Re Occupy the Stock Exchange

rick_chasey

Paul Mason (hero) on the protests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15326636

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

FS is being targetted because most will associate their woes as their fault.

Forgetting about all the other factors, conveniently.

I never said it was right or even correct. People are looking for something to blame and loosely understand it as "the banks" or Financial Services fault.

what I wrote:

People are angry, many don't fully understand the situation or why! Most will loosely understand that it's "the banks fault" while Fianancial Services are still rich . So people, angry people, will target them.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

It isn't helpful and they need to pick clearly defined problems with specific parts of the finance system and propose actual fixes otherwise the Marxist elements who never liked the way the nation ran will just cause the demo to be ignored.

Of course it's helpful. We're talking about it now.

What's wrong with publicly showing anger with a particular social and economic structure?

It's perfectly good and OK to show anger at something and want it to change, even if you can't offer a solution. That doesn't mean there isn't one. That's what you elect people for - to do that part for you.

Now some are either smart enough or think they are to offer their own solutions, some of which they will agree with, others not.

But to criticise them for being angry and showing it is bizarre. It's a cornerstone of a proper democracy.

What's wrong is that through understanding the options available to sort out the problem you might conclude that sticking with and propping up the existing system however unfair or disliked is the best option.

That's not the 'only' conclusion you can come to.

Very smart guys, former BofE commitee members, successful financiers, etc have suggested that what is happening is not the best of a bad situation.

Just take a look at your average weekly newsnight discussion about the state of the Eurozone and the financial system.

Surely we can agree the current situation is fundamentally unsound and problematic - and there needs to be a solution.

Banks clearly provide a vital role to the economy, but can't be trusted to always provide that role > since they are willing to put that role at risk to make more money.

100% yes we can agree that.

But several people who know more about this stuff than me, some of whom are elected representatives have come up with a solution which they have put in place, in doing this I would expect them to have looked at the options (all of them) modelled them and then decided on the best solution. Of course not everyone is going to agree on the best way particularly if the best way affects them directly.

Back on topic, I'm going to trust a group that are implementing a solution to have made the correct decision over people who are just saying it needs to change without considering all of alternatives and then offering a workable solution. As I said early if they did and it made sense, they would have my support and I would vote for them, heck I would even consider going and protesting with them.

I think one thing that is lacking is that we don't see the debate, we do not understand what other options have been considered and why they were rejected, we do not see the modelling and predictions. All we get presented is the media spin on the chosen solution being correct (QE for example again).

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Paul Mason (hero) on the protests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15326636

Good article. But it does highlight a problem.

"In fact they revel in their diversity; it was true in Syntagma and it is true at St Paul's - if you ask 50 people why they're here and what they want you will get 50 answers."

But can we have 50 solutions one for each?

SimonAH

Aside from the coverage of the protests - does anyone agree with my that a very large component of the financial manure we are currently in is thanks to the media?

When there is nothing else juicy to talk about, it's very easy to pull up a doom and gloom story.

I've almost stopped listening to the radio in the car because of the constant blathering about how bad everything is and how much worse its going to get. :evil:

FFS this is a self fulfilling prophesy!!!! Keep telling everyone that they'll be living on ships biscuits and weevils by next week and just watch them slam their purses shut.

Let's have some good news please, find some cheery stories and get the economy moving again.

For example I can tell you that the CAPEX equipment enquiries (high ticket specialist engineering) on my desk at the moment are the highest I can remember - and this is for the UK market and not export.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Aside from the coverage of the protests - does anyone agree with my that a very large component of the financial manure we are currently in is thanks to the media?

When there is nothing else juicy to talk about, it's very easy to pull up a doom and gloom story.

I've almost stopped listening to the radio in the car because of the constant blathering about how bad everything is and how much worse its going to get. :evil:

FFS this is a self fulfilling prophesy!!!! Keep telling everyone that they'll be living on ships biscuits and weevils by next week and just watch them slam their purses shut.

Let's have some good news please, find some cheery stories and get the economy moving again.

For example I can tell you that the CAPEX equipment enquiries (high ticket specialist engineering) on my desk at the moment are the highest I can remember - and this is for the UK market and not export.

What else is the media going to do when the head of the BofE says "This is the most serious financial crisis at least since the 1930s, if not ever." ??

Or Cameron telling everyone to 'pay off their credit card' rather than spend?

sketchley

SimonAH wrote:

Aside from the coverage of the protests - does anyone agree with my that a very large component of the financial manure we are currently in is thanks to the media?

When there is nothing else juicy to talk about, it's very easy to pull up a doom and gloom story.

I've almost stopped listening to the radio in the car because of the constant blathering about how bad everything is and how much worse its going to get. :evil:

FFS this is a self fulfilling prophesy!!!! Keep telling everyone that they'll be living on ships biscuits and weevils by next week and just watch them slam their purses shut.

Let's have some good news please, find some cheery stories and get the economy moving again.

For example I can tell you that the CAPEX equipment enquiries (high ticket specialist engineering) on my desk at the moment are the highest I can remember - and this is for the UK market and not export.

I'll play

My company from a standing start in 1998 now employs 130 people across London, Essex and Manchester. We have experience year on year growth every year and our order book is booming, despite the current climate.

daviesee

I'll play too.

Companies are struggling to find staff to fill positions in Aberdeen.
There may well be reasons for that :twisted: but the jobs are there.

I imagine that it is the same all over the Country for skilled staff. There is a shortage of people in certain sectors. That should give some people something to aim for.

AidanR

I was at the protest on Saturday. I'd never been to one before, and very interesting it was too. I don't claim to speak for the protests - nobody can, as far as I'm concerned - but I would like to add a few things into the mix.

Firstly, despite the name it's not just about financial services. Nor is it simply anti-capitalist. Don't get me wrong, some people there were die-hard Marxist types who would love to smash the system. I think in London in particular there are a lot of serial-protesters, so there's a natural tendency towards the usual anti-cuts, anti-NHS changes rhetoric. But it's much more than that too...

The movement claims to be standing up for the "99%" which, as far as I'm concerned, means that it is necessarily more diverse and inclusive. Everyone comes to it with a different opinion, and there's room for all of them. Mine is this:

For me, there are 3 main points:

1) That inequality, which has grown markedly over the past 30 years, has reached unacceptable levels. It has been associated with increased societal ills, from teenage pregnancy to levels of crime. Despite being told that money is better off in the hands of the rich as they are the job and wealth creators, the opposite has happened - growth has slowed with rising inequality. Those lower down the food chain have been promised that although they'll get a smaller slice of the pie, they'll be better off in absolute terms and they'll get a smaller slice of a bigger pie. This hasn't happened.

2) Power and money are too entwined. This is most obvious in the US with the influence of their lobbyists, and how politicians are effectively indebted to those who finance their election campaigns. It's a little subtler here in the UK, but you only have to look at the Liam Fox scandal to see that it does happen. Quite simply, democracy becomes a sham if those with money can significantly influence the system. OK, some may be altruistic, but realistically most will act in their own interests, which is likely to be to increase their wealth. This can become a vicious circle. Arguably it already has.

3) It is not capitalism that is the problem, but a particular type of capitalism that has become increasingly influential over the past 30 years - neoliberalism. This is the preference for small government, light touch regulation, minimal redistribution of wealth through the tax system. It's close to "pure" capitalism; the opposite of Keynesianism; it's what the IMF and World Bank refer to as "structural adjustment" when they impose it on bankrupt countries in return for loans. It actually hasn't made quite the inroads in the UK as it might have, because frankly it tends to be wildly unpopular and needs a big crisis to create the "political will" to push through reforms. But you can see the idea at work in light and poorly enforced banking regulations... and we all know what happened there. It naturally leads to greater inequality. And as the rich become richer, uninhibited by checks, balances and regulations, they rich can buy greater influence over the system - see point 2.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not fair to call the occupiers 'wanting something for nothing'. They want a change in the financial system.

They are against the current system.

It's not like they're out there demanding to get £50s for standing there.

Change to what though? What's the alternative? What do they want in place of what there is?

*sighs*

To make this clear, I'm not a spokesperson. I work about a 5 minute walk away, so am probably hated by the guys there at St Pauls.

Anyway.

The issues are twofold - 1, genuine bank breakup > they're naturally angry at the enormous role the IBs played in the crash and the consequent pain - especially given the lack of (relative) pain the IBs are feeling. That's a feeling that's pretty widespread across the UK.

2 - immediate gov't policies that tackle the unequalness of the downturn. Top end earners are making more than ever, yet the average punter is getting shafted. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be hurt by the policies. They want a change of policies that don't protect investors at the expense of joe public.

(QE is a great example. keeping the bond market liquid [keeps investors happy], at the expense of inflation > which hurts everone).

I'm not having a pop at you. I am asking a genuine question - it's one thing to object to something, but quite another to have no alternative.

A sort of general ill-will towards IBs, and a desire to "make the rich pay their fair share" isn't much of a plan, IMO. Tell a "top end earner" who is paying a weighted average rate of over 50% on their entire income that they are not paying enough, and I suspect we will end up with a lot of dead golden geese.

notsoblue

AidanR wrote:

I was at the protest on Saturday. I'd never been to one before, and very interesting it was too. I don't claim to speak for the protests - nobody can, as far as I'm concerned - but I would like to add a few things into the mix.

Firstly, despite the name it's not just about financial services. Nor is it simply anti-capitalist. Don't get me wrong, some people there were die-hard Marxist types who would love to smash the system. I think in London in particular there are a lot of serial-protesters, so there's a natural tendency towards the usual anti-cuts, anti-NHS changes rhetoric. But it's much more than that too...

The movement claims to be standing up for the "99%" which, as far as I'm concerned, means that it is necessarily more diverse and inclusive. Everyone comes to it with a different opinion, and there's room for all of them. Mine is this:

For me, there are 3 main points:

1) That inequality, which has grown markedly over the past 30 years, has reached unacceptable levels. It has been associated with increased societal ills, from teenage pregnancy to levels of crime. Despite being told that money is better off in the hands of the rich as they are the job and wealth creators, the opposite has happened - growth has slowed with rising inequality. Those lower down the food chain have been promised that although they'll get a smaller slice of the pie, they'll be better off in absolute terms and they'll get a smaller slice of a bigger pie. This hasn't happened.

2) Power and money are too entwined. This is most obvious in the US with the influence of their lobbyists, and how politicians are effectively indebted to those who finance their election campaigns. It's a little subtler here in the UK, but you only have to look at the Liam Fox scandal to see that it does happen. Quite simply, democracy becomes a sham if those with money can significantly influence the system. OK, some may be altruistic, but realistically most will act in their own interests, which is likely to be to increase their wealth. This can become a vicious circle. Arguably it already has.

3) It is not capitalism that is the problem, but a particular type of capitalism that has become increasingly influential over the past 30 years - neoliberalism. This is the preference for small government, light touch regulation, minimal redistribution of wealth through the tax system. It's close to "pure" capitalism; the opposite of Keynesianism; it's what the IMF and World Bank refer to as "structural adjustment" when they impose it on bankrupt countries in return for loans. It actually hasn't made quite the inroads in the UK as it might have, because frankly it tends to be wildly unpopular and needs a big crisis to create the "political will" to push through reforms. But you can see the idea at work in light and poorly enforced banking regulations... and we all know what happened there. It naturally leads to greater inequality. And as the rich become richer, uninhibited by checks, balances and regulations, they rich can buy greater influence over the system - see point 2.

Well said, I came here to post about your second point, but you were here already...

andyrm

I think it's very easy to protest against "the rich", "the capitalists" etc etc.........

Capitalism isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is simply a name given to the natural human instinct to aspire to and want more for yourself and your nearest & dearest, essentially a modern day title for our hunter gatherer instinct. Is that such a bad thing? I think not.

And having seen the oh so ironic protesters in Bristol this weekend with their excellent upper middle class elocution and pronunciation, drinking Starbucks while protesting against corporations (I loved that!!) it dawned on me that their parents had obviously made the money that allowed them the good educations that made them so articulate. In my opinion, you don't bite the hand that feeds you......

Start excessively taxing the nation's top earners and you destroy the aspiration to earn more as there will be a "band" where they are no better off until they make a huge leap in income. Factor in that the top earners across the board (not just the FS guys that the left like to focus on) are responsible for a huge number of jobs, businesses etc - if you destroy their reward structure for driving growth and earnings increase, you potentially stall the economy.

bails87

andyrm wrote:

Start excessively taxing the nation's top earners and you destroy the aspiration to earn more as there will be a "band" where they are no better off until they make a huge leap in income

I think you've misunderstood how income tax works.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

AidanR wrote:

2) Power and money are too entwined. This is most obvious in the US with the influence of their lobbyists, and how politicians are effectively indebted to those who finance their election campaigns. It's a little subtler here in the UK, but you only have to look at the Liam Fox scandal to see that it does happen. Quite simply, democracy becomes a sham if those with money can significantly influence the system. OK, some may be altruistic, but realistically most will act in their own interests, which is likely to be to increase their wealth. This can become a vicious circle. Arguably it already has.

Well said, I came here to post about your second point, but you were here already...

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Is there any system of Government - left wing, right wing, totalitarian, liberal, take your pick - where there is not a coincidence of wealth and power?

greg66_tri_v2.0

andyrm wrote:

Start excessively taxing the nation's top earners and you destroy the aspiration to earn more

I think you can stop there.

andyrm

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Is there any system of Government - left wing, right wing, totalitarian, liberal, take your pick - where there is not a coincidence of wealth and power?

Agreed.

Suppose the FS companies leave and go to more sympathetic climes? What happens on a knock on basis to our economy? When I was still working in Brick Lane, I saw first hand the knock on effect to small food outlets, small clothes stores etc etc when redundancies started to come in and hit the city guys. So scaring off the "evil rich bankers" as the extreme left would have us think of them actually has a very real knock on to the small, independent SME sector.

And as for government systems, history has shown us time and time again that the communist/Marxist system is riddled with corruption.

Greed (to use a very crude term IMO) is a natural human instinct. I prefer to think of it as "aspiration to material and financial self betterment". That's not necessarily a bad thing.

AidanR

andyrm wrote:

Capitalism isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is simply a name given to the natural human instinct to aspire to and want more for yourself and your nearest & dearest, essentially a modern day title for our hunter gatherer instinct. Is that such a bad thing? I think not.

I'd agree that capitalism in itself is not evil - it's just a system. Perhaps a system that encourages selfish and (arguably) evil behaviour, but still...

I'd disagree with your equating it to hunter-gatherer instinct. Either you fundamentally misunderstand what hunter-gatherer communities were like, or what capitalism, or both. Hunter-gatherers, it would seem, lived in smallish communities that were by their nature co-operative and had striking equality. This worked because they were genuine communities - everyone knew everyone else, and freeloaders, cheats and those who hoarded excessive wealth (define a little differently back then!) were punished by the collective.

It all sounds quite idyllic really, but sadly we are too numerous now for this kind of system to work. We evolved to be able to keep track of about 100 fellow humans at a time - much more than this and we lose track and the systems of collective punishment etc. break down. Capitalism has evolved as a response to the expansion of societies, is pretty much the polar opposite of the system in hunter-gatherer tribes.

andyrm

AidanR wrote:

I'd agree that capitalism in itself is not evil - it's just a system. Perhaps a system that encourages selfish and (arguably) evil behaviour, but still...

I'd disagree with your equating it to hunter-gatherer instinct. Either you fundamentally misunderstand what hunter-gatherer communities were like, or what capitalism, or both. Hunter-gatherers, it would seem, lived in smallish communities that were by their nature co-operative and had striking equality. This worked because they were genuine communities - everyone knew everyone else, and freeloaders, cheats and those who hoarded excessive wealth (define a little differently back then!) were punished by the collective.

It all sounds quite idyllic really, but sadly we are too numerous now for this kind of system to work. We evolved to be able to keep track of about 100 fellow humans at a time - much more than this and we lose track and the systems of collective punishment etc. break down. Capitalism has evolved as a response to the expansion of societies, is pretty much the polar opposite of the system in hunter-gatherer tribes.

Without wanting to sound argumentative, I'd suggest that capitalism has become a dirty word that has become emotionally loaded for the benefit of certain sections of society.

The desire or sense of obligation to provide for yourself and your family and drive them up the social foodchain is one of the oldest instincts if that's what you'd call it. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. We seem somewhere along the way to have become obsessed with the word "fair" - and that is something I don't necessarily think is a good thing. We also have developed a societal hatred towards those with more than us. Rather than aspire to have what they have, work harder and strive for the fruits of our labours, we instead attack the "haves".

Just to clarify, I am not for one second saying the FS sector doesn't need a shake up - just that this "tax the rich, everyone live in a kibbutz style existence" mantra that is currently sweeping the nation's hippy wannabes is a bit oversimplistic........

AidanR

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Is there any system of Government - left wing, right wing, totalitarian, liberal, take your pick - where there is not a coincidence of wealth and power?

A few things:

1) A more equal society benefits virtually everyone - not simply those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top. This seems counter-intuitive but it borne out by the statistics. Even those in the top 10% benefit from the better functioning societies that greater equality brings, from health to crime. I appreciate that this is not a widely known phenomenon and so might not factor into the decisions of the wealthy, but I just see that as a reason to spread the word.

2) Increased wealth (in developed countries) no longer brings with it much advantage. Correlation between societal indicators and the wealth of developed countries is non-existent. Thus I submit that if we were to lose a few wealthy people but ended up with a more equal society it would not be the disaster it is perceived to be.

3) There is also little evidence that the wealthy will disappear if taxed more. But creating a more equal society needn't be achieved through taxation. For example, perhaps excessive executive pay could be curbed through changes in corporate governance.

4) Just because money and power often coincide does not mean that they should, or that this is desirable. Most importantly, it does not mean it shouldn't be fought. There is a natural tendency for these things to coalesce, so there needs to be checks and balances within systems to prevent it. If necessary, it must be called out and openly opposed.

5) I don't see this as a battle between systems - as capitalism vs Marxism or something similar. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but it's probably the best things we have given the scale and nature of our societies. But capitalism is not just a monolith. There are different types of capitalism, and a huge variety of variables that can be adjusted to better the system. There is plenty of scope to build a better economic system and a better society within capitalism itself, necessarily incorporating ideas from other economic systems. Simplified ideal systems don't work in the real world. If an answer is simple, it is almost certainly wrong.

rick_chasey

andyrm wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Is there any system of Government - left wing, right wing, totalitarian, liberal, take your pick - where there is not a coincidence of wealth and power?

Agreed.

Suppose the FS companies leave and go to more sympathetic climes? What happens on a knock on basis to our economy? When I was still working in Brick Lane, I saw first hand the knock on effect to small food outlets, small clothes stores etc etc when redundancies started to come in and hit the city guys. So scaring off the "evil rich bankers" as the extreme left would have us think of them actually has a very real knock on to the small, independent SME sector.

I don't buy that they'll leave.

If that was the case, why wasn't there a mass exodus of high earners moving to Switzerland when 50p got introduced.

Banks are in the UK not because it's cheap. The UK does finance very well - they make a lot of money.

it is concerning that the main party in charge of sorting out the financial sector has 50% of its party funding from the City. You're not likely to get an objective approach.

AidanR

andyrm wrote:

Without wanting to sound argumentative, I'd suggest that capitalism has become a dirty word that has become emotionally loaded for the benefit of certain sections of society.

The desire or sense of obligation to provide for yourself and your family and drive them up the social foodchain is one of the oldest instincts if that's what you'd call it. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. We seem somewhere along the way to have become obsessed with the word "fair" - and that is something I don't necessarily think is a good thing. We also have developed a societal hatred towards those with more than us. Rather than aspire to have what they have, work harder and strive for the fruits of our labours, we instead attack the "haves".

Just to clarify, I am not for one second saying the FS sector doesn't need a shake up - just that this "tax the rich, everyone live in a kibbutz style existence" mantra that is currently sweeping the nation's hippy wannabes is a bit oversimplistic........

Oh, there's no doubt about it - to some people capitalism is the root of all evil and must be destroyed. And though there may be a kernel of truth somewhere in that viewpoint, it is nevertheless an overly simplistic and ultimately unhelpful one.

And yes, there is a genetic tendency to favour those with whom you share genes. Whether this should be used as a reason to potentially harm others to protect your own is a philosophical debate perhaps better left for another time.

But it's simplistic to think that we should pursue money in order to secure the best possible lives for our family. None of us exist in isolation - we are all affected by those around us; we are affected by the societies in which we live. We and our families would all be much better off if we pursued goals that bettered society rather than blindly tried to better our own lot. In short, co-operation rather than competition. This is basic game theory.

sketchley

AidanR wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Is there any system of Government - left wing, right wing, totalitarian, liberal, take your pick - where there is not a coincidence of wealth and power?

A few things:

1) A more equal society benefits virtually everyone - not simply those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top. This seems counter-intuitive but it borne out by the statistics. Even those in the top 10% benefit from the better functioning societies that greater equality brings, from health to crime. I appreciate that this is not a widely known phenomenon and so might not factor into the decisions of the wealthy, but I just see that as a reason to spread the word.

2) Increased wealth (in developed countries) no longer brings with it much advantage. Correlation between societal indicators and the wealth of developed countries is non-existent. Thus I submit that if we were to lose a few wealthy people but ended up with a more equal society it would not be the disaster it is perceived to be.

3) There is also little evidence that the wealthy will disappear if taxed more. But creating a more equal society needn't be achieved through taxation. For example, perhaps excessive executive pay could be curbed through changes in corporate governance.

4) Just because money and power often coincide does not mean that they should, or that this is desirable. Most importantly, it does not mean it shouldn't be fought. There is a natural tendency for these things to coalesce, so there needs to be checks and balances within systems to prevent it. If necessary, it must be called out and openly opposed.

5) I don't see this as a battle between systems - as capitalism vs Marxism or something similar. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but it's probably the best things we have given the scale and nature of our societies. But capitalism is not just a monolith. There are different types of capitalism, and a huge variety of variables that can be adjusted to better the system. There is plenty of scope to build a better economic system and a better society within capitalism itself, necessarily incorporating ideas from other economic systems. Simplified ideal systems don't work in the real world. If an answer is simple, it is almost certainly wrong.

Point 1. How can you have an "equal society" with a "top 10 %". Some are more equal than others?

Point 2. Is largely due to exploitation of cheap labour as there is lots of it. However if the developing country keep developing and creating more wealthy individuals eventually the cheap labour becomes less plentiful and ceases to be cheap labour. Also cheap relative to UK/Europe is not the same thing as cheap within that countries economy.

Point 3 - Please look into supertax in 70's 98% on income more than £100,000 iirc led to a massive exodus. Also please bear in mind it may not be the person that leaves but their chose investments. For example an entrepreneur might chose to remain a UK resident but stop investing in new business starts up in UK due to high tax rate and instead invest in say India.

Point 4 - I agree with this in general and I would like to see political parties in the UK funded by the state and donations from individuals or corporations banned. I think that would be a good start.

Point 5 - Agree with this.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Define "significant". Like you said, wealth correlates with power no matter what system of government there is. Theres nothing new about that. But when the wealthy and powerful exert such control over our government that it serves them more than the vast majority to the point that they can force unsustainable conditions for which the majority will end up paying, can you blame people for wanting that to change?

I don't have a problem with people who own a fortune. But ideally they should only be able to accrue this wealth by working within a democratic system like the rest of us rather than by subverting it.

AidanR

Sketchley wrote:

AidanR wrote:

1) A more equal society benefits virtually everyone - not simply those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top. This seems counter-intuitive but it borne out by the statistics. Even those in the top 10% benefit from the better functioning societies that greater equality brings, from health to crime. I appreciate that this is not a widely known phenomenon and so might not factor into the decisions of the wealthy, but I just see that as a reason to spread the word.

2) Increased wealth (in developed countries) no longer brings with it much advantage. Correlation between societal indicators and the wealth of developed countries is non-existent. Thus I submit that if we were to lose a few wealthy people but ended up with a more equal society it would not be the disaster it is perceived to be.

3) There is also little evidence that the wealthy will disappear if taxed more. But creating a more equal society needn't be achieved through taxation. For example, perhaps excessive executive pay could be curbed through changes in corporate governance.

4) Just because money and power often coincide does not mean that they should, or that this is desirable. Most importantly, it does not mean it shouldn't be fought. There is a natural tendency for these things to coalesce, so there needs to be checks and balances within systems to prevent it. If necessary, it must be called out and openly opposed.

5) I don't see this as a battle between systems - as capitalism vs Marxism or something similar. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but it's probably the best things we have given the scale and nature of our societies. But capitalism is not just a monolith. There are different types of capitalism, and a huge variety of variables that can be adjusted to better the system. There is plenty of scope to build a better economic system and a better society within capitalism itself, necessarily incorporating ideas from other economic systems. Simplified ideal systems don't work in the real world. If an answer is simple, it is almost certainly wrong.

Point 1. How can you have an "equal society" with a "top 10 %". Some are more equal than others?

Point 2. Is largely due to exploitation of cheap labour as there is lots of it. However if the developing country keep developing and creating more wealthy individuals eventually the cheap labour becomes less plentiful and ceases to be cheap labour. Also cheap relative to UK/Europe is not the same thing as cheap within that countries economy.

Point 3 - Please look into supertax in 70's 98% on income more than £100,000 iirc led to a massive exodus. Also please bear in mind it may not be the person that leaves but their chose investments. For example an entrepreneur might chose to remain a UK resident but stop investing in new business starts up in UK due to high tax rate and instead invest in say India.

Point 4 - I agree with this in general and I would like to see political parties in the UK funded by the state and donations from individuals or corporations banned. I think that would be a good start.

Point 5 - Agree with this.

OK, I'll have a crack at tackling this:

1) 10% refers to currently unequal societies. Please note, though, that I'm not proposing we have a perfectly equal society, just a more equal one. A completely equal society brings with it a whole host of problems and is unworkable on all but the smallest of scales (see my earlier post about hunter-gatherer communities).

2) I think there may be some confusion here. As I said, this refers just to developed countries. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make...?

3) Yes, you can scare people off if you go to extremes. I wouldn't advocate extremes.

4 and 5) Jolly good.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Define "significant". Like you said, wealth correlates with power no matter what system of government there is. Theres nothing new about that. But when the wealthy and powerful exert such control over our government that it serves them more than the vast majority to the point that they can force unsustainable conditions for which the majority will end up paying, can you blame people for wanting that to change?

I don't have a problem with people who own a fortune. But ideally they should only be able to accrue this wealth by working within a democratic system like the rest of us rather than by subverting it.

Agree with this. As I said above, state funding for political parties and a ban on individual and corporate donations would go a long way to address this. I believe there is political will to do this in all the parties just a concern that the public won't want to foot the bill.

sketchley

AidanR wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

AidanR wrote:

1) A more equal society benefits virtually everyone - not simply those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top. This seems counter-intuitive but it borne out by the statistics. Even those in the top 10% benefit from the better functioning societies that greater equality brings, from health to crime. I appreciate that this is not a widely known phenomenon and so might not factor into the decisions of the wealthy, but I just see that as a reason to spread the word.

2) Increased wealth (in developed countries) no longer brings with it much advantage. Correlation between societal indicators and the wealth of developed countries is non-existent. Thus I submit that if we were to lose a few wealthy people but ended up with a more equal society it would not be the disaster it is perceived to be.

3) There is also little evidence that the wealthy will disappear if taxed more. But creating a more equal society needn't be achieved through taxation. For example, perhaps excessive executive pay could be curbed through changes in corporate governance.

4) Just because money and power often coincide does not mean that they should, or that this is desirable. Most importantly, it does not mean it shouldn't be fought. There is a natural tendency for these things to coalesce, so there needs to be checks and balances within systems to prevent it. If necessary, it must be called out and openly opposed.

5) I don't see this as a battle between systems - as capitalism vs Marxism or something similar. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but it's probably the best things we have given the scale and nature of our societies. But capitalism is not just a monolith. There are different types of capitalism, and a huge variety of variables that can be adjusted to better the system. There is plenty of scope to build a better economic system and a better society within capitalism itself, necessarily incorporating ideas from other economic systems. Simplified ideal systems don't work in the real world. If an answer is simple, it is almost certainly wrong.

Point 1. How can you have an "equal society" with a "top 10 %". Some are more equal than others?

Point 2. Is largely due to exploitation of cheap labour as there is lots of it. However if the developing country keep developing and creating more wealthy individuals eventually the cheap labour becomes less plentiful and ceases to be cheap labour. Also cheap relative to UK/Europe is not the same thing as cheap within that countries economy.

Point 3 - Please look into supertax in 70's 98% on income more than £100,000 iirc led to a massive exodus. Also please bear in mind it may not be the person that leaves but their chose investments. For example an entrepreneur might chose to remain a UK resident but stop investing in new business starts up in UK due to high tax rate and instead invest in say India.

Point 4 - I agree with this in general and I would like to see political parties in the UK funded by the state and donations from individuals or corporations banned. I think that would be a good start.

Point 5 - Agree with this.

OK, I'll have a crack at tackling this:

1) 10% refers to currently unequal societies. Please note, though, that I'm not proposing we have a perfectly equal society, just a more equal one. A completely equal society brings with it a whole host of problems and is unworkable on all but the smallest of scales (see my earlier post about hunter-gatherer communities).

2) I think there may be some confusion here. As I said, this refers just to developed countries. I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make...?

3) Yes, you can scare people off if you go to extremes. I wouldn't advocate extremes.

4 and 5) Jolly good.

Forgot 2 I was having a moment.......

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Define "significant". Like you said, wealth correlates with power no matter what system of government there is. Theres nothing new about that. But when the wealthy and powerful exert such control over our government that it serves them more than the vast majority to the point that they can force unsustainable conditions for which the majority will end up paying, can you blame people for wanting that to change?

I don't have a problem with people who own a fortune. But ideally they should only be able to accrue this wealth by working within a democratic system like the rest of us rather than by subverting it.

I took "significant[ly]" from AidenR original post. Ask him. For my part, I consider it means out of proportion to what would be the result on a headcount; more reflective of the volume of wealth that the individual controls.

One view is that we (the UK) are in the sh!t because the wealthy and powerful in control of the last government spent a fucking huge amount of money on buying the voting loyalty of those work in the public sector or are reliant on the public sector. That is the "unsustainable condition" for which we are now all paying.

I'm not really clear as to the bright line between those who have earned their fortunes by subverting the democratic system and those who have done so by working within it. Do you have an example of the former?

greg66_tri_v2.0

AidanR wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, welcome to the Real World, and all that.

If a system does not give a significant voice to those with the most money, they will leave. And the system suffers for it.

Is there any system of Government - left wing, right wing, totalitarian, liberal, take your pick - where there is not a coincidence of wealth and power?

A few things:

1) A more equal society benefits virtually everyone - not simply those at the bottom at the expense of those at the top. This seems counter-intuitive but it borne out by the statistics. Even those in the top 10% benefit from the better functioning societies that greater equality brings, from health to crime. I appreciate that this is not a widely known phenomenon and so might not factor into the decisions of the wealthy, but I just see that as a reason to spread the word.

2) Increased wealth (in developed countries) no longer brings with it much advantage. Correlation between societal indicators and the wealth of developed countries is non-existent. Thus I submit that if we were to lose a few wealthy people but ended up with a more equal society it would not be the disaster it is perceived to be.

3) There is also little evidence that the wealthy will disappear if taxed more. But creating a more equal society needn't be achieved through taxation. For example, perhaps excessive executive pay could be curbed through changes in corporate governance.

4) Just because money and power often coincide does not mean that they should, or that this is desirable. Most importantly, it does not mean it shouldn't be fought. There is a natural tendency for these things to coalesce, so there needs to be checks and balances within systems to prevent it. If necessary, it must be called out and openly opposed.

5) I don't see this as a battle between systems - as capitalism vs Marxism or something similar. I don't think capitalism is perfect, but it's probably the best things we have given the scale and nature of our societies. But capitalism is not just a monolith. There are different types of capitalism, and a huge variety of variables that can be adjusted to better the system. There is plenty of scope to build a better economic system and a better society within capitalism itself, necessarily incorporating ideas from other economic systems. Simplified ideal systems don't work in the real world. If an answer is simple, it is almost certainly wrong.

Without wishing to sound (overly?) brutal, I read this and all I see is a woolly idealistic monologue. Zero concrete.

greg66_tri_v2.0

AidanR wrote:

Hunter-gatherers, it would seem, lived in smallish communities that were by their nature co-operative and had striking equality. This worked because they were genuine communities - everyone knew everyone else, and freeloaders, cheats and those who hoarded excessive wealth (define a little differently back then!) were punished by the collective.

It all sounds quite idyllic really

You and i plainly have different definitions of idyllic.

That's not to say I begrudge you a secret desire to go live in a cave somewhere. I just have no interest in joining you there to help with the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

AidanR

Greg66 wrote:

Without wishing to sound (overly?) brutal, I read this and all I see is a woolly idealistic monologue. Zero concrete.

It's a partial critique of the current state of affairs. It's not a political manifesto. It's supposed to be part of a discussion, so if you would like to discuss it we might just stumble upon an interesting debate.