Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I agree with that - if I ever got into government I would decimate the landlord class. Buildings and land should be owned by the people who live, farm or run businesses from them. I also hope you'd abolish the acquisition of land and property with credit as it equally as damaging. To do otherwise would be hypocritical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I also hope you'd abolish the acquisition of land and property with credit as it equally as damaging. To do otherwise would be hypocritical What is credit? What is capital? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) What is credit?What is capital? What is love? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo Edited August 30, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 What is love?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo A feeling, a process. Boomboomcrash, don't hurt me. Just answer the questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 'means' are the financial and materials trappings required to prosper in ones environment. You really have a chip on your shoulder. So because a poorly educated working class woman behaved entirely cretinous with a lottery win, all such people deserve nothing more than penury? You seem to want to apply pejorative labels to people to justify exploiting them. They have the same financial and material trappings as I did - if not more. If you give people more you can't legislate against their poor choices and shortsighted outlook. Stating facts and un-sugarcoated truisms is not pejorative - If Reader's Digest goes bust you're going to miss the Word Power feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I claim neither question can be answered rationally Yes, you have constructed a nonesense question to avoid dealing wih the issue I raise. But my question is not nonesense, it's actualy very straightforward- should people be rewarded on the basis of the wealth they create, or should they be rewarded on their ability to enforce a claim on wealth, even if they did not create it. In my scenario the unskilled workforce created a lot of wealth, while the skilled workforce did not. So I would assume that, since you belive that those who create wealth should earn the greater reward, then you agree with me that the low skilled workforce should be paid more in this scenario than the high skilled but non wealth creating workforce. If you don't agree, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I also hope you'd abolish the acquisition of land and property with credit as it equally as damaging. To do otherwise would be hypocritical No, there's nothing wrong with hire purchase/owner-occupier mortgages. I would add a jingle-mail option to all mortgages though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I also hope you'd abolish the acquisition of land and property with credit as it equally as damaging. To do otherwise would be hypocritical Equally as damaging as what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 A feeling, a process. Boomboomcrash, don't hurt me. Just answer the questions. What is a feeling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 What is a feeling? No thanks. I asked first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 No, there's nothing wrong with hire purchase/owner-occupier mortgages. I would add a jingle-mail option to all mortgages though. Ah, so hypocrisy it is then. Could this view be coloured by your need for mortgaged retail premises for quick expansion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Ah, so hypocrisy it is then. Could this view be coloured by your need for mortgaged retail premises for quick expansion? No - you just aren't making any sense If the damage is taken out of land acquisition itself, then buying it with credit is not a problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I've answered it directly before. Whichever group can then go and attract the same wages working elsewhere - you didn't like that answer though.In your scenario a worker could work at McDonalds during bumper profit years and have a huge income, they could lose/leave that job and never work for a similarly profitable company or enjoy that standard of living again. There would also be huge competition to work at the more profitable corporations which would, guess what, force wages down as one worker offers to undercut another. This is an evasion, not a answer. The question is a very simple one- which group should earn the most? I'm asking you to make a moral judgment here regarding the allocation of rewards for wealth creation- surely you can do that? If the unskilled group produce the most profit, then do they not deserve the most reward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 This is an evasion, not a answer.The question is a very simple one- which group should earn the most? I'm asking you to make a moral judgment here regarding the allocation of rewards for wealth creation- surely you can do that? If the unskilled group produce the most profit, then do they not deserve the most reward? You can't do that because it assumes that there is a moral dimension already existing - that people are owed something by default and the question is how much they get. This is false. No one is owed anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I'm asking you to make a moral judgment here regarding the allocation of rewards for wealth creation- surely you can do that? If the unskilled group produce the most profit, then do they not deserve the most reward? How can you do that? There is no way to tell how much wealth they are creating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Ah, so hypocrisy it is then. Could this view be coloured by your need for mortgaged retail premises for quick expansion? Not really, shops have peaked. I anticipate most disappearing and the wind down of my own estate to a few large regional branches over the next decade as my property requirement continuously shrinks to the point where all that remains might be a central warehouse hub on the european mainland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 They have the same financial and material trappings as I did - if not more. If you give people more you can't legislate against their poor choices and shortsighted outlook. Stating facts and un-sugarcoated truisms is not pejorative - If Reader's Digest goes bust you're going to miss the Word Power feature. This isn't true. Indeed you have a direct responsibility for the perpetuation of social disadvantage. The lousy wages your staff earn means that their offspring are more likely to end up in a broken home, or an abusive one. Even if they avoid these consequences the basic financial hardship has a dramatic impact on the life choices they will make and those they will be able to make. Social mobility has declined alarmingly in the last decade and it is because more than ever income defines lifestyle. For those at the top of the income scale this means more choice, more opportunity and more advantage than they ever had before, and exactly the opposite for those at the bottom of that scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 This is an evasion, not a answer.The question is a very simple one- which group should earn the most? I'm asking you to make a moral judgment here regarding the allocation of rewards for wealth creation- surely you can do that? If the unskilled group produce the most profit, then do they not deserve the most reward? Should've, would've, could've. Are you really suggesting it's a moral issue? Ray Kroc should decide how much McDonalds workers are paid, without him Mcdonalds wouldn't exist he's like the water in your metaphorical car radiator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Right. So what?You've still got to get it and put it in the radiator. Well, if you agree that the task the water performs in the running of the engine is neither enhanced or dimished by the scarcity or ubiquity of water, then it's clear that we can have a functional value in the abscene of a monetary value. So, if that water were a person, running round the engine doing it's job of cooling, would it be correct to say that the contribution that person makes to the engine process is not dimished by the existance of many other persons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 How can you do that? There is no way to tell how much wealth they are creating Funny how this problem never presents itself when it comes to rewarding people much higher up in the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoomBoomCrash Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Should've, would've, could've. Are you really suggesting it's a moral issue?Ray Kroc should decide how much McDonalds workers are paid, without him Mcdonalds wouldn't exist he's like the water in your metaphorical car radiator. Getting Mr. Kroc's opinions on the matter is going to be rather difficult. I suppose someone could organise a séance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Funny how this problem never presents itself when it comes to rewarding people much higher up in the company. It's left up to the buyer to decide I am not the buyer in this scenario ..so how would i know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Well, if you agree that the task the water performs in the running of the engine is neither enhanced or dimished by the scarcity or ubiquity of water, then it's clear that we can have a functional value in the abscene of a monetary value. The value of the water you already have is determined by how easy it is to replace. Money isn't free from thsi process, unless something or someone imposes upon you. So, if that water were a person, running round the engine doing it's job of cooling, would it be correct to say that the contribution that person makes to the engine process is not dimished by the existance of many other persons? Course not. But this isn't anything to do with the value of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 You can't do that because it assumes that there is a moral dimension already existing - that people are owed something by default and the question is how much they get. Not by default- by virtue of the wealth they have created. For some reason the capitalists on here have a real problem applying their own model of rewards for wealth creation to unskilled labour- it's some kind of allergic reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 This isn't true. Indeed you have a direct responsibility for the perpetuation of social disadvantage. The lousy wages your staff earn means that their offspring are more likely to end up in a broken home, or an abusive one. Even if they avoid these consequences the basic financial hardship has a dramatic impact on the life choices they will make and those they will be able to make. Social mobility has declined alarmingly in the last decade and it is because more than ever income defines lifestyle. For those at the top of the income scale this means more choice, more opportunity and more advantage than they ever had before, and exactly the opposite for those at the bottom of that scale. I would say the total reverse of that is true. Yes, people think income defines lifestyle and thus improved income equals improved lifestyle. Did you add this fancypants phrase to your vocabulary 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'. It's similar muddleheaded thinking to believing that if a survey shows that smart kids' homes contain an average of thirty books you can make all kids smart by sending a free parcel of thirty books to their home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.