| binary solo said:
"The fact that we’ve improved productivity so dramatically over the last century is also the reason why the poorest people today have a better standard of living than the vast majority of people a century ago." Are you sure about that? I would say the lot of the poorest today has not improved over what it was to be poor a century ago (1911). At least it hasn't improved in the same proportion as the fortunes of the ultra rich. Have you seen the impocverished conditions of the poorest of society? Even the poorest of American society? I haven't visited those neighbourhoods in America, but I've seen them in India and Thailand. |
My comment was clearly about western developed economies, and it can't be related to third world or undeveloped nations primarily because they are not developed and have therefore not gone through the transformational productivity increases. As for the impoverished in American society:
The poor have a vast array of luxuries that didn't even exist a century ago, and their adoption of these luxuries tends to lag typical Americans by (roughly) 10 to 15 years; and the typical American tends to lag the adoption of rich Americans by (roughly) 10 to 15 years.
Personally, I find it remarkably ironic how many people are protesting the inequity of capitalistic society by tweeting from the $600 iPhone or iPad on their $50 to $100 a month phone plan ...
| binary solo said:
It doesn't have to, it shouldn't have to, it just does. It's how the world works at the moment. But it doesn't have to keep working that way. |
Except it doesn't work that way ...
Most of the most wealthy people in the world developed their wealth by creating companies that produced products at prices people were willing to pay, and people willingly worked for these companies under the working conditions that the company established. Certainly, there are questionable practices when it comes to speculation in the economy (most of which can and should be dealt with) but speculators are not representative of the majority of wealthy people in our economy.
| binary solo said:
You wouldn't make billions. You'd be a research scientist either in a university or at pharmaceutical company and you might get a salary bonus for the year, and a mug saying "I found the cure for cancer" but the billions would go to the company, i.e. you'd be the one who got screwed over. If you happened to be a start-up and you got lucky, you'd soon be bought out (for a tidy sum of money meaning you wouldn't have to work another day in your life if you didn't want to), but again the billions would go to the pharmaceutical company who bought you out. And likelihood is you'd find this cure in some plant extract from a tropical rainforest. Guess who'd get screwed over then? |
If I had a start up how am I getting "screwed over" if I choose to sell my company for the amount another company is willing to pay? Simply because someone else got significant (potentially greater) benefit from a business deal does not mean that you ended up getting a bad deal ...
| binary solo said:
I have huge respect for Warren Buffett. He seems like a really honourable bloke and he's mega rich. But I don't for a minute believe that he didn't invest in some companies that used oppressive employment practices or environmentally damaging business activities to ge those profits and shareholder values up. I think it's doubtful he ever screwed anyone over directly, but in some of his investments the returns he got and the wealth he accumulated resulted from people being screwed over. |
It is interesting that Warren Buffett was consistently on the lists of the most corrupt capitalists when liberal activists compiled them, but simply by calling for income tax increases on the wealthy (remembering that he doesn't pay income taxes) he becomes the most respected capitalist of the left overnight.
