Russell Brand

[DodgyAgent]

I'm simply pointing out that the current system has a positive feedback effect that rapidly magnifies these inequalities and persists them over generations.

First of all I do not agree with your premise that everyone should be equal and nor do I believe in your neat little principle that everyone should have the same "equal opportunities" . These are left wing Utopian cliches that have no use in devising a workable solution to the problems faced by societies today.

the main problem is that the debate has become a battleground for people to fight out their own petty prejudices. The left seem to think that equality can be achieved by bringing everything down to the highest common factor. These people are driven by envy greed and their insecurities (not having gone to public school). On the right there is a lack of tolerance and understanding. There does need to be a compromise between the two. the right wing principles of self reliance, personal responsibility and choice needs to be extended to everyone.

The best schools should not be only available to the riches and the brightest they should be available to everyone. If the best schools are good because people to choose to send their kids to them them then every kid should have the same choice.

If people wish to pursue careers that do not pay very much then they should not have to worry about availability of affordable housing, decent healthcare, security. Unfortunately the services that the poorer members of society are dealt out to are those provided by the public sector. These services are run of course primarily for the benefit of those that run them and work in them.

If we made every public service perform as well as the very best private enterprises no one would feel pressured to becoming rich "as many of us do" enough to escape the clutches of the public sector services.

[original PM]

Blah
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.
Blah.

This is wrong I know many many people who think it is perfectly fair to take as much as possible without giving a thought for anyone else - there is no such thing as ingrained fairness - because the 'fair' people no longer exist as they have been breed out of exstence by the self centred greedy fe<kers.

Survival of the fittest n all

[doodab]

How can someone starting a successful company - coming up with the idea, raising funding, selling, marketing, recruiting staff, finding premises etc etc etc etc possibly be considered a 'collective effort'? A small amount of people have the means - many companies are started with very little capital; the ability - that can't be addressed by any form of social engineering (before you say education - many people who have had a very good education will not necessarily make money); the luck - again that's not something that can be addressed by Government.

Once one is recruiting staff and delegating the effort becomes collective.

Implicit in your post is an assumption that the person who does all of these wonderful things is inherently more valuable than the people who help them realise their idea. Why should that be the case when they couldn't realise the idea by themselves? And why should they be considered 100s or 1000s of times more valuable instead of say 5 or 8 or 10? I'd also point out that in order to obtain access to capital entrepreneurs frequently end up handing over a large proportion of their rewards to investors whose effort and risk (in terms of the marginal utility of the money to those individuals i.e. what the money they put at risk actually means to them) is entirely disproportionate to the rewards they receive. Why should those investors be considered inherently more valuable than those who do the work?

You can rationalise it and justify it however you chose, I just happen to think that it's a historical accident and just one of many ways that things could have turned out. I also think that part of the reason for it is that we measure everything in units of currency, and a unit of currency is worth more to a poor person than a rich one. This causes the poor to overvalue capital and consequentially the rich to overvalue themselves.

I'd also point out that while many companies are started with very little capital, the vast majority of new companies fail, and a large proportion of those fail because they started with insufficient capital.

I'm not suggesting that government should be attempting to redress the balance with regard to luck, or ability, or even capital necessarily. I'm rather of the belief that governments and laws reflect and codify the agreements people have come to among themselves. What I am suggesting is that we should try to dampen the effect by which differences in starting conditions are amplified, particularly with regards to capital distribution, as this results in entirely disproportionate outcomes.

You still seem to be arguing that wealth accumulation involves no effort

No, I'm arguing that it doesn't require as much effort as you might conclude from looking at the distribution of rewards, and that once you reach a certain threshold of wealth it's possible to accumulate more with little effort or risk.

and what do you mean that reward for achievement 'works both ways' - either you agree with the concept or you don't

I mean that if someone with a large amount of wealth can accumulate more without significant effort or risk that rather contradicts the idea that "reward should be commensurate with achievement"

[doodab]

First of all I do not agree with your premise that everyone should be equal and nor do I believe in your neat little principle that everyone should have the same "equal opportunities" . These are left wing Utopian cliches that have no use in devising a workable solution to the problems faced by societies today.

the main problem is that the debate has become a battleground for people to fight out their own petty prejudices. The left seem to think that equality can be achieved by bringing everything down to the highest common factor. These people are driven by envy greed and their insecurities (not having gone to public school). On the right there is a lack of tolerance and understanding. There does need to be a compromise between the two. the right wing principles of self reliance, personal responsibility and choice needs to be extended to everyone.

The best schools should not be only available to the riches and the brightest they should be available to everyone. If the best schools are good because people to choose to send their kids to them them then every kid should have the same choice.

If people wish to pursue careers that do not pay very much then they should not have to worry about availability of affordable housing, decent healthcare, security. Unfortunately the services that the poorer members of society are dealt out to are those provided by the public sector. These services are run of course primarily for the benefit of those that run them and work in them.

If we made every public service perform as well as the very best private enterprises no one would feel pressured to becoming rich "as many of us do" enough to escape the clutches of the public sector services.

I can't even be bothered to read your cliche ridden incoherent drivel anymore. Sorry.

[doodab]

But those rewards have come from their own efforts - they haven't been rewarded by the State or the system

You need to take a slightly wider view. The "system" I am talking about is the totality of all humanity, the sum of all the little interactions that make up the economy and society at large. These efforts would have no reward if the "system" wasn't there.

And I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts, or that everyone should be rewarded equally, as some seem to think. The point is that way the "system" distributes those rewards is overly skewed, and particularly skewed in favour of those who are already wealthy.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Once one is recruiting staff and delegating the effort becomes collective.

Implicit in your post is an assumption that the person who does all of these wonderful things is inherently more valuable than the people who help them realise their idea. Why should that be the case when they couldn't realise the idea by themselves? And why should they be considered 100s or 1000s of times more valuable instead of say 5 or 8 or 10? I'd also point out that in order to obtain access to capital entrepreneurs frequently end up handing over a large proportion of their rewards to investors whose effort and risk (in terms of the marginal utility of the money to those individuals i.e. what the money they put at risk actually means to them) is entirely disproportionate to the rewards they receive. Why should those investors be considered inherently more valuable than those who do the work?

You can rationalise it and justify it however you chose, I just happen to think that it's a historical accident and just one of many ways that things could have turned out. I also think that part of the reason for it is that we measure everything in units of currency, and a unit of currency is worth more to a poor person than a rich one. This causes the poor to overvalue capital and consequentially the rich to overvalue themselves.

I'd also point out that while many companies are started with very little capital, the vast majority of new companies fail, and a large proportion of those fail because they started with insufficient capital.

I'm not suggesting that government should be attempting to redress the balance with regard to luck, or ability, or even capital necessarily. I'm rather of the belief that governments and laws reflect and codify the agreements people have come to among themselves. What I am suggesting is that we should try to dampen the effect by which differences in starting conditions are amplified, particularly with regards to capital distribution, as this results in entirely disproportionate outcomes.



No, I'm arguing that it doesn't require as much effort as you might conclude from looking at the distribution of rewards, and that once you reach a certain threshold of wealth it's possible to accumulate more with little effort or risk.



I mean that if someone with a large amount of wealth can accumulate more without significant effort or risk that rather contradicts the idea that "reward should be commensurate with achievement"

Whichever way you look at it the person who started the business did so alone, took the risks alone and made the decisions alone - as the business grows his choice of staff will certainly aid the success of that business but, if he is a good businessman those key staff will be well rewarded. There are various ways in business of measuring added value and I am sure that none of them is entirely accurate but they have to be used and, although it may sound callous, the person who sweeps the office can far more easily be replaced than the FD

So, if I understand you correctly, and I realise that I may not have done - are you saying that Government should, in some way, have the power to redistribute wealth?

[doodab]

This is wrong I know many many people who think it is perfectly fair to take as much as possible without giving a thought for anyone else - there is no such thing as ingrained fairness - because the 'fair' people no longer exist as they have been breed out of exstence by the self centred greedy fe<kers.

Survival of the fittest n all

The fair people haven't been bred out of existence, and people still have an ingrained idea of what is fair (society would be unable to operate without it), it's just that the idea of what is fair has changed.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You need to take a slightly wider view. The "system" I am talking about is the totality of all humanity, the sum of all the little interactions that make up the economy and society at large. These efforts would have no reward if the "system" wasn't there.

And I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts, or that everyone should be rewarded equally, as some seem to think. The point is that way the "system" distributes those rewards is overly skewed, and particularly skewed in favour of those who are already wealthy.

How? Can you give me an example

[Peoplesoft bloke]

The fair people haven't been bred out of existence, and people still have an ingrained idea of what is fair (society would be unable to operate without it), it's just that the idea of what is fair has changed.

Indeed - there's a huge difference between greed and survival.

[OwlHoot]

I can't even be bothered to read your cliche ridden incoherent drivel anymore. Sorry.

Or in other words: Wah! Wah! My fingers are in my ears - I can't hear you!