don't share in the success to a reasonable extent, then society as we know it is doomed.

Excellent point imo. Of course MA will answer for himself, but I would agree entirely with the second paragraph above and also suggest that AF may be confusing ambition and greed.
Of course to have the ambition to do as well as one can in order to provide for oneself and one?s family is laudable. To chase excessive wealth for the benefit of ego is just greed and for excessive wealth to equate to power and privilege, just wrong.

[SithHappens]

You wonder what you can reasonably do with money once you have so much. Take Ronaldo , estimate to be worth circa a billion dollars and now being paid over 4 million a week.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think the matter is that having wealth creates an addiction to having more and more wealth. Its difficult to turn off the switch that drove you to rA's "laudable objectives" level. Then how do you define too much? The fact that we all have spoken recently about leaving money to the next generation suggests we already all have too much as we have the luxury of deciding how to get rid of the excess.

So it becomes a question of how one defines surplus wealth and what can be done about it. You could try taxing it at a penalising rate - but that creates tax avoidance / evasion measures and drives ambition for more wealth generation to cover the tax. Its broadly insoluble and a necessary evil within a system of capitalism.

Dividing wealth equitably between stakeholders is an impossible challenge. How do you compare relative risks taken in generation of that wealth. some (eg shareholder) risk losing their entire stake whereas the guy who sweeps the floor in the sweatshop risks nothing. So how do you divvy up the gains? Its easy to say "fairly" or "equally" but how do you define those words. You can easily say the distribution of wealth isnt right, but far from easy to define a way of remedying that.

Sith's example of Ronaldo is a case in point. massive wealth generated by, quite frankly, something that gives nothing to the future of the planet but rather makes enjoyment of a sport ridiculously expensive for the man in the street either via TV subscriptions, ticket prices or merchandise costs. Next think the little ****er will go into politics.... seems the final refuge of many super rich. Either that or they were in power before becoming super rich.

[MadAmster]

To answer AF's question...

I have nothing against people working hard and making money.

I have nothing against people starting up a business and making a profit. Caveat there is that they pay their staff well and treat them well. Passing some of the profit on to shareholder is not an issue either, provided the staff also benefit from the profits generated by their efforts.

I do have an issue with companies swallowing up ever more other companies simply to improve the lot of the shareholders. Especially when, as has happened in Burton, the major industry, namely brewing and associated trades, gets taken over by a couple of multinationals who then shutdown much of that industry in the chase for ever greater profits and ditto dividends. The upshot of the takeover by Coors and Carlsberg has seen what used to be 10K very well paid jobs in brewing and allied trades being reduced to just over 1K. Those jobs have been replaced by low paid, menial jobs in warehousing etc. A lot of money has been taken out of the town and the shops they now have are mainly of less quality than they were years ago, many are empty and there's poundland type shops, charity shops (even one of those closed recently) and the centre has lost any visual appeal it had. Less pubs, less restaurants too, mainly down to less footfall due to 9K jobs going.

Owners may prosper, I have no issue there. Shareholders too. Problem is there are now too many jobs paying on or just above minimum pay and workers are struggling to make ends meet. I just think that the people whose labour generate the profit should get more than simply a low wage. Good pay and/or a share of the profits. Most shareholders have never put a penny into a company. They have bought their shares on the market off other shareholders and it is the seller who got the money, not the company,

[MadAmster]

While I'm at it, how can Thames Water justify paying out >?10Bn out in dividends since it started while, at the same time, building up debts of around ?15Bn. There's never been a profit so how can there have been a dividend? They also have a HUGE backlog of repairs and maintenance they claim they need government help to clear by a subsidy of several billion.

I find this obscene. I also think that gas, electric, water and public transport should be publicly run and not for profit.