Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Wpp Boss Says Economic Equality Does Not Bring Prosperity

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/23/davos-wpp-martin-sorrell-equality-prosperity

Sir Martin Sorrell, head of the world’s largest advertising group, has hit back at critics of global inequality, claiming there is “no proof” that equality brings prosperity.

The boss of WPP, speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, said he had created a business that employs 179,000 people in 111 countries and invests $12bn (£7.98bn) in human capital each year. “I make no apology for that whatsoever,” he said.

Speaking at a BBC-hosted debate on inequality, he then challenged fellow panel member Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, who had asserted that the gap between rich and poor was damaging global prosperity. “You have no proof that the reverse is true, that equality brings prosperity,” he said.

His comments follow an Oxfam study this week that warned the richest 1% of people in the world will own over 50% of its wealth by 2016.

Sorrell, a regular Davos attendee, has sparked several protests over FTSE 100 executive pay following rows over his own remuneration.

Neither is there any proof that huge inequality brings propsperity, apart from to a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WPP boss is the biggest d1ck in business -which takes a lot of doing.

His business is having its a55 served to it on a plate at the moment.

Edited by spyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WPP boss is the biggest d1ck in business -which takes a lot of doing.

His business is having its a55 served to it on a plate at the moment.

For all his wealth he comes across as a vile creature, its good to know it hasn't brought him decency or happiness, it isn't exactly hard to be an arrogant cok is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all his wealth he comes across as a vile creature, its good to know it hasn't brought him decency or happiness, it isn't exactly hard to be an arrogant cok is it.

They're all vile creatures, at least he's honest about it.

I'd rather share a pint with the boss of Ryanair than Richard Branson. Put it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just plain nonsense?

Is he honestly saying, that if I take 100% of the money and give it to 1% of the people, then more people will have prosperity?. Rather than take 100% of the money and give it out to 100% of the people. That's just an outright mathematical lie!

Or

That 1% of the population have a better grasp of where 100% of the money should be spent, rather than the 99% for the betterment of all the people?

What a massive fibber! We have no "proof that the reverse is true, that equality brings prosperity,” because it's never, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever happend!

Edited by XswampyX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just plain nonsense?

Is he honestly saying, that if I take 100% of the money and give it to 1% of the people, then more people will have prosperity?. Rather than take 100% of the money and give it out to 100% of the people. That's just an outright mathematical lie!

Or

That 1% of the population have a better grasp of where 100% of the money should be spent, rather than the 99% for the betterment of all the people?

What a massive fibber! We have no "proof that the reverse is true, that equality brings prosperity,” because it's never, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever happend!

I think he buys into the thatcherite ethos

ie the question isnt 99 vs 1, but rather 100 = ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the small matter of social cohesion. It doesn't matter whether there's evidence equality brings prosperity or not when the mob are at your door. They're probably not going to be in the mood to discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he buys into the thatcherite ethos

ie the question isnt 99 vs 1, but rather 100 = ?

Thatcherite ethos? Monetarism failed abjectly and ended in the Lawson bubble. 'Help to Buy' dealt the first devastating blow to UK housing affordability. Deregulation and globalisation were the ideologies ultimately responsible for the GFC and the collapse into near-bankruptcy of UK financial services in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it has to be spread out to cout as global prosperity at all? What is the point of having a handful of super rich folk? What does it facilitate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ex-Saatchi bean-counter has spent the last two decades buying up the best creative companies and blandifying them. Yeah it makes lots of money for the likes of him but for the workers it drives down wages and makes their jobs uber boring unless they're into b'shit bingo.

Edit: Spelling but probably still full of mistakes.

Edited by OurDayWillCome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone who actually likes this little geezer? Anyone at all? He's forever jawboning, but I don't seem to remember anyone voting for him or what his training in economics really is.

Edited by ZeroSumGame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I gotta get me to Davos. I've never been able to afford enough crack to believe my own horse shit like that.

There is obviously the overwhelming repeatable experimental evidence that small groups work better if they co-operate than if a dictator tells everybody what to do (the mediators do not need to be "superior"). Then of course, there is also the historical evidence that the greatest leaps forward in human civilization have all occurred when there was great social inclusions and not just after a massive dictator killed lots of people then made himself a massive palace out of gold.

Funny that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just plain nonsense?

Is he honestly saying, that if I take 100% of the money and give it to 1% of the people, then more people will have prosperity?. Rather than take 100% of the money and give it out to 100% of the people. That's just an outright mathematical lie!

Or

That 1% of the population have a better grasp of where 100% of the money should be spent, rather than the 99% for the betterment of all the people?

What a massive fibber! We have no "proof that the reverse is true, that equality brings prosperity, because it's never, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever happend!

Saying something over and over does not make it true. Communism and socialism have been tried and were abysmal failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dream of socialism and communism is could be a utopia, but inevitably corruption takes over, as people create unnecessary work, put on too much regulations and those at the top share the spoils of communism amongst friends and family. At the far end of the spectrum Is North Korea.

Capitalism, yeah at the other end of the spectrum, the same happens. The pendulum just swings from one end to another, there is no perfect answer, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he honestly saying, that if I take 100% of the money and give it to 1% of the people, then more people will have prosperity?. Rather than take 100% of the money and give it out to 100% of the people. That's just an outright mathematical lie!

Um, no, you're obviously just making up straw-men, since the answer to that question is clear from spending ten seconds reading the first post. He didn't say that inequality was good, but that equality was bad.

If you steal the money the productive people make and give it to the unproductive... you just make the previously productive people stop producing. The only way to make people equal is to make them equally poor.

The real problem comes when you have governments stealing money from the productive poor to hand to the unproductive rich. But the solution is to have an even bigger government that steals even more money, apparently. Because, you know, just because big government is bad, doesn't mean that bigger government will be worse. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all vile creatures, at least he's honest about it.

I'd rather share a pint with the boss of Ryanair than Richard Branson. Put it that way.

If you shared a pint with Brnason he'd drink it all. Then you'd find out that you'd entered a 50:50 venture for the pub:you buy, run it, he puts a big V on the front and does something stupid.

Branson is the biggest con going. Mkae's Maxwell look solvent and respectable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorrell does the finger and thumb thing.

Bog standard survivorship bias rentier making goods far more expensive than they ought to be, hoovering up the rents into his l pocket.

got lucky. Believes its his "talent". Sucked up to by BBC business journos (Evan Davis et al) and politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I dislike the argument that inequality reduces growth, because it accepts a definition of economic growth that is of no relevance to the majority of people. If the economy is failing most people, or even a significant minority of people, then it has failed, regardless of whether it has 'grown' according to some meaningless statistical calculation.

In general, the metrics we use to describe the economy are just propaganda.

Not only do that only serve the richest asset owners, they are hugely short-termist.

We're told that the economy in the UK is doing well, but those exact same statistics said the economy was doing as well or better in 2006 and 2007, when we know for a fact that the economy was bust.

They are generally based upon ideas about nationality that don't apply to a world with free movement of capital and labour. Is the economy in Britain the same as the economy of the British people? Is it economic growth if the poorest people leave to find work elsewhere and some more wealthy people show up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the small matter of social cohesion. It doesn't matter whether there's evidence equality brings prosperity or not when the mob are at your door. They're probably not going to be in the mood to discuss it.

Exactly. It might be nice to be in a position of power and own 99% of the wealth, but if you spend your whole life soiling your pants because you're worried about getting lynched by 99% of the population, you can't really be enjoying yourself can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. It might be nice to be in a position of power and own 99% of the wealth, but if you spend your whole life soiling your pants because you're worried about getting lynched by 99% of the population, you can't really be enjoying yourself can you?

However, you often see the more extremes of wealth in some of the world's poorest countries - remember Bokassa of the Central African Republic below?

Not only is there the issue of inadequate demand from the bulk of the populace but you also tend to find it goes hand in hand with corruption/gaming the system whcih resuilts in less than optimal overall outcomes in favour of the established rich.

I would also suggest that it is a two way process. The more extreme the wealth, the greater the tendency towards regulatory and political capture / corruption as there exist individuals with the wealth and clout to cement their positions (e.g. the USA and UK). And it is also true that corruption/political capture can lead to untold wealth to those on the inside e.g. Yeltsin's Russia.

The other irony is that WPP is a people business. Like all media agencies, they are not selling a product or a commodity, they are selling skills and expertise. Media agencies require an educated middle class to function. So not only is the demand destruction argument relevant, but a breakdown of social cohesion is a real threat to the ability of businesses like that to be able to operate effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, you often see the more extremes of wealth in some of the world's poorest countries - remember Bokassa of the Central African Republic below?

And what have you got against King Bokassa? A self-made man, born into poverty, he managed to acquire a great fortune through sheer hard work and determination.

It's wealth creators like him who provide jobs to millions.

Politics of envy, makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.