H
House
Guest
They should interview their own CEO about the issue, poor fella only earns $220k a year 
Rich get richer
- Thread starter Peter
- Start date
SilverPete said:OMG SOCIALISM.wrcmad said:Probably because there is no other reason for raising the issue.SilverPete said:
The whole issue is based around the notion that "he has more than me, therefore it is not fair'.
Yep, it's socialism.
Nope, sorry. Not socialism. The issue of growing wealth inequality covers things such as:
* Health and social cohesion
* Social cohesion
* Crime
* Social, cultural, and civic participation
* Utility, economic welfare, and distributive efficiency
* Aggregate demand, consumption and debt
* Monopolization of labor, consolidation, and competition
* Economic incentives
* Economic growth
* Housing
* Aspirational consumption and household risk
I don't think that the items that you have listed there are for the most part anything to do with the "poor" vs. the "super wealthy 1%". Most of them sound like local social issues to me. Many of those issues are things that need to be solved within the community I think.
SilverPete said:
It's actually around 30% not 50%, has been for ages.
Looks like it, smells like it.....SilverPete said:OMG SOCIALISM.wrcmad said:Probably because there is no other reason for raising the issue.SilverPete said:
The whole issue is based around the notion that "he has more than me, therefore it is not fair'.
Yep, it's socialism.
Nope, sorry. Not socialism. The issue of growing wealth inequality covers things such as:
* Health and social cohesion
* Social cohesion
* Crime
* Social, cultural, and civic participation
* Utility, economic welfare, and distributive efficiency
.......
You may be perfectly correct (and I too believe certain social and civic issues have zero to do with wealth inequality), but those are some areas typically covered by investigations into the impact of growing inequality (list is from the wikipedia).Results not typical said:SilverPete said:OMG SOCIALISM.wrcmad said:Probably because there is no other reason for raising the issue.
The whole issue is based around the notion that "he has more than me, therefore it is not fair'.
Yep, it's socialism.
Nope, sorry. Not socialism. The issue of growing wealth inequality covers things such as:
* Health and social cohesion
* Social cohesion
* Crime
* Social, cultural, and civic participation
* Utility, economic welfare, and distributive efficiency
* Aggregate demand, consumption and debt
* Monopolization of labor, consolidation, and competition
* Economic incentives
* Economic growth
* Housing
* Aspirational consumption and household risk
I don't think that the items that you have listed there are for the most part anything to do with the "poor" vs. the "super wealthy 1%". Most of them sound like local social issues to me. Many of those issues are things that need to be solved within the community I think.
The point is that the study of the causes, and the economic and social impacts of changes to overall wealth distribution within an economy is not socialism. Obviously, to seek to address the issues may be done by advocating socialism, or some other system. But it is incorrect to write off any observations and deeper investigation as simply being some sort of socialist plot, and in fact we risk blinding ourselves to real issues by using simplistic bogeyman labels.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, I believe there's more to all of this. My pet conspiracy theory is that there is one group that is benefiting significantly from shutting down any discussion around the concentration of wealth and power, and that is the extremely wealthy and powerful elites. They engineer a reality through the media and through political campaigns that ensures we all fight amongst ourselves like caged animals that don't know they are caged, and all the while the elite are enjoying the rewards of true wealth redistribution... from all of us to them.
See this thread on the forum and video in first comment: The story of your enslavement
I don't get the point of caring about global wealth inequality. Why the heck aggregate across massively different political systems? I mean what is the point of aggregating Australians with Cubans, Chinese or North Koreans and proclaiming that the average person in the bottom 20% of wealth in Australia is in the top 20% globally?
And why don't these guys ever compare on an age adjusted basis? Seriously, in what universe would one expect children and recent workforce entrants to ever have the same wealth as the average 40 or 50 year old? Purely because of age one would expect the majority of wealth (50+%) to be held by a minority of people (<20%).
And why don't these guys ever compare on an age adjusted basis? Seriously, in what universe would one expect children and recent workforce entrants to ever have the same wealth as the average 40 or 50 year old? Purely because of age one would expect the majority of wealth (50+%) to be held by a minority of people (<20%).
bordsilver said:
This particular report is pointing out that it is a growing global phenomenon.
In numerous places it refers to the growing concentration of wealth and power amongst the global elites (their words) and how this has enabled them to corrupt the political process, to capture government, to "rig the game" (again, their words), to control regulatory policy to ensure their own narrow interests are furthered over the interests of the citizens the governments are supposed to represent, and to hold entire economies to ransom with the threat of being "too big to fail".
People here may claim this is a push for socialism, but I'd say it is an attempt to highlight the growing power of a small global elite in the creation of increasingly totalitarian governments that favour the interests of the elite over all else.
Here's a few extracts from the report that demonstrate what they have chosen to focus on (this covers issues in a number of global economies):
You may be correct.SilverPete said:
But I can't think of a time in history when this wasn't the case? (Given I am no history expert)
The powerful always looked after themselves - that is how they earned the nickname "elite".
So nothing has changed.... ever.
And in this context, I struggle to see the attempt to change what always has been, as anything other than an envious gripe which perfectly characterises socialism.
@ SilverPete, you're an enigma mate. :lol:
And just who is Oxfam going to request action from?
The same people that are striving to generate inflation?
There's no "phenomenon"! There is economic war going on and if middle class people aren't the targets, they are collateral damage.
People print money, suppress interest rates and dish out credit under ZIRP for the benefit of the financial oligarchs...and Oxfam is going to complain that the trickle-down benefits should be increased! To who?
The only phenomenon is that the banksters, politicians and their cronies are getting away with the destruction they are causing.
It's like a bunch of mindless zombies being distracted ... by the poor people who aren't getting a fairer share, while the real deal is completely ignored.
"Please sir, I want some more."
Asking the masters of the workhouse for some more gruel! Pathetic.
The same people that are striving to generate inflation?
There's no "phenomenon"! There is economic war going on and if middle class people aren't the targets, they are collateral damage.
People print money, suppress interest rates and dish out credit under ZIRP for the benefit of the financial oligarchs...and Oxfam is going to complain that the trickle-down benefits should be increased! To who?
The only phenomenon is that the banksters, politicians and their cronies are getting away with the destruction they are causing.
It's like a bunch of mindless zombies being distracted ... by the poor people who aren't getting a fairer share, while the real deal is completely ignored.
"Please sir, I want some more."
Asking the masters of the workhouse for some more gruel! Pathetic.
Peter said:
Nobody is approving, but carrying on as though all of our woes are caused by wealthy boogiemen is an easy abrigation of responsibility for ourselves. Socialists love blaming anyone but themselves.
The only reason this is highlighted is so that politicians can justify the redistribution of that wealth.
How many job's (and well paying ones at that) does a person like Gina Rinehart provide, How much tax to the Australian economy do her company's pay annually ? Export's that underpin the GDP of the without which the country would be in recession.
The feeble minded in the west see such a phenomenon as a poor bugger me paradigm with themselves as the victims , the only thing stopping anyone from doing the same is the nous and the aversion to risk.
If you can read and write you have only yourself holding yourself back from achieving the same as anyone on any top ten list of rich people.
The difference is the drive and the willingness to risk all that you have to make or break yourself, the sheer bloody mindedness to see things through and the confidence in yourself to follow a dream or goal.
I personally lack the above attributes and am happy with where I am and what I have, I don't bitch and moan though about those who do and I don't want my supposed fair share of their hard work as a result of my own introverted ambition.
I also don't want to see the personal wealth of someone who has spent their life literally earning it, shared amongst the masses of those who think they are entitled to it based on some pathetic and distorted sense of quid pro quo .
How many job's (and well paying ones at that) does a person like Gina Rinehart provide, How much tax to the Australian economy do her company's pay annually ? Export's that underpin the GDP of the without which the country would be in recession.
The feeble minded in the west see such a phenomenon as a poor bugger me paradigm with themselves as the victims , the only thing stopping anyone from doing the same is the nous and the aversion to risk.
If you can read and write you have only yourself holding yourself back from achieving the same as anyone on any top ten list of rich people.
The difference is the drive and the willingness to risk all that you have to make or break yourself, the sheer bloody mindedness to see things through and the confidence in yourself to follow a dream or goal.
I personally lack the above attributes and am happy with where I am and what I have, I don't bitch and moan though about those who do and I don't want my supposed fair share of their hard work as a result of my own introverted ambition.
I also don't want to see the personal wealth of someone who has spent their life literally earning it, shared amongst the masses of those who think they are entitled to it based on some pathetic and distorted sense of quid pro quo .
The super elite probably do many of the things that they are blamed for with regards macro-economics and political manipulation. It has been so for many centuries. The people in the palace on the hill determine the fate of the people in the fields.
The super-elite though do not make us sit there drinking every night posting on web forums about how we are their victims, they don't make us choose stupid friends, they don't make us watch the ABC or read the Telegraph, they don't make us drink methanol cocktails in Kuta or go to the gym and take steroids or to get a retarded tattoo or steal from our employer or have babies to claim welfare or to choose an Arts degree at university. In a country like Australia most people who are poor are there because of bad choices, not because of the Rothschilds. First World Problems.
Obviously there are rampant examples of exploitation around the world by the elite and large corporations to this day, particularly by oil and mining interests in poor countries, sweatshops in Asia and so on and so on. Clearly the banking empires hold unbridled power over capital flows and debt. I don't know how to deal with these huge things but I do know that I see people around me in Australia all the time that complain about being poor but who really should not be looking at someone else to be blame for that. Socialism will and never has worked because people are not equal and in a socialist or communist scenario the lazy are still lazy, the motivated are still motivated and the lazy will drift to the bottom. Equality comes from individual people choosing to be equal.
The super-elite though do not make us sit there drinking every night posting on web forums about how we are their victims, they don't make us choose stupid friends, they don't make us watch the ABC or read the Telegraph, they don't make us drink methanol cocktails in Kuta or go to the gym and take steroids or to get a retarded tattoo or steal from our employer or have babies to claim welfare or to choose an Arts degree at university. In a country like Australia most people who are poor are there because of bad choices, not because of the Rothschilds. First World Problems.
Obviously there are rampant examples of exploitation around the world by the elite and large corporations to this day, particularly by oil and mining interests in poor countries, sweatshops in Asia and so on and so on. Clearly the banking empires hold unbridled power over capital flows and debt. I don't know how to deal with these huge things but I do know that I see people around me in Australia all the time that complain about being poor but who really should not be looking at someone else to be blame for that. Socialism will and never has worked because people are not equal and in a socialist or communist scenario the lazy are still lazy, the motivated are still motivated and the lazy will drift to the bottom. Equality comes from individual people choosing to be equal.
systematic
Well-Known Member
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnwYoOeWZGA[/youtube]
Peter said:
I think that anybody who believes fractional reserve lending is a legitimate business model either implicitly or explicitly approves of the situation, regarding wealth inequality.
This would include, no doubt, a large percentage of Oxfam's leadership, along with every politician and central banker they are appealing to, amongst others.
It is unfortunate that a concerned report about the well being of people seems so futile, but it is and that's just a fact. Wishing for a fairy godmother to emerge from the the Eye of Sauron because of a heartfelt plea for help is about as likely to occur as is changing the financial status quo by asking the people that are managing it.
What is more likely is that a wily politician will make a massive public donation to some fund set up to investigate the findings in the Oxfam report, then resign and take a position as the Chairperson of its Board of Directors and give themselves a ridiculous wage and benefits from the public funds they had previously donated...hmmmm, where has that happened before?
The real deal is we each have to row our own canoe ...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6nCa_OTEM[/youtube]
Surprisingly the Rothschilds are involved in this report. The elite and their diabolical plans!
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2015/01/richest-1-per-cent-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2015/01/richest-1-per-cent-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016