[John The Grudge]

It seems to me that many of the wealthy people in our society live for profit above anything else. In fact not just wealthy but most business people and employers. If they had a vault so full with money that they couldn't spend it, they'd still rather not give the poor sap on reception a raise. Because why should they?

Personally the trickle down theory is some sort of wonderful utopian dream. But it's not realistic. I couldn't tell you what that makes capitalism in this country but It's surely not how it's supposed to be.

To answer the topic's question, no I don't think it's leading to a breakdown of our morals. Not in the average person at least. I do think that perhaps many of the elite are sociopaths though. They wouldn't p*ss on you if you were on fire, unless there was something in it for them. By their logic, if there's no benefit to them, then it's pointless.

Feel free to pick my post apart. I don't have research or specific evidence to back my opinion up. It's just my observation from my call center desk and my little apartment. I don't know what the elite are thinking. As Sivi says, it's likely just a few bad eggs and not the system itself, but I can't help but think that mindset is spreading.

This post has been edited by John The Grudge on Monday, Sep 10 2012, 11:16

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Monday, Sep 10 2012, 12:11)

It seems to me that many of the wealthy people in our society live for profit above anything else.

Can I just stop you here? I think that this is a fundamentally flawed observation that's common, but is based in nothing other than class-warfare-driven rhetoric and a lack of public understanding (not singling you out here, as it's a very common misconception from my experiences, but more making a point). My work has entailed me meeting and often spending time with some absurdly, fabulously wealthy people- minor celebrities, directors of FTSE 100 companies, career politicians, investment bankers, and save for one single solitary example every single one of them has been humble, generous, considerate, rational and generally a decent human being. From my experiences, this idea of the "selfish rich" does not really exist; it's a product of the left-wing media and people with intrinsic biases or prejudices as far as I can tell. That isn't to say that there aren't people who do fit the stereotype you allude to, but from everything I've experienced it's a bit of a fallacy. It is, unfortunately, a reaction very typical of the United Kingdom in particular to automatically be dismissive or hostile to anyone in a more privileged position than one's self, and many of these misconceptions are borne out of jealousy above all else.

[John The Grudge]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Sep 10 2012, 12:23)

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Monday, Sep 10 2012, 12:11) It seems to me that many of the wealthy people in our society live for profit above anything else. Can I just stop you here? I think that this is a fundamentally flawed observation that's common, but is based in nothing other than class-warfare-driven rhetoric and a lack of public understanding (not singling you out here, as it's a very common misconception from my experiences, but more making a point). My work has entailed me meeting and often spending time with some absurdly, fabulously wealthy people- minor celebrities, directors of FTSE 100 companies, career politicians, investment bankers, and save for one single solitary example every single one of them has been humble, generous, considerate, rational and generally a decent human being. From my experiences, this idea of the "selfish rich" does not really exist; it's a product of the left-wing media and people with intrinsic biases or prejudices as far as I can tell. That isn't to say that there aren't people who do fit the stereotype you allude to, but from everything I've experienced it's a bit of a fallacy. It is, unfortunately, a reaction very typical of the United Kingdom in particular to automatically be dismissive or hostile to anyone in a more privileged position than one's self, and many of these misconceptions are borne out of jealousy above all else.

Fair enough. But I just think that companies tend to want to hoard their money rather than give pay rises. I don't have a problem with wealthy people. I don't vote for Labour or anything so I don't have a problem with everybody who works for a living. If they've earned it then more power to them. But if the head of a company is rich and earns millions then shouldn't they give pay rises, starting at the very bottom of the company ladder?

The impression I get from the company I work for is a "why should we, what are you going to do about it" attitude. People like me, that is people at the bottom who are expendable, are seen simply as the herd. Our needs are irrelevant. From where I'm sitting, the idea that my company would give the herd a pay rise simply because they can is laughably unrealistic.

I'm not asking for the world. Just enough to cover the increasing cost of living. That's asking too much though. What possible reason could they have to give a minion such as me a pay rise. They'll give me what they are legally obliged to give me and I should be grateful.

This post has been edited by John The Grudge on Monday, Sep 10 2012, 13:48

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Sep 10 2012, 22:23)

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Monday, Sep 10 2012, 12:11) It seems to me that many of the wealthy people in our society live for profit above anything else. Can I just stop you here? I think that this is a fundamentally flawed observation that's common, but is based in nothing other than class-warfare-driven rhetoric and a lack of public understanding (not singling you out here, as it's a very common misconception from my experiences, but more making a point). My work has entailed me meeting and often spending time with some absurdly, fabulously wealthy people- minor celebrities, directors of FTSE 100 companies, career politicians, investment bankers, and save for one single solitary example every single one of them has been humble, generous, considerate, rational and generally a decent human being. From my experiences, this idea of the "selfish rich" does not really exist; it's a product of the left-wing media and people with intrinsic biases or prejudices as far as I can tell. That isn't to say that there aren't people who do fit the stereotype you allude to, but from everything I've experienced it's a bit of a fallacy. It is, unfortunately, a reaction very typical of the United Kingdom in particular to automatically be dismissive or hostile to anyone in a more privileged position than one's self, and many of these misconceptions are borne out of jealousy above all else.

It's a bit silly to boil it down to jealousy. I can't speak for everyone who holds this view, but I have nothing against "the rich". The upper classes of our society include academics, doctors, engineers, scientists, charity directors, entrepreneurs, musicians, actors, activists to name a few. Of course these people earn a lot of money and it stands to reason. But if someone is a stock broker or a banker or something who does nothing but move money around while taking unfathomable amounts for themselves, then the world is better off without them. What kind of ambition is "I want to earn more money than me or my descendants can ever spend, while giving as little back as possible"? It's a warped, twisted ambition and all those who hold it should die... or get real jobs.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 10:54)

It's a bit silly to boil it down to jealousy. I can't speak for everyone who holds this view, but I have nothing against "the rich". The upper classes of our society include academics, doctors, engineers, scientists, charity directors, entrepreneurs, musicians, actors, activists to name a few. Of course these people earn a lot of money and it stands to reason. But if someone is a stock broker or a banker or something who does nothing but move money around while taking unfathomable amounts for themselves, then the world is better off without them. What kind of ambition is "I want to earn more money than me or my descendants can ever spend, while giving as little back as possible"? It's a warped, twisted ambition and all those who hold it should die... or get real jobs.

But it's such a tiny minority of people in the grand scheme of the "upper class" to essentially be dismissed as a rounding error. What irks me is that people attack wealth and success based on an impression they garner from an absolutely minute proportion of the individuals they attack, helped by mass-media indoctrination. I wouldn't be as averse to it if it was a selective policy of hate based on perceived earnings over lack of societal worth, but it's not- it's a general, hardline-Socialist attack on personal success which portrays everyone of wealth, deserving or not, to be some kind of kitten-killing monster. It's absolutely absurd.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 20:47)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 10:54) It's a bit silly to boil it down to jealousy. I can't speak for everyone who holds this view, but I have nothing against "the rich". The upper classes of our society include academics, doctors, engineers, scientists, charity directors, entrepreneurs, musicians, actors, activists to name a few. Of course these people earn a lot of money and it stands to reason. But if someone is a stock broker or a banker or something who does nothing but move money around while taking unfathomable amounts for themselves, then the world is better off without them. What kind of ambition is "I want to earn more money than me or my descendants can ever spend, while giving as little back as possible"? It's a warped, twisted ambition and all those who hold it should die... or get real jobs. But it's such a tiny minority of people in the grand scheme of the "upper class" to essentially be dismissed as a rounding error. What irks me is that people attack wealth and success based on an impression they garner from an absolutely minute proportion of the individuals they attack, helped by mass-media indoctrination. I wouldn't be as averse to it if it was a selective policy of hate based on perceived earnings over lack of societal worth, but it's not- it's a general, hardline-Socialist attack on personal success which portrays everyone of wealth, deserving or not, to be some kind of kitten-killing monster. It's absolutely absurd.

I don't know, I rarely hear people complain about the "upper class". It's capitalists (bankers, stock brokers etc.) that are the (deserving) targets of most of the rhetoric. I've never heard someone assert that a doctor or a scientist should "give more back".

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 11:52)

I've never heard someone assert that a doctor or a scientist should "give more back".

Nor have I, but attacks on the "wealthy" as a general concept do just that. As I said before, it's complaints about the "wealthy" that irritate me, as all evidence suggests that as a general rule the wealthy are proportionally far more philanthropic than any other segment of society. I understand hostility towards investment bankers and stockbrokers, but not a generally hostility towards wealth, and the latter I see just as much as the former if not more.

[Irviding]

Just to add a quick point, doctors and scientists may be affluent, but they are not bringing in the kind of money investment bankers and other kinds of capitalists are.

[Rytuklis]

The way i see it is that you cannot make poeple happy, because they tend to dig up a reason to complain. When there was communism, everyone was asking for democracy and capitalism. When it came everyone keeps bragging about how easy it was to live during the Lithuanian SSR...

[feliciano2040]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 11:41)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 11:52) I've never heard someone assert that a doctor or a scientist should "give more back". Nor have I, but attacks on the "wealthy" as a general concept do just that. As I said before, it's complaints about the "wealthy" that irritate me, as all evidence suggests that as a general rule the wealthy are proportionally far more philanthropic than any other segment of society.

Only because their contributions are quantifiably larger, but that doesn't mean they truly are inherently more philantropic.

[canttakemyid]

The Human Element
Capitalism has it's flaws as with any economic system created by a cognitively flawed species(humans). However, the much needed reform to these flaws will likely be marred by blind activism. These are emotionally charged people who are entirely against the establishments (such as Wall Street) without being totally aware of their role in society. "Wall Street" is really just an often rhetorically-charged metonym for the financial services sector. Though at the upper levels of this sector we have seen some serious misconduct , the industry as a whole is very important and one of the largest in the world. We have to be very careful in regulating this industry this time around because we are really playing with fire here as we've seen the effects of failed politically-charged regulations. Implications of regulations to large industries are far more consequential than smaller ones. This unhealthy disparity in financial knowledge is what has led to this unhealthy disparity in financial circumstances. Don't believe me? Take a beginning level finance course and here the ignorant sh*t your fellow students say.

The 1%ers?
This anti-1% sentiment is clever and revolutionary yes; but at the same time very naive. Realistically, what percent of those Occupy Wall Street protesters really know what the hell they're talking about on regulatory matters and much less financial matters? The simple fact that someone has enough to be in the "1%" is irrelevant to the rest of society. A top 1% will always exist (even in communism) due to the existence intangible assets and a number of other principles. The disparity of wealth is the problem, not the existence of it. We also have two very false assumptions that the majority of the 1% were born with wealth and are hundred millionaires. The differences between the bottom of that 1% and top of that 1% are vast. The disparity doesn't stop at 1%. I guess that's just where the activists just stop caring . First off, we have the billionaires (.000018% of the global population or 1226 people according to Forbes) who are actually quite philanthropic as it becomes more beneficial for them to do so at that point which then makes their greed irrelevant to our interest. Then we have the lower 1%, who in the US are worth around $9 million. So now we're talking about this grey area within the 1% who really have the far more potential to "contribute" (get taxed) more through their businesses and entities than their personal assets. We also have the problem of what 1% is actually referring to since it could apply to net worth, income, corporations, etc.. In America's case the income 1% are households who see incomes of at least $500,000; and if someone where coming from the baby boomer age, that's not terribly difficult to obtain with a really good career, a well-off spouse, and sound investment knowledge.

Quality over Quantity
The problem isn't the lack of regulations by volume. It's incompetence of the regulators (often politicians). We have plenty of regulations that fail to regulate the true threats to our economy. When we generalize all wealth building entities as greedy, we shoot ourselves in the foot because guess who's actually doing the producing and hiring in society? Businesses. The last thing the world needs right now is more regulations that the large powerful firms can dodge while the small "mom and pop" firms suffer. I'm talking about firms in general too. Everything from food franchises and dance studios to CPA offices.

*Most of the world dangerously puts a lack of emphasis on finance or economics in their core educational subjects; often leaving the average person to make decisions in the dark.

This post has been edited by canttakemyid on Thursday, Nov 29 2012, 20:40