• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Coronavirus

nayenezgani said:
Making those born in the right bed richer and fudging the rest?
Click to expand...

The majority of those that feature on the Forbes rich list are self made, the economy can be a cruel beast, you get richer people than others but there, in normal circumstances are opportunities for many.

Work hard and reap the rewards, sit at home and dont and you wont.
 
braineclipse said:
As I'm sure you realise we both agree and disagree.

What is the point of the economy? What is the point of a booming economy?

Of the economy is not a tool to make lives better for human beings what's it for?
Click to expand...

Whats the alternative? Cuba? Venezuela?

Yes there are winners and losers in society but that does not mean that just because there is a Bezos who gets rich that the system does not work for billions because it does.

Show me a scenario which works for all?
 
Grays_1890 said:
The majority of those that feature on the Forbes rich list are self made, the economy can be a cruel hunk of burning love, you get richer people than others but there, in normal circumstances are opportunities for many.

Work hard and reap the rewards, sit at home and dont and you wont.
Click to expand...

Why does it have be such extremes. A hard working person who cannot make ends meet should not live below the poverty line especially when there are people with more money than they can spend hoarding wealth. Currently someone who loses their job may have to survive on benefits that are not enough to live on. That shouldn't be the case IMO. Not in an advanced and wealthy economy we are part of. But the reality is that the Tories will always enable the mega rich to get richer and let those at the bottom suffer more.
 
Grays_1890 said:
The majority of those that feature on the Forbes rich list are self made, the economy can be a cruel hunk of burning love, you get richer people than others but there, in normal circumstances are opportunities for many.

Work hard and reap the rewards, sit at home and dont and you wont.
Click to expand...

Define self made. Bezos had a casual hundred thousand dollar loan from his daddy to start amazon. Self made is a very loose term.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Why does it have be such extremes. A hard working person who cannot make ends meet should not live below the poverty line especially when there are people with more money than they can spend hoarding wealth. Currently someone who loses their job may have to survive on benefits that are not enough to live on. That shouldn't be the case IMO. Not in an advanced and wealthy economy we are part of. But the reality is that the Tories will always enable the mega rich to get richer and let those at the bottom suffer more.
Click to expand...

I agree but the majority of the country is earning on average 35k a year so its not like half of society is living it up whilst the other half are not. Conversely do you think if you work hard by expanding a business that does not exploit the system or people you should be able to be a millionaire ever.
 
braineclipse said:
As I'm sure you realise we both agree and disagree.

What is the point of the economy? What is the point of a booming economy?

Of the economy is not a tool to make lives better for human beings what's it for?
Click to expand...
To give everyone an opportunity to make their own lives better.

A small but important distinction.
 
scaramanga said:
To give everyone an opportunity to make their own lives better.

A small but important distinction.
Click to expand...
Surely an opportunity to make your life better exists both in a hyper capitalistic system and in a democratic socialist system. An opportunity exists in at least three majority of societies.

Why not try to increase that opportunity for a greater number of people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
braineclipse said:
Surely an opportunity to make your life better exists both in a hyper capitalistic system and in a democratic socialist system. An opportunity exists in at least three majority of societies.

Why not try to increase that opportunity for a greater number of people?
Click to expand...

Yeh its called defection

TBH don't we live in a democratic socialist system? Democratic elected leaders, free health and schooling, social housing, unemployment benefits
 
Grays_1890 said:
Whats the alternative? Cuba? Venezuela?

Yes there are winners and losers in society but that does not mean that just because there is a Bezos who gets rich that the system does not work for billions because it does.

Show me a scenario which works for all?
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think I'm arguing for following in the footsteps of Cuba or Venezuela?

If the system works for "billions" that means a lot of different countries with different approaches. In the past the wealthy in the US paid a lot more in taxes for example, did that work too? Why did it change?

Grays_1890 said:
Someone like John Collison who took a start up to 3bn from an idea.
Click to expand...

An example is not a definition.

Looked up Collision. Certainly seems to fit the "self made" tag as it gets used about successful people.

https://amp.independent.ie/business...f-code-into-a-92bn-tech-startup-35993656.html

-Two parents with a background in science and both being fairly successful entrepreneurs themselves by the sounds of things. Probably some financial security at least.

-Went to a school with fewer than 20 kids per classroom.

-Resources to go to Harvard.

-Obviously intelligent and hard working.

Certainly had "an opportunity" as Scara would put it. I would add to that quite a few priveleges. Some biological, but also some external.

Had he grown up in a single parent working minimum wage home, poor school district, poor health care, high crime area background in the US would he have been as successful as a "self made man"? I don't say that to minimise his achievement, but to highlight that "self made" is a relative concept. "An opportunity" is very different from another.

Why not try to structure an economy and a society that increases social mobility, increases the chances of someone like this succeeding regardless of who their parents are? Gives more people a safety net so they can afford to take risks. Give more people a good education.
 
braineclipse said:
Do you seriously think I'm arguing for following in the footsteps of Cuba or Venezuela?

If the system works for "billions" that means a lot of different countries with different approaches. In the past the wealthy in the US paid a lot more in taxes for example, did that work too? Why did it change?



An example is not a definition.

Looked up Collision. Certainly seems to fit the "self made" tag as it gets used about successful people.

https://amp.independent.ie/business...f-code-into-a-92bn-tech-startup-35993656.html

-Two parents with a background in science and both being fairly successful entrepreneurs themselves by the sounds of things. Probably some financial security at least.

-Went to a school with fewer than 20 kids per classroom.

-Resources to go to Harvard.

-Obviously intelligent and hard working.

Certainly had "an opportunity" as Scara would put it. I would add to that quite a few priveleges. Some biological, but also some external.

Had he grown up in a single parent working minimum wage home, poor school district, poor health care, high crime area background in the US would he have been as successful as a "self made man"? I don't say that to minimise his achievement, but to highlight that "self made" is a relative concept. "An opportunity" is very different from another.

Why not try to structure an economy and a society that increases social mobility, increases the chances of someone like this succeeding regardless of who their parents are? Gives more people a safety net so they can afford to take risks. Give more people a good education.
Click to expand...

His parents ran a hotel in Ireland and supported his obvious intellect

Having intellectual parents is hardly unfair like you are making out, that's just luck of the draw

You make having hardworking parents who are intelligence sound like capitalist evil.

Taking something you have and making it into something phenomenal is still a huge achievement, he still self made us way to fortune as it was his idea and drive that took him to where he needed to go.

At the end of the day if you have a personal drive and a willing to take risks you can achieve a huge amount in the system that existed pre Covid.
 
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover said:
Was the cornerstone of thatcherism. Help those with talent and drive to succeed, succeed.
Click to expand...

By making sure everyone has access to a similar quality education? By making sure every kid grows up with food security to prevent malnutrition and the stress associated with food insecurity? By making health care, including mental health care, good for all and easily accessible?
 
Grays_1890 said:
His parents ran a hotel in Ireland and supported his obvious intellect

Having intellectual parents is hardly unfair like you are making out, that's just luck of the draw

You make having hardworking parents who are intelligence sound like capitalist evil.

Taking something you have and making it into something phenomenal is still a huge achievement, he still self made us way to fortune as it was his idea and drive that took him to where he needed to go.

At the end of the day if you have a personal drive and a willing to take risks you can achieve a huge amount in the system that existed pre Covid.
Click to expand...

Grays_1890 said:
His parents ran a hotel in Ireland and supported his obvious intellect

Having intellectual parents is hardly unfair like you are making out, that's just luck of the draw

You make having hardworking parents who are intelligence sound like capitalist evil.

Taking something you have and making it into something phenomenal is still a huge achievement, he still self made us way to fortune as it was his idea and drive that took him to where he needed to go.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the luck of the draw is unfair. Who our parents are, our genetics, these things are inherently unfair imo. I mean, your way of describing it uses the word "luck" and "draw", how is that not unfair?

I'm not talking about a communist ideal of equal outcomes for all eliminating luck. I'm talking about lessening the impact of luck through providing opportunity and economic security for more people (if possible all).

I'm talking about the many talents our society has lost, continues to lose, because kids capable of phenomenal achievements aren't given the opportunities to succeed.

I'm talking about accepting that there is luck involved. That asking the lucky to pay more than they do now to raise the opportunities, wellbeing and quality of life for those who didn't have the same luck is fair.

Let's minimise the risk factors for all the stuff we don't want more of in society.
 
braineclipse said:
Surely an opportunity to make your life better exists both in a hyper capitalistic system and in a democratic socialist system. An opportunity exists in at least three majority of societies.

Why not try to increase that opportunity for a greater number of people?
Click to expand...
I feel a democratic socialist system punishes success in a manner that is inherently wrong.
 
braineclipse said:
I'd argue that the luck of the draw is unfair. Who our parents are, our genetics, these things are inherently unfair imo. I mean, your way of describing it uses the word "luck" and "draw", how is that not unfair?

I'm not talking about a communist ideal of equal outcomes for all eliminating luck. I'm talking about lessening the impact of luck through providing opportunity and economic security for more people (if possible all).

I'm talking about the many talents our society has lost, continues to lose, because kids capable of phenomenal achievements aren't given the opportunities to succeed.

I'm talking about accepting that there is luck involved. That asking the lucky to pay more than they do now to raise the opportunities, wellbeing and quality of life for those who didn't have the same luck is fair.

Let's minimise the risk factors for all the stuff we don't want more of in society.
Click to expand...

Society loses talent at both ends of the spectrum though, its not exclusive to the bottom

I agree with a lot of what you say but I'm yet to see a full proof system offered as an alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back