Russell Brand

[OwlHoot]

Exactly, which is why wealth redistribution will never work - perhaps IQ redistribution would be more successful

As long as the average stays at 100

If it becomes possible to raise the IQs of the unborn to say 150, naturally everyone will want that for their offspring. But people will soon find out the hard way what a terrible idea it is - If the World population is anything like what it is today, the result will be quarrels and controversy and warfare without end!

[MyUserName]

I would say what a loser - spunking 10 million in as many years - he need never have worked...

Wow - playing the long game there!!!!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

As long as the average stays at 100

If it becomes possible to raise the IQs of the unborn to say 150, naturally everyone will want that for their offspring. But people will soon find out the hard way what a terrible idea it is - If the World population is anything like what it is today, the result will be quarrels and controversy and warfare without end!

100???? If everyone's IQ was 100 the world economy would collapse and Jeremy Kyle would become a deity

[original PM]

100???? If everyone's IQ was 100 the world economy would collapse and Jeremy Kyle would become a deity

So it's already happened then.....

[doodab]

I wonder how much of his own wealth Mr Brand 'redistributes'? The trouble with these idealists is that they don't take human nature into account - you could take all the wealth in the world and divide it equally between all the people in the world but within 24 hours some would have lost it all and some would have doubled it - prime example Michael Carroll, Disgraced Lottery Winner Who Spent His Fortune On Drugs, Now Works In Cookie Factory

You aren't taking into account that the skewed distribution of wealth creates unequal life chances and educational opportunities. You could have taken someone as thick as this, born to rich parents, sent him to Eton, and he'd have a work ethic or a nice cushy job as an MP.

There is also an assumption that someone with nothing to offer society except £10 million of investment ought to be able to generate enough profit from simply possessing money that they don't need to work at all. Does the simple possession of capital really make one so useful to society? And if not, shouldn't we conclude that the system is a little bit ****ed up?

Edit: Realised work ethic and MP are mutually exclusive options.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You aren't taking into account that the skewed distribution of wealth creates unequal life chances and educational opportunities. You could have taken someone as thick as this, born to rich parents, sent him to Eton, and he'd have a work ethic or a nice cushy job as an MP.

There is also an assumption that someone with nothing to offer society except £10 million of investment ought to be able to generate enough profit from simply possessing money that they don't need to work at all. Does the simple possession of capital really make one so useful to society? And if not, shouldn't we conclude that the system is a little bit ****ed up?

Edit: Realised work ethic and MP are mutually exclusive options.

So would you argue, conversely, that equal distribution of wealth would result in equal life chances?

Good edit

[OwlHoot]

100???? If everyone's IQ was 100 the world economy would collapse and Jeremy Kyle would become a deity

Well things wouldn't progress very fast if at all, because like it or not most big progress is made by a very few people with extraordinary talents (not necessarily a high IQ, but I guess usually so).

But my point was what would happen if _everyone_ was bright enough to be a potential mover and shaker, with egos and ambitions to match, instead of being content or forced to jog along in one way or another like most of us? It would be like raising the tempo of society, to an intolerable level.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Well things wouldn't progress very fast if at all, because like it or not most big progress is made by a very few people with extraordinary talents (not necessarily a high IQ, but I guess usually so).

But my point was what would happen if _everyone_ was bright enough to be a potential mover and shaker, with egos and ambitions to match, instead of being content or forced to jog along in one way or another like most of us? It would be like raising the tempo of society, to an intolerable level.

I think you're probably right and that's always been my argument against social engineering to promote 'equality' - the world could be a better place if IQ levels were all at a level of 150+ but only if people also had the character traits necessary to be successful and altruistic and compassionate etc etc etc

[doodab]

So would you argue, conversely, that equal distribution of wealth would result in equal life chances?

Good edit

No, but I believe it would result in a better distribution of opportunity and a more cohesive society as those who "did well" would be there on merit, as opposed to the current situation where life chances are primarily determined by pre-existing economic factors. I also think that it would be beneficial to society as a whole to reduce the disparity in outcomes somewhat.

[doodab]

But my point was what would happen if _everyone_ was bright enough to be a potential mover and shaker, with egos and ambitions to match, instead of being content or forced to jog along in one way or another like most of us? It would be like raising the tempo of society, to an intolerable level.

If the average IQ was 150, all those people with IQs of 150 wouldn't be potential movers and shakers, they would just be average. Society would be much the same as it is.