Russell Brand

[doodab]

the view that money is a right and not something which should be earned

So why is it considered reasonable that the simple fact of having $1,000,000 "entitles" you to somewhere between 3-5x the global average wage? Why is a wealthy person entitled to that but a poor person not entitled to a job that pays a living wage?

[vetran]

Unless this is based on some evidence couldn't someone theorise the opposite (or anything else) with just as much authority?

There was some evidence, they analysed various groups. It was more a case of skill and contacts than initial stake.

This however is interesting:

http://business.fullerton.edu/econom...opg1182882.pdf

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

There are 7 billion people in the world, and the problem is how do we create an economic system that can extract benefit from and bring benefit to the vast majority of those people.

There are less than 1500 dollar billionaires in the world, and about 12 million dollar millionaires, quite a few of whom got there simply by virtue of buying a house in London 15 years ago. Billionaires are outnumbered literally a million to one by people living in poverty. It seems ridiculous to look at the tiny percentage of people who whether through talent or blind luck have managed to succeed wildly in a flawed system and conclude from the fact they exist at all that it's not the system but the other 99.8% of people which are deficient.

The only 'answer' is pure communism - communes of people living in complete harmony, all working, with no-one earning any more than anyone else regardless of their skills. It will never work - not because it isn't a wonderful ideal - but because it doesn't factor in human nature. Kibbutzim work because a small group of people who all have a common aim and common ideals come together - it couldn't be done on a large scale. One of the driving forces in human nature is the need for significance - a completely equal society would eradicate significance entirely - by default no-one could be any better than anyone else so you would lose one of the factors that drives people to succeed. So what would drive society forward?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So why is it considered reasonable that the simple fact of having $1,000,000 "entitles" you to somewhere between 3-5x the global average wage? Why is a wealthy person entitled to that but a poor person not entitled to a job that pays a living wage?

It sounds as though you are assuming that the £1,000,000 hasn't been earned and that a poor person wants to work rather than living on benefits?

[doodab]

The only 'answer' is pure communism - communes of people living in complete harmony, all working, with no-one earning any more than anyone else regardless of their skills. It will never work - not because it isn't a wonderful ideal - but because it doesn't factor in human nature. Kibbutzim work because a small group of people who all have a common aim and common ideals come together - it couldn't be done on a large scale. One of the driving forces in human nature is the need for significance - a completely equal society would eradicate significance entirely - by default no-one could be any better than anyone else so you would lose one of the factors that drives people to succeed. So what would drive society forward?

A system that strives for complete equality of outcomes fails for the same reason a system that has massively unequal outcomes determined by arbitrary factors fails, because it violates human beings ingrained concept of fairness.

A lot of people don't like that word and are unable to read it without jumping to conclusions that usually involve them foaming at the mouth about "lefties" but the simple fact is that we appear to have evolved a mechanism for deciding what is reasonable or unreasonable in social interactions i.e. when splitting a restaurant bill, or deciding who gets the last piece of cake, and there isn't a better way to describe it.

There are thousands of "answers", some more palatable than others. We can rule out most of the ideologically motivated ones on the basis that if it will never work it isn't an answer and if we can't actually get there from where we are it isn't an answer. Suggesting that pure communism is the "only" answer is simply a strawman argument used to create a false dichotomy.

[doodab]

It sounds as though you are assuming that the £1,000,000 hasn't been earned and that a poor person wants to work rather than living on benefits?

Not at all. I'm asking why should a million pounds, earned or otherwise, automatically ensure one a comfortable work free lifestyle, when working for a living doesn't? Why do we value capital so much more highly than human endeavour? Why do we reward those who already have money so much more than those who earn it?

Put it another way. Someone with several million pounds sets up a trust fund and teaches their children how to invest so they never have to work. They are passing on what they have, including a strategy for playing the system that works for them. This is considered a great achievement. Someone on benefits who advises their children to play the system is essentially doing exactly the same thing but without the advantage of capital, which if anything means that it's harder, and they are condemned for doing what is effectively the best thing for their children.

The simple fact is that the odds in the "game of life" are stacked against poorer people. Many people think the lottery is a mugs game, but you're far more likely to become a millionaire by winning the lottery or having bought a house at the right time than you are to get there by working for a living. The problem with social inequality isn't that people have different amounts of money, or different natural gifts, it's that the system amplifies those differences so dramatically.

If you don't like the way people play the game, you need to change the game, because you aren't going to change people.

[minestrone]

If the current system continues we will end up with a split in human evolution.

[darmstadt]

The only 'answer' is pure communism - communes of people living in complete harmony, all working, with no-one earning any more than anyone else regardless of their skills. It will never work - not because it isn't a wonderful ideal - but because it doesn't factor in human nature. Kibbutzim work because a small group of people who all have a common aim and common ideals come together - it couldn't be done on a large scale. One of the driving forces in human nature is the need for significance - a completely equal society would eradicate significance entirely - by default no-one could be any better than anyone else so you would lose one of the factors that drives people to succeed. So what would drive society forward?

Robert Owen - Robert Owen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer"

[DodgyAgent]

A system that strives for complete equality of outcomes fails for the same reason a system that has massively unequal outcomes determined by arbitrary factors fails, because it violates human beings ingrained concept of fairness.

A lot of people don't like that word and are unable to read it without jumping to conclusions that usually involve them foaming at the mouth about "lefties" but the simple fact is that we appear to have evolved a mechanism for deciding what is reasonable or unreasonable in social interactions i.e. when splitting a restaurant bill, or deciding who gets the last piece of cake, and there isn't a better way to describe it.

There are thousands of "answers", some more palatable than others. We can rule out most of the ideologically motivated ones on the basis that if it will never work it isn't an answer and if we can't actually get there from where we are it isn't an answer. Suggesting that pure communism is the "only" answer is simply a strawman argument used to create a false dichotomy.

We do not have a system that strives for equality at all and nor should we. We are all different and what we should have is a system that gives us the freedom to express ourselves within certain boundaries. The rule of law in the UK is about the best there is.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Not at all. I'm asking why should a million pounds, earned or otherwise, automatically ensure one a comfortable work free lifestyle, when working for a living doesn't? Why do we value capital so much more highly than human endeavour? Why do we reward those who already have money so much more than those who earn it?

Put it another way. Someone with several million pounds sets up a trust fund and teaches their children how to invest so they never have to work. They are passing on what they have, including a strategy for playing the system that works for them. This is considered a great achievement. Someone on benefits who advises their children to play the system is essentially doing exactly the same thing but without the advantage of capital, which if anything means that it's harder, and they are condemned for doing what is effectively the best thing for their children.

The simple fact is that the odds in the "game of life" are stacked against poorer people. Many people think the lottery is a mugs game, but you're far more likely to become a millionaire by winning the lottery or having bought a house at the right time than you are to get there by working for a living. The problem with social inequality isn't that people have different amounts of money, or different natural gifts, it's that the system amplifies those differences so dramatically.

If you don't like the way people play the game, you need to change the game, because you aren't going to change people.

But you make the assumption that people with money don't work and encourage their children not to work - why??

The problem with social inequality is social engineering - the State promotes 'fairness' by discrimination and encourages dependency on the State rather than self-reliance - school children are taught that winning has negative connotations, that success is something to be ashamed of or to be mocked e.g. 'fat cats'. There is no incentive for anyone to succeed as the State has ensured that people can have a relatively comfortable life without having to do a stroke of work. To say that the 'system' doesn't work is just to pass any responsibility for human actions to a faceless oppressor - it gives people an excuse not to strive - 'the 'system' will make sure I fail' . If children were encouraged to succeed with rewards for achievement, were encouraged to take responsibility for the actions and to realise that actions have consequences then the 'system' would not have to succeed or fail as individuals would ensure that order and fairness were achieved.