Soapbox defenders of Capitalism-attention

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Russell_john

I run a business and very soon I am planniing to employ staff abroad to make my products - cheaper for me (my business) and therefore cheaper for you to buy. Does that make me a capitalist? I don't think so.

The business is mine, the monies invested are mine; the risk is mine, the dynamic is mine, the creative vision oh and did I mention the risk?

Will it make me financially rich? Yes I damned well hope so. But also it will make those who make my products rich as well - as what I pay them will go directly into their pockets in a community there money is a scarce resource.

Of course Redcogs will now bleat on about me being the cruel capitalist opressing the masses, but actually I see it as doing something to positively help those who otherwise will not be able to help themselves. I will not use child labour and I will only expect a reasonable working day (by western standards that is).

Of course I could just give my business to them, or close it down, or give it to the state. None of those ideas is particularly appealing actually so I shall needless to say have to live my life with the aching guilt of being a caplitlist exploiter - in the knowledge that the school my business is going to be building in their community, the education my business risk is providing would of course have been provided by an amoral capitalist pigdog....

Incidentally at this moment I live on zero income - savings only, so a big fat zero in the income stakes. So compared to Redcogs I demand to take the moral highground and actually over the last twenty years I have been a net contributor to society. Never taken benefits at all, no income support, no child support no tax credits, nothing - in fact Redcogs I think in some part of my earned income has gone some way to supporting you and your kin.

I can sleep better at night knowing that somewhere up in Banff(?) there is someone I have helped, however indirectly, even though he loathes the process by which the help was provided.

Happy days - when will 'socialists' learn that taking the moral high ground is about as pointless as trying to knit custard.

are they wibbin me Centurwion?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All i do is offer various criticisms of the capitalism, and a proposal for democratic equalitarian collectivism as a solution to the competetive systems iniquities. Of course, there is a moral component along with that critique, how could it be otherwise? after all, capitalism fails in so many areas (despite its tremendous success in enabling decent standards by and large for those of us lucky enough to inhabit the prosperous northern hemisphere). However we should not be oblivious to the facts of global capital, because the truth remains that it fails human beings in the most tragic of ways, by depriving so many of the worlds population of the right to a comfortable life, or any life at all.

Incidentally, for someone making an argument against 'moral highgroundism', you could do a lot better. Anyone who has "never taken any benefits at all" is definitely seeking the high ground, is simply plain lucky, or is fabricating. As soon as you are born you begin to extract benefits from a society constructed from the accumulated labour of others in a whole range of different ways. i assume you were born in a hospital? for example.

You are not an island, you depend on others just as others depend on you.

please look up to the stars.. ***

formerlyknownasbonj · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by B

Though I generally agree that the inequality in Britons' wealth is getting greater assuming you are taking 'modern' in its historical sense (i.e. post-1453) I doubt your analysis. I would think that our wealth was more inequal prior to WW1, gradually started to converge and then started to diverge again from the mid-80s onward.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The main event that occurred in 1453 would appear to be The Fall of Constantinople. Why is this relevant to the British wage gap?

reculver · June 2007

Heating engineer œ38K per annum (GREEDY HAD NO FATHER) i know lol

communists are people who have nothing and want to share it with everyone else BLESS

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Hmmmm
After 4 hours ankev is the only one with the integrity/openess to answer my question...somehow I doubt the rest of you will bother, so Again the simple question "what are you afraid of boys?"[:)]
That you earn 4/5/6/7/8/9 x the national wage?
That this fact has disproportionate influence on your political stance and attitude?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In keeping with ankev's character Gaz. Nowt wrong with a working class Tory that a good talking can't resolve.

[:)]

please look up to the stars.. ***

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The average wage last year was œ23244, or œ460 / week. Almost 65% of Britain's workers earn under this, whereas there are an increasing number of super-rich who earn many times this amount. The gap between the highest earners and the lowest is the greatest it has ever been in modern Britain.

Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum
Gonna get my Ph.D.
I'm a teenage lobotomy

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Presumably that's the mean average, which is why it's skewed by the super rich? Would be interesting to look at the median value.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Hmmmm
After 4 hours ankev is the only one with the integrity/openess to answer my question...somehow I doubt the rest of you will bother, so Again the simple question "what are you afraid of boys?"[:)]
That you earn 4/5/6/7/8/9 x the national wage?
That this fact has disproportionate influence on your political stance and attitude?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nothing to do with 'integrity'; it simply isn't any of your business what I earn. Suffice it to say I am quite content with my lot, though don't get close to the lowest of your average wage multipliers.

What do you think this exercise proves anyway? Is it any less altruistic for the rich to vote to keep as much of their income as possible than it is for the poor to vote for higher taxes on the rich so that they can benefit materially from the income of others?

Simon L2 · June 2007

spire still hasn't answered my question about his children (or whether he has any)

ankev1 · June 2007

If you think about it the income question could open a can of worms for some folk, this one has even more potential to be dynamite. Spire seems to be an honest chap and he might not want his wife(s) to know of the existence of other children. For all we know he may pedal furiously every day between various domiciles, discharge various conjugal/paternal duties and then hoof it to make loads of money to keep the whole thing going. There are other, even more intriguing possibilities. (Has he ever displayed an extensive knowledge of soft furnishings, for instance?) On the whole a question which perhaps he has good reasons not to answer.

willski · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Russell_john

I run a business and very soon I am planniing to employ staff abroad to make my products - cheaper for me (my business) and therefore cheaper for you to buy. Does that make me a capitalist? I don't think so.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Business is privately owned - check
You are risking money in hope of a return - check
The profits and losses of the company are born by you -check

I think that means you are a capitalist.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Incidentally at this moment I live on zero income - savings only, so a big fat zero in the income stakes. So compared to Redcogs I demand to take the moral highground and actually over the last twenty years I have been a net contributor to society. Never taken benefits at all, no income support, no child support no tax credits, nothing
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nothing? what nothing at all? do you only ride your bicycle on the private roads that you have built? do you have private flood defences in your part of Brighton? Are there no police patrols? do you dispose of your own rubbish? Are the savings that you are living off not regulated? by whom? Will the contracts for your business have a legal framework? who pays for the judiciary? the law making, courts, judges etc that you expect to be in place when the bills aren't paid?

I'm not saying that you are not a net contributor, you probably are, but to say you have taken "nothing" is perhaps an exageration.

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

If you think about it the income question could open a can of worms for some folk, this one has even more potential to be dynamite. Spire seems to be an honest chap and he might not want his wife(s) to know of the existence of other children. For all we know he may pedal furiously every day between various domiciles, discharge various conjugal/paternal duties and then hoof it to make loads of money to keep the whole thing going. There are other, even more intriguing possibilities. (Has he ever displayed an extensive knowledge of soft furnishings, for instance?) On the whole a question which perhaps he has good reasons not to answer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i mistakenly made a positive remark about ankev (above) - now withdrawn.

He takes liberalism too far on some occasions, and covering for spire will not do. spire is probably the most secretive cybercharacter here, and mjones follows a similar pattern.

What have they got to hide?

Patrick is an absolute paragon of virtue by comparison - he even displays his own photo (out of vanity, but what the heck, at his age its downhill all the way).

The 'left' are naturally open honest and inclusively approachable.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · June 2007

Pah!

It is now clear that compared to you I positively ooze the milk of human kindness, preferring as I do to think the best of my fellow humans.

FWIW my betting is that Spire might be a member of his local Conservative Association and could be angling long term for a parliamentary candidacy, in which event you, Redders, must do the only honourable thing: raise the money for a deposit and hoof it south to contest the election with him.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

The 'left' are naturally open honest and inclusively approachable.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

.......and always post under their real names with a photo. [;)]

Gary Askwith · June 2007

My photo illustrates my attitude [}:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i mistakenly made a positive remark about ankev (above) - now withdrawn.

He takes liberalism too far on some occasions, and covering for spire will not do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, I think ankev and mjones are fine fellows, but you've hurt my feelings, redcogs![;)][:D]

(I know you get especially angry with me because I'm a traitor to the cause - an aspirant working class, grammar-school educated lad who didn't know his place and ended up embracing the middle class!)

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The average wage last year was œ23244, or œ460 / week. Almost 65% of Britain's workers earn under this, whereas there are an increasing number of super-rich who earn many times this amount. The gap between the highest earners and the lowest is the greatest it has ever been in modern Britain.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Thanks, FM. The super-rich may be paid many times the average, but I bet none of them actually earn it!

I tried to find the figures for Germany just to compare, but exchange rates make this difficult. Going by purchasing power, the Germans are on average still better off than their UK counterparts, although the gap has narrowed a lot in recent years, and to some extent Germany is going through the painful 'Thatcher' years of reform. One difference is that wealth is not quite so unequally distributed, which makes the average worker better off. On the other hand, the east German inheritance makes comparisons awkward, as on reunification the west had to take on a museum-piece economy.

Interesting assumption in the thread that the 'right' defend capitalism because they have done well financially out of it. I would have thought that a system which at least gives some freedom to the individual and allows pluralistic democracy might be good reasons for rejecting socialism as an alternative. Under socialism , the individual is subsumed into the State, but the worst of this is that in no case where this has ever been tried was the State ever benign. So perhaps capitalism is the lesser of two evils.

It is also fair to challenge the assumption that being rich guarantees happiness. I think it is pretty clear that it doesn't, although being poor certainly restricts what can be enjoyed in life.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Mjones and Spire somehow remind me of the squeaky-clean head boy and his sidekick in my old sixth form.....
Jeremy 'crawler' Watson and Rupert 'geeky' Murdoch [:)]
Both preferred table tennis to rugger...jezza got upset because 'our' group refused to sing jerusalem with appropiate gusto in asssembly , refused to take his silly election seriously and voted for Brian 'the slob' Armstrong instead

Ahhh happy days[:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The average wage last year was œ23244, or œ460 / week. Almost 65% of Britain's workers earn under this, whereas there are an increasing number of super-rich who earn many times this amount. The gap between the highest earners and the lowest is the greatest it has ever been in modern Britain.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Thanks, FM. The super-rich may be paid many times the average, but I bet none of them actually earn it!

I tried to find the figures for Germany just to compare, but exchange rates make this difficult. Going by purchasing power, the Germans are on average still better off than their UK counterparts, although the gap has narrowed a lot in recent years, and to some extent Germany is going through the painful 'Thatcher' years of reform. One difference is that wealth is not quite so unequally distributed, which makes the average worker better off. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There are two reasons why there are more very rich people in the UK than in Germany. One is the international super rich prefer living in London than say, Bonn. The other is that London is a much bigger financial centre than Frankfurt and a lot of the huge salaries and bonuses come from City financial jobs that just don't exist in the same numbers in Germany.

spire · June 2007

Gaz

Comparing us to people nobody else knows is rather meaningless, don't you think?

(BTW I was in the rugby team as well as being No.1 at table tennis. And I've always been an atheist![;)][:D])

Russell_john · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Russell_john

I run a business and very soon I am planniing to employ staff abroad to make my products - cheaper for me (my business) and therefore cheaper for you to buy. Does that make me a capitalist? I don't think so.

The business is mine, the monies invested are mine; the risk is mine, the dynamic is mine, the creative vision oh and did I mention the risk?

Will it make me financially rich? Yes I damned well hope so. But also it will make those who make my products rich as well - as what I pay them will go directly into their pockets in a community there money is a scarce resource.

Of course Redcogs will now bleat on about me being the cruel capitalist opressing the masses, but actually I see it as doing something to positively help those who otherwise will not be able to help themselves. I will not use child labour and I will only expect a reasonable working day (by western standards that is).

Of course I could just give my business to them, or close it down, or give it to the state. None of those ideas is particularly appealing actually so I shall needless to say have to live my life with the aching guilt of being a caplitlist exploiter - in the knowledge that the school my business is going to be building in their community, the education my business risk is providing would of course have been provided by an amoral capitalist pigdog....

Incidentally at this moment I live on zero income - savings only, so a big fat zero in the income stakes. So compared to Redcogs I demand to take the moral highground and actually over the last twenty years I have been a net contributor to society. Never taken benefits at all, no income support, no child support no tax credits, nothing - in fact Redcogs I think in some part of my earned income has gone some way to supporting you and your kin.

I can sleep better at night knowing that somewhere up in Banff(?) there is someone I have helped, however indirectly, even though he loathes the process by which the help was provided.

Happy days - when will 'socialists' learn that taking the moral high ground is about as pointless as trying to knit custard.

are they wibbin me Centurwion?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All i do is offer various criticisms of the capitalism, and a proposal for democratic equalitarian collectivism as a solution to the competetive systems iniquities. Of course, there is a moral component along with that critique, how could it be otherwise? after all, capitalism fails in so many areas (despite its tremendous success in enabling decent standards by and large for those of us lucky enough to inhabit the prosperous northern hemisphere). However we should not be oblivious to the facts of global capital, because the truth remains that it fails human beings in the most tragic of ways, by depriving so many of the worlds population of the right to a comfortable life, or any life at all.

Incidentally, for someone making an argument against 'moral highgroundism', you could do a lot better. Anyone who has "never taken any benefits at all" is definitely seeking the high ground, is simply plain lucky, or is fabricating. As soon as you are born you begin to extract benefits from a society constructed from the accumulated labour of others in a whole range of different ways. i assume you were born in a hospital? for example.

You are not an island, you depend on others just as others depend on you.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are right I do not live on an island and agreed I do depend on others.

My point about 'demanding the moral high ground' was one to raise attention to the daftness of the original post - to make an association between salary and 'investment in a system' is about as daft as saying Thatcher had a commitment to capitalism because she battered the miners or Uncle Joe has a commitment to communism because he filled the Gulags with those he despised.

The 'irony' of my post is that I take no moral highground at all and I also deeply resent the attaching of labels to people and to 'systems' To be a 'capitalist' means that you must to X, Y or Z. You exhibit there characteristics therefore you must be X. All this does is label peoples and creates negative images.

For a long time I worked in a pretty lucrative job that ultimately proved to be deeply unsatisfying. So a while back I decided to do something different about my situation and be more creative and work towards something that benefits others and for me has a very high 'spiritual' content; something that was missing from my previous job. It will hopefully payoff - not so much financially (though of course I want financial security) but that it will leave behind a powerful legacy. That's my ambition - to do something different, to do something that makes a difference.

Now I could spend a great deal of effort trying to break/change the status quo or I can try to work within the parameters of the system that is already in place, which is what I choose to do. Now if I get to build the school I want, to help both my local community and others far away - and myself to boot, than I will be indeed satisfied that I have done my 'bit' for society. My god, does that make me a capitalist with a conscience? or a socialist with capitalist programming? I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that I try and do the best for me and those around me.

Cheers

are they wibbin me Centurwion?

bad company · June 2007

Getting back to the original question:

Why would anybody with high earnings want to post the figures on an open forum - that is just the sort of thing the Inland Revenue look at[:0].

I had a tax inspection last year[:(]. It was a very painful and expensive experience - not because there was anything wrong in fact the IR ended up owning me money but the time and accountants fees involved.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

Gaz

Comparing us to people nobody else knows is rather meaningless, don't you think?

(BTW I was in the rugby team as well as being No.1 at table tennis. And I've always been an atheist![;)][:D])
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

...if it raises the odd titter...
So how much do you earn again Spire, was it 200 or 300Kpa?[:)]
Bit like patricks opening prosecusion question:
'Have you stopped beating your wife yet then?
'Answer yes or no!'

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Getting back to the original question:

Why would anybody with high earnings want to post the figures on an open forum - that is just the sort of thing the Inland Revenue look at[:0].

I had a tax inspection last year[:(]. It was a very painful and expensive experience - not because there was anything wrong in fact the IR ended up owning me money but the time and accountants fees involved.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ehm so the inland revenue are going to go to all the bother of decephering & tracing your forum moniker back to source
No-one can be that paranoid
ooops except capitalists 'with their' money [:p]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

bad company · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith
[ooops except capitalists 'with their' money [:p]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's me then - A greedy capitalist protecting 'my money' - hey I earned it.[:D]

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Correction: 'earned' [:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

bad company · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Correction: 'earned' [:)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What exactly is the problem Gary? I took a big risk years ago when I borrowed money to start a business. It has done well and I now employ several people and have made a few shillings.

Are you really saying that is wrong?

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

...Interesting assumption in the thread that the 'right' defend capitalism because they have done well financially out of it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Capitalism might be less unacceptable if those who did well under it did well purely as a result of their own efforts; that is if it came with a 100% death duty, the proceeds of which could be used in part to fund a high standard of education for all young people.

Of course, it would still result in the planet being completely wrecked, because that is its nature.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Correction: 'earned' [:)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What exactly is the problem Gary? I took a big risk years ago when I borrowed money to start a business. It has done well and I now employ several people and have made a few shillings.

Are you really saying that is wrong?

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Clearly wrong. All businesses should be owned by the state, what the hell do you thing you are doing starting your own. To make you feel better just send any profits to redcogs to ensure he never has to get a job.

Unkraut · June 2007

Isn't the objection to capitalism more to do with the idle rich golf players who live off dividend income (very nicely, thank you), perhaps entirely inherited rather than worked for, rather than the genuine entrepreneur who does what bad company did and start a business? Isn't he entitled to the fruit of his labour?

Edit - NickM, we seem to be agreeing on this one! I shall have to try to wangle religion into the thread somehow .... [;)]

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

Isn't the objection to capitalism more to do with the idle rich golf players who live off dividend income (very nicely, thank you), perhaps entirely inherited rather than worked for, rather than the genuine entrepreneur who does what bad company did and start a business? Isn't he entitled to the fruit of his labour?

Edit - NickM, we seem to be agreeing on this one! I shall have to try to wangle religion into the thread somehow .... [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Some peoples objection may be, I believe people such as redcgos wants no privately owned businesses.

oddsos · June 2007

Some of the "successful business people" on here might be interested in reading "Fooled by Randomness". The main thrust of the book is that those that succeed in management, or especially trading, do so more by luck than skill. Most of the abilities and responses to which such success stories attribute their earnings are more the result of carefully fitting a flattering narrative to events than reality.

Soapbox defenders of Capitalism-attention

Comments

Categories