By: charliehunt
- 4th February 2016 at 09:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A someone long retired on a state pension with few assets other than a house, I just find it sad that some people get so impassioned about those who have pots of money. Envy is an unpleasant character trait.
Since one man first killed more buffalo than his neighbour, some men have had more and some less. All attempts at enforced equality have, thank god, failed miserably, so we will continue to live in a world lacking equality in many areas. Although it is a great deal less so than it has been. Man will always strive to better himself and many have succeeded. A noble aim, indeed. But our lot is what it is, and we make the best of it we can.
By: charliehunt
- 4th February 2016 at 09:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BM - we have misunderstood each other previously here. My remarks were totally general and not intended to be directed at anyone. Apologies if they seemed personally directed..:)
By: Creaking Door
- 4th February 2016 at 10:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I just find it sad that some people get so impassioned about those who have pots of money. Envy is an unpleasant character trait...
And an utterly illogical one! Because what causes most 'envy' seems to be the wealthy demonstrably redistributing their wealth.
The millionaire with the big house and a drive full of expensive cars can only be envied because of the big house and the expensive cars but in demonstrating his wealth by owning these things he very effectively redistributes his wealth by employing cleaners, gardeners, builders, plumbers, decorators and kitchen-fitters. The same is true with his cars. Or his expensive holidays. In fact it is almost impossible to be 'wealthy' without intrinsic wealth redistribution; not to mention some pretty hefty VAT receipts for the government.
The other thing that always occurs to me when people discuss 'equality' is that 'equality' is a concept that only seems to look upward towards those with more money, and also something that seems to operate within strict national boundaries. I have seen it quoted that anybody on the average wage in the United Kingdom is in the top 10% wealthy people on planet Earth!
I'm not so sure many of those that call for 'equality' would do so if they understood that they would be far less well off if they did indeed experience equality!
By: charliehunt
- 4th February 2016 at 10:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And an utterly illogical one! Because what causes most 'envy' seems to be the wealthy demonstrably redistributing their wealth.
I'm not so sure many of those that call for 'equality' would do so if they understood that they would be far less well off if they did indeed experience equality!
Exactly. But envy being a purely emotional characteristic is unlikely to generate any rational consideration.
By: Beermat
- 4th February 2016 at 10:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's worth noting that the theoretical / hypothetical socialist state is not one where everyone is equal.. Even Marx said that complete equality would be absurd, even under communism, never mind a socialist government.
By: Creaking Door
- 4th February 2016 at 13:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even the notion of a 'socialist state' is something of a hypothetical; a 'state' as a demarcation between areas of different 'equality' is surely an anathema to socialism, theoretical or otherwise?
Marx was right, not that I'm in any way familiar with his opinions, but you have to have inequalities in any society for it to succeed, or at least progress; without inequalities what would be the incentive for the vast majority of humanity to strive to improve their lot, and with it, the lot of society in general?
By: Beermat
- 4th February 2016 at 15:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hold on though
2 things this raises:
Equalising everything surely won't stop an individual from wanting to improve their lot (a hypothetical point, I admit).
Whether the activity engaged in by the individual to do this actually improves the lot of society as a whole is surely at least debatable, and is the question I was asking previously.
Inventing the bronze arrowhead, the jethro tull or the bagless vacuum cleaner might do this, and earn you a handsome reward (nothing wrong with that).
You could do any of these in an hypothetical socialist state (and the two things are far from being mutually exclusive). Using that wealth to get even wealthier by buying shares in a retail multinational or a utility company (something you couldn't do under hypothetical socialism) will not improve the lot of society in general one iota. The share price might go up, but (and this is the bit no politician, chancellor or news editor seems to get) nothing else does. The lot of nobody is improved other than the shareholder when its time to sell (see your earlier analysis, CD). There is a parallel observable in the housing 'market'.
Self-advancement does not, in itself, drive societal advancement. Acquiring a larger slice of the cake does not make the cake bigger, though that mad-hatter version of reality has been peddled for decades now. It has led to a couple of minor crashes, and it will get worse.
By: John Green
- 4th February 2016 at 16:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not only does the share price go up, the company gets wealthier, its turnover improves, sales increase and it becomes imperative to employ more people thus creating more buying power for them, thus creating more prosperity beyond the confines of the company.
That is how wealth creation works and socialism doesn't.
By: Beermat
- 4th February 2016 at 16:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, John, This is nonsense. A company's turnover does not improve because an individual has bought shares in it. Its sales do not increase because someone has bought shares. There is absolutely no mechanism whereby people will buy more gas, or pay a higher price for the gas they need, just because someone has bought shares in the gas company, or because those shares have become more valuable.
The widget company will not sell more widgets because it has floated. You have it *rse-backward. The flotation might be successful IF they then sell more widgets, but that is far from the same thing - and the excess wealth goes to the investor. Yes, the company makes money too, but think where the profit comes from - it comes from making and selling widgets. It's just that some of the income is pre-loaded (and the widgets have to cost more to give the investors their dividends).
The share price going up does not create wealth. The money comes from the difference between what it cost to make the widgets and what people are paying for them. It comes out of the pocket of the widget consumer, it doesn't appear from nowhere.
By: John Green
- 4th February 2016 at 16:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh dear !
An investor buys shares
The invested uses the cash to improve its output, if it's in manufacturing
Its product can have its price decreased to improve sales
The product can have its price increased, having used the investors cash to improve cost effectiveness
Sales improve; more labour required
More labour has more money to spend
More spending power means more prosperity for the tailor, the baker and the candle stick maker
From their earnings, the tailor, the baker and the candle stick maker make savings and invest for the future
By: Beermat
- 4th February 2016 at 17:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No again, John. Think about where the earnings go. On widgets, at a price that pays interest to the investor in widgetco. It's a money-go round, and a layer to the system of industry that doesn't create wealth by itself, just by virtue of being private and individualistic.
You make widgets more cheaply because you have brought a widget-o-matic with investors money? That's fewer employees, not more. I could head off all your lines like that, but it's easier just to say follow the money, John. At what point does it appear from nowhere? (clue - added value)
Not saying it doesn't function, it just doesn't create wealth for society, instead it concentrates it in a gravitational way where the capital already exists. A minority get significantly wealthier, the majority are fractionally poorer because they have to pay off the investment when they buy the widgets, however cheaply or expensively they are made. There is no overall gain, apart from the added value of widget manufacture - the added value of a widget having a bearing on the share price of widget co, and NOT the other way around.
In other words, its a mechanism to channel some of the added value across to the shareholder. The shareholder does not add value. Not a moral judgement, just an observation.
By: Creaking Door
- 4th February 2016 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK, ask yourself this: why does the company offer shares in the first place? What do they gain?
Surely the answer is to raise capital; capital that they couldn't raise in any other way. And this is a particular problem in the United Kingdom. So yes, simply buying shares helps everybody. Having access to capital to boost investment helps manufacturing industry...
...and buying a widget-o-matic helps productivity and, most importantly, competitiveness!
If Widget Ltd are not as competitive as Vidget GmbH then Widget Ltd will go bust and nobody will have a job; and where do the widget-o-matics come from, are they not supporting manufacturing jobs too?
By: Beermat
- 4th February 2016 at 17:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, absolutely. But a socialist would argue that the investment could be collective. State investment. Not advocating, just trying to define socialism.
...and wealth creation.
After all, isn't it the case that a private investor has the choice of putting his money into Vidget gmbh, while a UK govt wouldn't?
By: John Green
- 4th February 2016 at 18:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Capitalism is at best an imperfect system. Even so, it is a system preferable to a socialism that manipulates and controls the means of production and distribution.
Why is that so ? To answer that question, it is necessary to know something about the nature of Man. Man is inherently idle. Man will always follow the line of least resistance. Man requires incentive not to be idle. Within a society administered by socialism, little works and very little works efficiently. Why ? Because within a socialist system, most of the workers know that they have a job for life and will not ordinarily, be scrutinised for effort of production.
They get to understand that all they have to do, is turn up and 'clock in'. No special effort is required to improve working conditions or production output. Its cradle to the grave -no sweat. I'm tempted to offer as an example the former British Rail - sclerotic and strike prone when owned by the State, but then. looking at the present set up, apart from the absence of strikes, hardly any better especially in connection with its pricing structure.
Perhaps a better example would be the condition of the British car industry when it was controlled by the unions. Or, the union practices of the dock labour boards up and down the country when they were holding not only the owners but also the nation to ransom. Remember those days ?
As I've before commented, none of this is to suggest that capitalism is the perfect answer. Unrestricted capitalist greed is as corrosive to commercial life as some of the union examples I've given.
I can only hint at an answer. Perhaps one day, Man will acquire an altruism so complete as to make redundant the selfishly competitive forces that seem to underpin our existence.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 08:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly, CD. This talk annoys a lot of people ;-)
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 4th February 2016 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A someone long retired on a state pension with few assets other than a house, I just find it sad that some people get so impassioned about those who have pots of money. Envy is an unpleasant character trait.
Since one man first killed more buffalo than his neighbour, some men have had more and some less. All attempts at enforced equality have, thank god, failed miserably, so we will continue to live in a world lacking equality in many areas. Although it is a great deal less so than it has been. Man will always strive to better himself and many have succeeded. A noble aim, indeed. But our lot is what it is, and we make the best of it we can.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 09:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Charlie. I have no envy and quite enough buffalo, thank you. Cheap shot, as I mentioned before.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 4th February 2016 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BM - we have misunderstood each other previously here. My remarks were totally general and not intended to be directed at anyone. Apologies if they seemed personally directed..:)
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 09:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:) :) Sorry! Was before my first coffee of the day!
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 4th February 2016 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Haha! I have mine VERY early!!:eagerness:
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 4th February 2016 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And an utterly illogical one! Because what causes most 'envy' seems to be the wealthy demonstrably redistributing their wealth.
The millionaire with the big house and a drive full of expensive cars can only be envied because of the big house and the expensive cars but in demonstrating his wealth by owning these things he very effectively redistributes his wealth by employing cleaners, gardeners, builders, plumbers, decorators and kitchen-fitters. The same is true with his cars. Or his expensive holidays. In fact it is almost impossible to be 'wealthy' without intrinsic wealth redistribution; not to mention some pretty hefty VAT receipts for the government.
The other thing that always occurs to me when people discuss 'equality' is that 'equality' is a concept that only seems to look upward towards those with more money, and also something that seems to operate within strict national boundaries. I have seen it quoted that anybody on the average wage in the United Kingdom is in the top 10% wealthy people on planet Earth!
I'm not so sure many of those that call for 'equality' would do so if they understood that they would be far less well off if they did indeed experience equality!
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 4th February 2016 at 10:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Opinions just as stereotypical as those that you criticise! :rolleyes:
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 4th February 2016 at 10:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly. But envy being a purely emotional characteristic is unlikely to generate any rational consideration.
Quite so. Equality is a utopian dream.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 10:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's worth noting that the theoretical / hypothetical socialist state is not one where everyone is equal.. Even Marx said that complete equality would be absurd, even under communism, never mind a socialist government.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 4th February 2016 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even the notion of a 'socialist state' is something of a hypothetical; a 'state' as a demarcation between areas of different 'equality' is surely an anathema to socialism, theoretical or otherwise?
Marx was right, not that I'm in any way familiar with his opinions, but you have to have inequalities in any society for it to succeed, or at least progress; without inequalities what would be the incentive for the vast majority of humanity to strive to improve their lot, and with it, the lot of society in general?
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hold on though
2 things this raises:
Equalising everything surely won't stop an individual from wanting to improve their lot (a hypothetical point, I admit).
Whether the activity engaged in by the individual to do this actually improves the lot of society as a whole is surely at least debatable, and is the question I was asking previously.
Inventing the bronze arrowhead, the jethro tull or the bagless vacuum cleaner might do this, and earn you a handsome reward (nothing wrong with that).
You could do any of these in an hypothetical socialist state (and the two things are far from being mutually exclusive). Using that wealth to get even wealthier by buying shares in a retail multinational or a utility company (something you couldn't do under hypothetical socialism) will not improve the lot of society in general one iota. The share price might go up, but (and this is the bit no politician, chancellor or news editor seems to get) nothing else does. The lot of nobody is improved other than the shareholder when its time to sell (see your earlier analysis, CD). There is a parallel observable in the housing 'market'.
Self-advancement does not, in itself, drive societal advancement. Acquiring a larger slice of the cake does not make the cake bigger, though that mad-hatter version of reality has been peddled for decades now. It has led to a couple of minor crashes, and it will get worse.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 4th February 2016 at 16:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not only does the share price go up, the company gets wealthier, its turnover improves, sales increase and it becomes imperative to employ more people thus creating more buying power for them, thus creating more prosperity beyond the confines of the company.
That is how wealth creation works and socialism doesn't.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, John, This is nonsense. A company's turnover does not improve because an individual has bought shares in it. Its sales do not increase because someone has bought shares. There is absolutely no mechanism whereby people will buy more gas, or pay a higher price for the gas they need, just because someone has bought shares in the gas company, or because those shares have become more valuable.
The widget company will not sell more widgets because it has floated. You have it *rse-backward. The flotation might be successful IF they then sell more widgets, but that is far from the same thing - and the excess wealth goes to the investor. Yes, the company makes money too, but think where the profit comes from - it comes from making and selling widgets. It's just that some of the income is pre-loaded (and the widgets have to cost more to give the investors their dividends).
The share price going up does not create wealth. The money comes from the difference between what it cost to make the widgets and what people are paying for them. It comes out of the pocket of the widget consumer, it doesn't appear from nowhere.
It's like you don't want to understand.
I thought you went to a good school?
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 4th February 2016 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh dear !
An investor buys shares
The invested uses the cash to improve its output, if it's in manufacturing
Its product can have its price decreased to improve sales
The product can have its price increased, having used the investors cash to improve cost effectiveness
Sales improve; more labour required
More labour has more money to spend
More spending power means more prosperity for the tailor, the baker and the candle stick maker
From their earnings, the tailor, the baker and the candle stick maker make savings and invest for the future
It comes down to priorities.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No again, John. Think about where the earnings go. On widgets, at a price that pays interest to the investor in widgetco. It's a money-go round, and a layer to the system of industry that doesn't create wealth by itself, just by virtue of being private and individualistic.
You make widgets more cheaply because you have brought a widget-o-matic with investors money? That's fewer employees, not more. I could head off all your lines like that, but it's easier just to say follow the money, John. At what point does it appear from nowhere? (clue - added value)
The best documentary I have seen on it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY_ehvuWt7E
Not saying it doesn't function, it just doesn't create wealth for society, instead it concentrates it in a gravitational way where the capital already exists. A minority get significantly wealthier, the majority are fractionally poorer because they have to pay off the investment when they buy the widgets, however cheaply or expensively they are made. There is no overall gain, apart from the added value of widget manufacture - the added value of a widget having a bearing on the share price of widget co, and NOT the other way around.
In other words, its a mechanism to channel some of the added value across to the shareholder. The shareholder does not add value. Not a moral judgement, just an observation.
It's not magic, it's smoke and mirrors.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 4th February 2016 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK, ask yourself this: why does the company offer shares in the first place? What do they gain?
Surely the answer is to raise capital; capital that they couldn't raise in any other way. And this is a particular problem in the United Kingdom. So yes, simply buying shares helps everybody. Having access to capital to boost investment helps manufacturing industry...
...and buying a widget-o-matic helps productivity and, most importantly, competitiveness!
If Widget Ltd are not as competitive as Vidget GmbH then Widget Ltd will go bust and nobody will have a job; and where do the widget-o-matics come from, are they not supporting manufacturing jobs too?
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, absolutely. But a socialist would argue that the investment could be collective. State investment. Not advocating, just trying to define socialism.
...and wealth creation.
After all, isn't it the case that a private investor has the choice of putting his money into Vidget gmbh, while a UK govt wouldn't?
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 4th February 2016 at 18:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Capitalism is at best an imperfect system. Even so, it is a system preferable to a socialism that manipulates and controls the means of production and distribution.
Why is that so ? To answer that question, it is necessary to know something about the nature of Man. Man is inherently idle. Man will always follow the line of least resistance. Man requires incentive not to be idle. Within a society administered by socialism, little works and very little works efficiently. Why ? Because within a socialist system, most of the workers know that they have a job for life and will not ordinarily, be scrutinised for effort of production.
They get to understand that all they have to do, is turn up and 'clock in'. No special effort is required to improve working conditions or production output. Its cradle to the grave -no sweat. I'm tempted to offer as an example the former British Rail - sclerotic and strike prone when owned by the State, but then. looking at the present set up, apart from the absence of strikes, hardly any better especially in connection with its pricing structure.
Perhaps a better example would be the condition of the British car industry when it was controlled by the unions. Or, the union practices of the dock labour boards up and down the country when they were holding not only the owners but also the nation to ransom. Remember those days ?
As I've before commented, none of this is to suggest that capitalism is the perfect answer. Unrestricted capitalist greed is as corrosive to commercial life as some of the union examples I've given.
I can only hint at an answer. Perhaps one day, Man will acquire an altruism so complete as to make redundant the selfishly competitive forces that seem to underpin our existence.
Posts: 3,447
By: Beermat - 4th February 2016 at 18:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
..or at least seem to do if you're a Conservative voter ;)
(Joke)