Greed is Good!

[sasguru]

This is bollocks. Equality, in the sense you are using it, is a strawman constructed in order to create a false dichotomy and avoid acknowledging that inequality is a matter of degree, thus justifying the acceptance of any degree of inequality however undesirable or avoidable.

While "equality" is impossible, and it seems to me that some inequality is actually desirable, the fact is that excessive economic inequality correlates strongly with various ills from crime through to mental health issues, and this affects the rich as well as the poor. It even correlates with reduced innovation (measured by number of patents issued). If you want to slash the benefits bill, reduce the cost of the NHS, relieve the burden on the criminal justice system, and get the economy moving then tackling economic inequality is a good place to start.

Want to Fight Crime? Address Economic Inequality - Bloomberg

See what I mean. You're clever and you're wasting your time explaining concepts to worthless people. We should exterminate them, then we could take the world into the glorious uplands where we could make a paradise. Imagine no thick middlemen (and women) - no one taking a % of the wealth we create. What a perfect world that would be. This equality thing is a problem.

[sasguru]

Is it too much to ask for an explanation on how "worth" is measured? .

I thought I told you - worth is measured by how clever you are and how productive to society. Both you and Lisa fail on both counts since you are both thick, parasitical middlemen.*
So eliminating you, letting us clever wealth creators keep all we earn, would surely be better for everyone.


*You don't improve the balance of payments for UK plc.

[Mich the Tester]

Is it too much to ask for an explanation on how "worth" is measured? Once we have done this then can we move on and decide what measure of worth is the optimum that everyone should then either aspire to or be forced to become.

There are many different measurements, each of which can or cannot be used in a certain context. As we've said, there's the concept of equality before the law; whether you're a fabulously wealthy agent or a moderately brainy tester, or a rather less intelligent person who serves Big Macs, your 'worth' is in the eyes of the law, equal (or it's supposed to be). The basic obligations of the state towards each are the same. Of course, this says nothing about your 'worth' to your employer, where quite obviously, an experienced recruitment agent is of more worth to a recruitment company than a tester in the same role, and the agent is possibly of less 'worth' than a tester in a groupd of people that makes complex IT systems.

[Mich the Tester]

See what I mean. You're clever and you're wasting your time explaining concepts to worthless people. We should exterminate them, then we could take the world into the glorious uplands where we could make a paradise. Imagine no thick middlemen (and women) - no one taking a % of the wealth we create. What a perfect world that would be. This equality thing is a problem.

So who's going to clean the bogs and pull weeds out of the driveway? Can we keep a few recruitment agents to carry out menial tasks?

[Old Greg]

Is it too much to ask for an explanation on how "worth" is measured? Once we have done this then can we move on and decide what measure of worth is the optimum that everyone should then either aspire to or be forced to become.

It seems to be an utterly ridiculous concept but I am sure the intellects Old Sas can explain with the help of some founding fathers.

Let me make it even clearer. Worth in this sense is measured against the yardstick of how human you are. If we are equally human, we are of equal worth.

[DodgyAgent]

This is bollocks. Equality, in the sense you are using it, is a strawman constructed in order to create a false dichotomy and avoid acknowledging that inequality is a matter of degree, thus justifying the acceptance of any degree of inequality however undesirable or avoidable.

While "equality" is impossible, and it seems to me that some inequality is actually desirable, the fact is that excessive economic inequality correlates strongly with various ills from crime through to mental health issues, and this affects the rich as well as the poor. It even correlates with reduced innovation (measured by number of patents issued). If you want to slash the benefits bill, reduce the cost of the NHS, relieve the burden on the criminal justice system, and get the economy moving then tackling economic inequality is a good place to start.

Want to Fight Crime? Address Economic Inequality - Bloomberg

Mine may be a straw man argument but it seems to be getting you lot to think properly about what you are saying and explain accordingly.
The problems of society are nothing to do with inequality they are to do with lifting the less well off out of poverty. The word "equality" is used to manipulate us into thinking that the rich have too large a slice of the cake and that it should be taken away from them and given to the poor.
Whilst I agree that too much power and property is indeed concentrated in the hands of too few people I would argue that this is a separate argument. The real debate is how we lift the less well off. I am afraid this is more to do with the institutions that are supposed to help them (education, health, housing) than about simple redistribution of wealth. The left of course do not like the idea that the institutions that they run are in anyway responsible for many of societies problems which is why they use the word "equality"

[sasguru]

So who's going to clean the bogs and pull weeds out of the driveway? Can we keep a few recruitment agents to carry out menial tasks?

We could keep a few recruitment agents, accountants, lawyers and other non-wealth creating parasites I suppose. There's too many of them in the UK which is why we're falling down the rankings of the wealth-producing nations.
Imagine grown adults (admittedly they're rather thick) simply spending their life counting what other people have earned and created.

[DodgyAgent]

Let me make it even clearer. Worth in this sense is measured against the yardstick of how human you are. If we are equally human, we are of equal worth.

What is meant by human? Do you mean instinct? Or do you mean as in "how humans should behave according to the book of OLD Greg?"

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You're missing the point (as usual) because you (and Lisa) are thick.
Since I am an intellectual snob I think you two are worthless and should be shot.
Both of you are parasites living on the constructive work of others.
Lisa, in particular, makes a living because the government takes what we, the clever wealth creators, earn and she takes a % of that. If we were to keep all of what we earn, she wouldn't have a job. And so we could dispose of her with equanimity.

Please explain why you think I am thick - I would be most interested to hear your views.

You are right, if the Government had a policy of flat rate taxation I would probably be without a job but as someone who has run a successful business for 11 years I am sure that I could find something else to do

[sasguru]

Let me make it even clearer. Worth in this sense is measured against the yardstick of how human you are. If we are equally human, we are of equal worth.

But what separates us from the animals is intelligence.
So since DA, having less intelligence, is more ape-like than you or me, I reckon we are justified in a cull.