Russel Brand: The time for Revolution is now.

reply to post by TrueBrit


And what if I want to reinvest that money back into my business more than live on it for myself and my family? Would I be allowed to do that?

Keep in mind of course that the bigger my business gets, that means I can buy more equipment and material (which indirectly provides livelihood for others) and hire more people to work for me which directly provides them with a living. Of course, that does mean I will be making even more money if I am successful ...

But if you take away everything I make over a certain amount, my business cannot grow beyond a certain point no matter how well I might run it.

reply to post by ketsuko


Actually most great artists lived on bugger all most of the time, their paintings only becoming worth fantastic sums well after their deaths. Try again.

reply to post by ketsuko


Then after a certain number of pound hits your bank, all further monies headed that way pass back to the company, and never get to your control.

Either that, or you could elect to hand a certain portion over to your workforce, before the excesses reach the company account.

TrueBrit
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Then after a certain number of pound hits your bank, all further monies headed that way pass back to the company, and never get to your control.

Either that, or you could elect to hand a certain portion over to your workforce, before the excesses reach the company account.

I wonder if you've already spotted the flaw in your plan. I'll illustrate.

Roxy Widgits is the competitor of my company, Killer Widgits. Now, I'm a bang-up businesswoman and make a real good product, so Killer Widgits are the premier widget of choice. In fact, we're the biggest widget company out there and I've long ago passed your magic income threshold, so I've been compelled to start turning over the income to my employees or using it strictly to expand Killer Widgits or a combo of both. This has been going on for a good many years.

However, we live in Russell Brand's Make-Believe Utopian Society Magic Fairy Funland Fair World. So I am now doomed. Here's why: Everything must be fair.

Killer Widgits is now the largest widget company which is not fair, and it won't matter if I've done everything correctly and ethically. It's still not fair to companies like my competitor Roxy Widgits who are losing market share and maybe going out of business. I must be cut down to size in the interests in fairness.

The employees of Killer Widgits are also making a killing in terms of their wages. So in comparison to the proud widgit makers at Roxy Widgits, mine are making so much more that it's now grossly unfair. Their wages must now be brought into line. They're making too much and must be brought back into line with widget makers everywhere in the interests of fairness.

For just these two reasons alone, the benevolent overlords of Russell World will swiftly swoop in and take my business away from me in the name of leveling the playing field and making things fair for everyone else, and everyone who was making a pretty good living will be made poorer and more miserable in the interests of socialistic fairness.

reply to post by ketsuko


I don't think he is promoting that level of change, people are thinking too much in extremes.

What hes talking about is companies and corporations need to stop doing things like exploiting their employees and countries for resources all in the name of profit.

For example one company makes 500m in profits, great profit right? So why don't they give all their employees a 1$ raise or something? since the company is making record profits? Instead what you see is that money might go to influencing governments and private individuals to change laws fund campaigns to benefit the company to make.... more profits lol.

All the while the bottom level employees still get paid the same living wages 10 years in a row while the price of living goes up. Why are the profits not spread around a bit for all the employees to live better lives and thus more productivity? Because the profits are not meant for the little guys ever, they are meant to land on the top and the friends of those on the top so that when the next year comes around they will have even more for themselves at the cost of everyone else.

Thats the problem we have today, nobody is against business and corporations if they are honest with the people and themselves. Right now we don't have that sadly, we have out of control sociopathic entities formed around the very sociopathic tendencies of those who generally control them.

Thats my 2 cents though

Re: Money

Why do people think money is the issue? I view it much like everything else that tends to be demonized.. It is a tool. And a relatively good one at that! But, perhaps its trajectory after its creation could use some tweaking.

I went into why I think the mininum wage should be based on an equation somewhere else on the board... I could go into it again, but frankly, people wont do much with the idea anyway.

Either way, much like technology, guns, and so many things. The tool itself is NOT to blame, the personal responsibility is solely on those who choose to use it in a certain way.

I do not feel money necessarily needs to be eliminated, but money per time should yield more equal reward across the board. Currently, we use this tool to destabilize the economy into crashes, so that those who have hoarded it can ride the upswing back into even MORE wealth, but with less time put in than a blue collar worker. Why do these people deserve so much at the expense of the health of an entire global economy?

And beware of things like Agenda 21 "wealth redistrubution." It is more in the vein of allowing those already with most of the money to distribute their totalitarian control of ALL markets the world over. Their view of "wealth redistribution" is just to have certain small groups profit off of more people than ever.

reply to post by unfor54k3n


I think that is what he's promoting because he's been allowed to go on promoting it. The media is very good at only allowing the messages they want promoted.

And another thing they keep promoting is record profits. A lot of the time they don't tell you that they're reporting gross profits which means they aren't showing you what a company's overhead is, and overhead is the operating costs which will take away from those big numbers.

Now, let me be perfectly clear that I am not entirely on the side of big corporations here. However, I am also aware that there have been forces in our media and culture that have sought to demonize them for decades now. The evil corporation and the evil businessman are two cliché stock villains that you can't turn two channels without encountering in some Hollywood offering or other, just like the evil Republican, the corrupt, evil priest, whacked out fundy Christian, veteran gone nuts, etc. Do you see any patterns here?

reply to post by ketsuko


If your company is the largest, it will have the most employees, and fairness between individuals will mean that as long as your company has the most employees, it will remain the largest. The thing will be that employees of your company, will be paid the same as those of another, just the same way as board members will be paid the same as factory floor workers.

Your business will have more reach, but there will be no inequality between the workers of your plant and that of your rival.

Maybe the ATS owners should try to get Russell Brand to do Ask Me Anything.

TrueBrit
reply to post by ketsuko

 

If your company is the largest, it will have the most employees, and fairness between individuals will mean that as long as your company has the most employees, it will remain the largest. The thing will be that employees of your company, will be paid the same as those of another, just the same way as board members will be paid the same as factory floor workers.

Your business will have more reach, but there will be no inequality between the workers of your plant and that of your rival.

I don't think you are doing the math right.

If my company gets large enough, even with more workers, they will make more. That's a given.

reply to post by ketsuko


Yes, but the company will only have at its disposal enough to pay workers, and purchase raw materials. Profit margins will be locked at a certain percentage, as will maximum price for the product at retail. The size of your bank account relative to the number of workers will not increase.

In Russell's speech, nothing new is said. There is also nothing prophetic or messianistic about him.

Here we have a fine example of people being seduced by rhetoric. How many people will actually get out of their chairs and seek action? Is this a revolution of facebook likes and imaginary flags and stars?

reply to post by TrueBrit


So to break it down. Assuming you live to 75 (now 28) and you suddenly gain 700,000 pounds. until the day you die, you have to live on (perpetually) 1241 pounds every month for the rest of your life. no increase nothing. That is essentially enough to live on, at today's standards, but by no means would it be a comfortable existence.

Really? I seriously think you are the one who need to take a long hard look at you life objectives. You are now going into the realm were you are wearing "poor" almost as a badge of honour and a blind refusal to try an extricate yourself from it.

Do you not consider legacy, you have no ambition to set an example for your children (if you have any). Bu this you teach them that a basic existence is all they SHOULD expect in life, and NOT to try and reach further, or follow their dreams, because it will just be taken away from you.

Concept considered, analysed, and utter rejected.

"There is no shame in being born in the gutter, but tis' a terrible shame to want to stay there"

TrueBrit
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Yes, but the company will only have at its disposal enough to pay workers, and purchase raw materials. Profit margins will be locked at a certain percentage, as will maximum price for the product at retail. The size of your bank account relative to the number of workers will not increase.

So then why should anyone be allowed to "own" a company at all?

Why don't you just admit you're a communist?

reply to post by TrueBrit


No, thats is social nationalist thinking right there. A company does not have to have the most employees to be the biggest. It can be the most efficient, most effective, have the best quality, therefore has more market share. You do not need to have the most employees to do this. It's not size, it's IMPACT!

reply to post by ketsuko


Added to that, every market goes through a cycle, R&D and NPD are required to keep things going, and keep people in work. Without this the company would go bankrupt. quickly. Markets change, we all know that is a fact.

But wait a moment, why should I go through the stress of starting a company, building it, caring for it, sacrificing my life for it. Just to get my 700,000 of capped money, that is all I should expect to live on for the rest of my life, because anything else is greed.

Why should I go through the stress, when I can work for a company, and get the same 1241, which keeps increasing until I guess I have 700,000. So the result is the same.

Therefore there is NO motivation for me to spend time, money and energy in building the company.

That's because in TrueBrits world, companies just exist, he has not considered that they had to be made, and are built on the blood sweat and tears of the people that created them, just like the oppressed worker he is so fond of. Lets not mention that when companies are created, like work of art, they belong to the person that created them, therefore the owner has a RIGHT to benefit from the fruits of his labour. Which is exactly the line our friend here is saying s would be fair.

reply to post by ketsuko


I am.

What of it.

Edit to add, I have watched people I loved gutted not through their own fault but through corporate agendas, applied by government. I have seen community eroded by such emphasis on competition, that people are left behind.

You do not leave people behind, when you could bring them with you. If you cannot bring them with you, then you ought to stay to support them. You stand with the people who helped build you, or you stand with nothing, no one.

If that makes me a communist, if being unprepared to accept that situation makes me a pariah then so be it. I'm happy enough to accept that, if that's what people choose to see.

TrueBrit
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I am.

What of it.

Nothing, but you should be honest about where you're coming from.

In reality, you don't believe in letting anyone own anything at all. Nor do you think anyone has the right to the fruits of their labors in any capacity or amount. So all this time you've been making a false argument.

reply to post by benrl


I wouldn't describe him as "extremely" intelligent. He's intelligent. He probably reads a lot and has a lot of ideas; he also has a problem not getting philosophical every time he's in front of a TV camera.

No, we don't need revolution. Russel's merely drinking from the teet of far left political thought. As with any extremist ideology, it's views are overblown and untempered.

JakiusFogg :

...people who have not lifted a damn finger in their life?

Generalize much? Who are you to decide who has or hasn't 'lifted a damn finger in their life'? With this one statement you have negated every other part of your opinion. With this one statement you show the true colour of your mindset. You are entirely and utterly selfish! You are not an empathetic Samaritan, you are a traveller stepping over the body of the fallen. You could give aid, you have the ability and the means, but you'd have to give up a little of what you have got, that which you clutch tightly to your chest like a child does a teddy bear, squealing this is MINE!

Why the hell should I have everything I HAVE WORKED hard for be taken away from me and MY family?

Who the hell is taking 'EVERYTHING' from you? Who is banging down your door to take 'ALL' you have? Who is planning to do this to you? The redistribution of wealth you fear will never happen. You've already paid your taxes and other contributions to society, no one is talking about taking what you have left, the discussion is about the social wealth collected by the government that can be redistributed far more fairly across all sections of society, but as it currently stands, that wealth is being used to prop up a system benefiting only the rich and the corrupt whom help themselves to it.

There should be no poverty in developed nations, yet it is present in many of them...why is that? Is it because (following your mindset) all whom are in poverty are lazy and idle and absolutely adore being poor? That they love the struggle to make ends meet? That they just can't get enough of hunger pangs? Do you not see how absurd your thinking is?

Poverty existing in a wealthy country like the UK is a crime. It is a symptom of neglect, not by the poverty-stricken themselves, but by the government, and by that association, society in general. The poverty-stricken are the victims not the perpetrators of poverty. They are disenfranchised and remain at disadvantage to better themselves. Some do make it out of poverty by sheer will and effort, but most are impeded to making that first step on the first rung of the ladder by those above them.

Someone struggling in the UK is very much comparable to someone struggling in Mexico. If both are hungry they suffer the same pangs. Of course, we are not talking comparable to famine hit areas of Africa or Asia, but poor people of any country know what it is to struggle to survive.

When any government is elected it is charged by the electorate to ensure that equitable care and provision of services is accessible to all...government is charged with the social welfare of the people, not some of the people, but all of the people. It is enabled to do this by the mandatory contribution made by people in employment for themselves, or by working for others. These employed people pay a percentage of what they earn to the state in taxes and in national insurance contributions. This generates a vast level of wealth for the government (separate to GDP) to pay for things like defence and a health system, but more importantly, it enables the government to aid those whom are poverty-stricken to an avenue by which they can get educated and eventually to gainful employment. That is how it is supposed to work, but the system has been forcibly shifted.

The failure of the banking system through corrupt practices caused the lowering of economies almost to the point of collapse, it was viewed necessary to 'bail out' the banks with taxpayer's contributions, money ear-marked for the country's welfare was diverted to the banks. This caused governments to introduce austerity measures, which didn't ease the strain upon society, but in some areas caused it to become much worse, especially at and below the poverty line. It actually added to the amount of people in poverty through loss of jobs (I'm one of them).

The economy is still not healthy enough to create employment on a scale that will reduce the amount of people in poverty, and thus add to the contributory system. In fact, we have seen over the last few decades the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and more people join the the ranks of the poor. It has now become a self-feeding loop for the rich, and they love it! They don't merit it. If you want a stable society the system needs to be readjusted back to pre-crash levels.

No one is coming for what wealth you have personally, not yet, but if we continue down this road that the rich want to keep on, they damn well will. We can readjust the system through a peaceful revolution or a violent one, but it will be readjusted, and the greedy and the selfish will be the victims.