Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Okay I know this is about 'redistribution of wealth' as the title says and that its about 'fairness'. Am not taking sides either way but had to comment upon this:


"How are high earners being treated unfairly? Why do I in particular support a different fairness for higher earners?"


said by SJ. In my mind, this contradicts what's said above (also by SJ):


"There is a perception that rich people are picked on simply for being rich, but I really don't think that is the case. Even if it was the case, they are rich, they'll get over it"


That's an example of supporting a different fairness towards the rich isn't it? You might as easily say "they're poor, they'll get over it" then. If you're treating both groups equally.


Although I guess you were meaning in relation to taxation as opposed to generally speaking.

I'm not saying rich people SHOULD be picked on simply for being rich


What I'm saying is if rich people have to suffer a few people moaning about them being rich, it's a small price to pay isn't it? You have your riches, your goods, your future sorted. You're in clover. is it fair if people pick on you JUST because you are rich? No it isn't "fair" but it's not likely to bother you ultimately


That just doesn't apply if you are poor - if you are poor it's a miserable, daily grind. Throwing a few mean spirited words their way seems nothing like someone grumbling about a rich person. Why would you even compare the two to demonstrate fairness?

why would I compare the two to demonstrate fairness?


simply because its not treating both equally. although of course I wouldn't throw mean spirited words someone's way because they are poor but to be honest, I wouldn't throw them someone's way because they were rich either.


I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because someone's rich that 'their riches/goods/future was sorted/they were in clover' either. But yes I agree if you're poor it can indeed be a miserable daily grind.


Don't even know why rich people should suffer a few people moaning about them being rich but yes, its not going to make their lives any harder. But they could still be miserable. And who knows what hard work and effort/sacrifice it took for them to get there in first place.

of course being rich doesn't solve everything - life is much more complicated than that.


(Then again you wouldn't find many rich people swapping voluntarily with their poor counterpart - "what you're complaining about me being rich? come on then let's swap places and see how YOU like it!")


I maintain that most of the time nobody bemoans the rich JUST because they are rich. If people start picking on specific rich people there is probably a wider story there. People picking on Cameron say - no he can't help his background, but making the decisions he does.. well it leads to a wider debate. People aren't hating on him just because he is rich

The question was, to quote Charlie Brooker, 'A Cunt's trick'.


You prefigure the debate by framing it a certain way, one beloved of the american right who manage to make any idea of redistribution positively unamerican. By keeping the focus on whether people are 'moaning at the rich' or whether 'a successful person is a rich bitch sucking the nation dry' noone asks any useful questions.


Well done all, pat yourselves on the back for rising to it.


DNFtT.


but 10/10 H, you even sucked snorky in.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> That just doesn't apply if you are poor - if you are poor it's a miserable, daily grind. Throwing a

> few mean spirited words their way seems nothing like someone grumbling about a rich person. Why

> would you even compare the two to demonstrate fairness?


Because it is - by definition - unfair. You may think it is acceptable, but unfair it still is.

git tae feck.


I was going to propose laying a marxian grid over the scenario and looking at the flows to suggest at least a starting point for discussion but realised it was ultimately futile. Interestingly, there could be discussion as to whether software like this actually produces anything or merely facilites access to the results of production is soemthing I need to consider further. When Homes under the hammer has finished blates.

Marx was clear that machinery did not add surplus value innit.Software is just machinery in its most basic sense - ie. something that makes a task more convenient, thus apps n ting shouldnt really be regaeded as adding surplus value, this can only be from human labour- this is the sole originator of value creation if you want to be orthodox about things. actually lets not.

you need to tell the treasury this, software is about number 3 on our balance of trade positives.


I suppose if we produce real bubble wrap and now we sell less because of the bubble wrap popping app, then we have a net negative outcome true.

I'm not sure what angry birds is making more convenient mind...

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marx was clear that machinery did not add surplus

> value innit.Software is just machinery in its most

> basic sense - ie. something that makes a task more

> convenient, thus apps n ting shouldnt really be

> regaeded as adding surplus value, this can only be

> from human labour- this is the sole originator of

> value creation if you want to be orthodox about

> things. actually lets not.



I think you'll find software, as intellectual property, is a product of human labour for Marx. See The Communist Manifesto:


"...Even when I carry out scientific work, etc., and activity which I can seldom conduct in direct association with other men, I perform a social, because human, act..."

What a thoroughly depressing read that was.


Thoreau generously observed, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them"


He was probably too forgiving for how this frustration manifests itself in petty small minded resentment.

Try this one:


Two men grow-up on different sides of the street. One on a council estate, the other in a flat-fronted Georgian four-storey terrace with plantation shutters, a giant etched-glass number over the door and a magimix juicer (used twice). The man in the council flat, whilst high on Cash In The Attic, comes-up with the idea for an iPhone App which cleverly allows the user to see the back of their head - in real time. His neighbour over the road then brings the app to market - achieving global sales of 22m



Who is right?

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...