85 richest people as wealthy as half of the world's population

crazyewok

NavyDoc


Yes you did. You talked about what wages you think a physician should be limited to.

Erm no I DIDNT.

Someone said they were overpaid and I pointed out at least in the UK they are not and earn a good but pretty fair wage.

At no point did I say what they should be limited to or caped. Just pointed out what they earn on adverage. I would have no problem if its goes up, as long as they provide a quality service.

To say otherwise is a missquotation and twisting of what I say and that is a T&C offense.

edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

You said this:

Anyway I think £150-250K a year for a skilled doctor is pretty fair

Which sounds like you were suggesting a range that someone else should make. If that is not the case, I apologize. A neurosurgeon can make almost a million a year. Should he be allowed to make that much or not?

NavyDoc

crazyewok

NavyDoc


Yes you did. You talked about what wages you think a physician should be limited to.

Erm no I DIDNT.

Someone said they were overpaid and I pointed out at least in the UK they are not and earn a good but pretty fair wage.

At no point did I say what they should be limited to or caped. Just pointed out what they earn on adverage. I would have no problem if its goes up, as long as they provide a quality service.

To say otherwise is a missquotation and twisting of what I say and that is a T&C offense.

edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

You said this:

Anyway I think £150-250K a year for a skilled doctor is pretty fair

Which sounds like you were suggesting a range that someone else should make. If that is not the case, I apologize. A neurosurgeon can make almost a million a year. Should he be allowed to make that much or not?

I was just saying what a bog standard doctor earns not suggesting a range. If a neurosurgeon is good enough to make a million a year? Good for them.

reply to post by crazyewok

What is fair is stripping every banker and politican of all there asset when they conduct fraud or damageing action that screw up the econemy to pay for THERE OWN damages rather than make ME who has nothing to do with there stupidity to pay for it instead.

Yes, this is the larger part of it all - isn't it?

It's not about wealth redistribution - or simply hating the rich for being rich

It's about accountability - and fairness

It's about all of us being treated equally under the law

Maybe it's also about fairness of opportunity - which isn't the same as wealth

Don't you folks just love ATS? Such a diverse & wonderful community, you can find people to defend the richest 85 and make excuses that the poor have been and always will be poor.
I find these threads fascinating and love watching people twist and avoid and play games.
The simple fact is that wealth gets sucked upwards by people who flout all laws and taxes and have no regard for anyone or anything but profit and gain.

All the while the poor continue to starve to death, die of preventable diseases and get drugs tested on them by multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies using them as human guinea pigs.
The laws we have should be enforced, the missing billions in tax avoidance and evasion collected and all of the criminal activity committed by bankers & the companies overseas who are dumping chemicals and causing environmental disasters should all be brought to justice and prosecuted.

Simple.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by crazyewok

 

What is fair is stripping every banker and politican of all there asset when they conduct fraud or damageing action that screw up the econemy to pay for THERE OWN damages rather than make ME who has nothing to do with there stupidity to pay for it instead.

Yes, this is the larger part of it all - isn't it?

It's not about wealth redistribution - or simply hating the rich for being rich

It's about accountability - and fairness

It's about all of us being treated equally under the law

Maybe it's also about fairness of opportunity - which isn't the same as wealth

Yup you got it accountability - and fairness.

Dosnt matter to me how much you earn. It how you earn it. If its all legal and above board I dont give a dam. If its done by the breaking of laws and rampent explotation then you should pay for every bit of damage.

crazyewok

NavyDoc

crazyewok

NavyDoc


Yes you did. You talked about what wages you think a physician should be limited to.

Erm no I DIDNT.

Someone said they were overpaid and I pointed out at least in the UK they are not and earn a good but pretty fair wage.

At no point did I say what they should be limited to or caped. Just pointed out what they earn on adverage. I would have no problem if its goes up, as long as they provide a quality service.

To say otherwise is a missquotation and twisting of what I say and that is a T&C offense.

edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

You said this:

Anyway I think £150-250K a year for a skilled doctor is pretty fair

Which sounds like you were suggesting a range that someone else should make. If that is not the case, I apologize. A neurosurgeon can make almost a million a year. Should he be allowed to make that much or not?

I was just saying what a bog standard doctor earns not suggesting a range. If a neurosurgeon is good enough to make a million a year? Good for them.

Fair enough and I agree.


I do dislike the idea of "fairness." Who defines what is fair? How do you implement it? Is it fairness of outcome or fairness of opportunity?

Perhaps the word (or phrase) you would be looking for is "equal protection under the law."

The world isn't fair and I don't expect it to be. What I demand is that the law treat all people equally and impartially.

reply to post by beezzer

How about the masses rise up and depose the Romanovs again.

That was a nasty business - wasn't it? One seriously pissed off, pitchfork and torch bearing crowd

The poor Romanovs...

You know what's interesting about history beezzer? You might not like the outcome - but you can always see (and you would think also understand) the reasons:

Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[nb 3]

This idealized vision of the Romanov monarchy blinded him to the actual state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[nb 3]

en.wikipedia.org...
Emphasis mine

We don't have to like how things play out, and we definitely don't have to agree with the decisions and choices that were made - but what is that saying about those who fail to learn from history?

Just out of curiosity beezzer - do you actually believe the revolution happened because of envy?

gladtobehere
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Lord Blackheath had mentioned in Parliament that an anonymous donor, Foundation X, had offered to bail out the world economy to the tune of trillions of dollars ($15 to $100). Many assumed that it was the Rothschilds, creating money out of nothing so they could reset the world's debt to zero then continue on with their global ponzi scheme.

Later, it was conveniently spun into claims that it was all a hoax...

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed

 

edit on 20-1-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording

Seriously was this said? I've just searched on line about this story and whilst it appears, it's only on sites like this and no msm sites.

Would be great if it was true!

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer

 

How about the masses rise up and depose the Romanovs again.

That was a nasty business - wasn't it? One seriously pissed off, pitchfork and torch bearing crowd

The poor Romanovs...

You know what's interesting about history beezzer? You might not like the outcome - but you can always see (and you would think also understand) the reasons:

Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[nb 3]

This idealized vision of the Romanov monarchy blinded him to the actual state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[nb 3]

en.wikipedia.org...
Emphasis mine

We don't have to like how things play out, and we definitely don't have to agree with the decisions and choices that were made - but what is that saying about those who fail to learn from history?

Just out of curiosity beezzer - do you actually believe the revolution happened because of envy?

edit on 1/20/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: link...

Interesting thing about learning about history. How did the Russians fare under the Marxists? Sometimes people have a legitimate gripe but focus their energy in a wrong way, listen to the propaganda of agitators, blame the wrong people, and end up worse off.

I see a lot of similarities with the current rhetoric as the rhetoric of the Bolsheviks from class warfare and envy (and yes, envy was a propaganda tool of the Marxists) to suggestions of violence. You think the revolution was entirely against the Romanovs?

The Russian Kulaks were a class of peasant farmers who owned their own land. The term "Kulak" was originally intended to be derogatory. Soviet propaganda painted these farmers as greedy and standing in the way of the "utopian" collectivization that would take away their land, livestock, and produce. "Kulak" means "fist" in Russian and may have had something to do with the supposed tight-fistedness of the Kulak class.1

Peter Stolypin a minister under Czar Nicholas II undertook agrarian reform in 1906. His program was to dissolve peasant communes and buy land from the nobility, then to divide the land among the peasants. This actually increased efficiency and boosted food production in the country-side by over 40%. Stolypin felt that by making peasants actual owners of the land and the product of their labor they would take a keener interest in land improvement and productivity. He felt that these peasants would also be more supportive of a stable Czarist state. In this he proved to be correct.2

However, Lenin needed a scapegoat so, like the current leftist types, he invented someone to blame.

After the Russian Civil War there was widespread famine throughout Russia. This was partly due to the war and partly due to the inefficiencies of collectivization. To relieve the hunger, Lenin attempted to confiscate grain from the peasants, including the Kulaks. Because not enough grain was collected he blamed the Kulaks and ordered not only that the Kulaks be deprived of grain themselves, but also any seed grain. He declared "Merciless war against the Kulaks! Death to them."4 This, of course, only had the effect of making the shortage more severe.

www.indepthinfo.com...
You see the exact same rhetoric about the "1%" and TPTB use class envy and jealousy as powerful tools just as the Bolshevik did. Ah, the politics of division.

People defending Tsarist Russia?

Well I heard it all now.

crazyewok
People defending Tsarist Russia?

Well I heard it all now.

I don' think we're defending Tsarist Russia as much as pointing out how #ed up the Communist revolution ended up being and drawing parallels between the tactics of the Bolshevik and current leftist rhetoric.

Of course the Tsar was a dick and a tyrant. You can't stir up people into revolution if everything is peachy keen. Just because what you had before a revolution was bad, does not automatically indicate that what you get after one is any better.

NavyDoc

crazyewok
People defending Tsarist Russia?

Well I heard it all now.

I don' think we're defending Tsarist Russia as much as pointing out how #ed up the Communist revolution ended up being and drawing parallels between the tactics of the Bolshevik and current leftist rhetoric.

Of course the Tsar was a dick and a tyrant. You can't stir up people into revolution if everything is peachy keen. Just because what you had before a revolution was bad, does not automatically indicate that what you get after one is any better.

edit on 20-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Im think the screwed up result of the revolution was down to how screwed up the system was before. If things are that BAD anything could be sold as a improvement.

America got it lucky, the British Empire was quite Benhovelent as far as "tyrants" go. Just taxes you had to deal with. If America had been under a real tyrant then your revolution could have ended in as much as screwed up result as Russia or France.

reply to post by NavyDoc


That's a long post that basically says exactly what I was saying - only with a slant

You really want this to be about what you want it to be - leftists are just wrong?

My point - it all happened for a reason

History is repeating itself over and over again - but more importantly - people don't revolt because they want your stuff

beezzer
I don't know the answers, I can surmise, but then again, why remove the righteous anger people appear to be feeling?

You think they're mad now? Have you run the numbers on this? Divide the wealth of those 85 by 7 billion people on the planet. I think the answer may surprise and disappoint some people.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

That's a long post that basically says exactly what I was saying - only with a slant

You really want this to be about what you want it to be - leftists are just wrong?

My point - it all happened for a reason

History is repeating itself over and over again - but more importantly - people don't revolt because they want your stuff

History shows that people revolt for a variety of reasons and "wanting your stuff" is one of them--at least on the surface.

crazyewok

NavyDoc

crazyewok
People defending Tsarist Russia?

Well I heard it all now.

I don' think we're defending Tsarist Russia as much as pointing out how #ed up the Communist revolution ended up being and drawing parallels between the tactics of the Bolshevik and current leftist rhetoric.

Of course the Tsar was a dick and a tyrant. You can't stir up people into revolution if everything is peachy keen. Just because what you had before a revolution was bad, does not automatically indicate that what you get after one is any better.

edit on 20-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

Im think the screwed up result of the revolution was down to how screwed up the system was before. If things are that BAD anything could be sold as a improvement.

America got it lucky, the British Empire was quite Benhovelent as far as "tyrants" go. Just taxes you had to deal with. If America had been under a real tyrant then your revolution could have ended in as much as screwed up result as Russia or France.

The revolution was screwed up because the underlying premise of the revolution was flawed. People need more freedom, not changing one tyranny for another. People were in a system that sucked and they couldn't imagine anything being worse--but then they were quite surprised when they did find out is could be worse.

Our revolution was based on principles that were fundamentally different, which is why we prospered afterwards.

I'm quite the anglophile. The British Empire did much to open up the world. Had the King been slightly more conciliatory, there wouldn't have been a revolution at all. In fact, many colonialists wanted to rise up just to get the king to negotiate and did not intend to split form the crown--at least initially.

Spiramirabilis


Just out of curiosity beezzer - do you actually believe the revolution happened because of envy?

edit on 1/20/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: link...

I care not for the cause of the revolt. I'm only all too aware of the aftermath.

NavyDoc


I'm quite the anglophile. The British Empire did much to open up the world. Had the King been slightly more conciliatory, there wouldn't have been a revolution at all. In fact, many colonialists wanted to rise up just to get the king to negotiate and did not intend to split form the crown--at least initially.

Yeah I know. Damed Sarratoga haha If you guys hadnt of won that I have a feeling you would have a prime minister not a President and parliment not a congress and you would be the United Kingdom of America . If only the French hadnt take Sarratoga as a entry sign saying that the names and titles would have been diffrent but the USA would have still ended up a independant superpower, only sooner most likley as you wouldnt have had a civil war over slavery.

crazyewok

NavyDoc


I'm quite the anglophile. The British Empire did much to open up the world. Had the King been slightly more conciliatory, there wouldn't have been a revolution at all. In fact, many colonialists wanted to rise up just to get the king to negotiate and did not intend to split form the crown--at least initially.

Yeah I know. Damed Sarratoga haha If you guys hadnt of won that I have a feeling you would have a prime minister not a President and parliment not a congress and you would be the United Kingdom of America . If only the French hadnt take Sarratoga as a entry sign

saying that the names and titles would have been diffrent but the USA would have still ended up a independant superpower, only sooner most likley as you wouldnt have had a civil war over slavery.

I certainly think having a version of "Prime minister's discretion time" would be a lot more entertaining than our present situation. What does he have in that big-assed book anyway, his physics revision notes?

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
and a firing squad would only use 85 bullets to redistribute the wealth evenly around the globe

The problem with redistribution to the point of equality is that it makes that sort of wealth worthless. It may take some research into basic economics to figure that out but just think 20$ for a dozen eggs in a gold rush town.


2nd and more importantly, the very large part of folks that harp about redistribution are only concerned with themselves getting a few mill or something. They don't really care that their neighbor gets any.