I'd be interested to hear if Der Schwarze thinks the billions in corporate welfare funded through US taxpayer money that the US government gives to huge corporations is considered "spending".
Does it matter if it's spent on social services or corporate handouts? After all, its just money paid out by the government.
Any idea how many billions of Taxpayer money is given to the oil industry, telecom, shipping, etc etc etc?
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessAnd many of the post-war contracts in Iraq going to Bush-friendly american firms- coincidence? 😲🙄
I'd be interested to hear if Der Schwarze thinks the billions in corporate welfare funded through US taxpayer money that the US government gives to huge corporations is considered "spending".
Does it matter if it's spent on social services or corporate handouts? After all, its just money paid out by the government.
Any idea how many billions of Taxpayer money is given to the oil industry, telecom, shipping, etc etc etc?
I think that was question # 6 on the Social Studies Final exam ...
"Did Bush lie? Did people die? Yes or No."
If you can puke that one up for the ol' Prof. you'll be an A student and your Mom will get a bumper sticker for the SUV.
MY CHILD IS AN A STUDENT AT PS 666 .. AND YOURS IS A MARINE .. SHAME ON YOU
Originally posted by jammer?
I think that was question # 6 on the Social Studies Final exam ...
"Did Bush lie? Did people die? Yes or No."
If you can puke that one up for the ol' Prof. you'll be an A student and your Mom will get a bumper sticker for the SUV.
MY CHILD IS AN A STUDENT AT PS 666 .. AND YOURS IS A MARINE .. SHAME ON YOU
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenIt's not that important to me to define it (sorry if I upset you) but it seemed to me that some of the debate was at cross purposes as to who the rich were, and it's hard to debate something if you have not defined it. But your definition of having more than basic survival needs doesn't really fit in with what you said earlier:
If it's so important for you to define rich, how's this: "If you got more
than you really need to survive, you're rich"? And, yes, I'm talking about the
things you need to support your basic needs. Happiness, love and
friendship are secondary needs that can be supported no matter what.
quote:
"Where is all the wealth of rich people coming from? I'll tell you where
from. From poor people working their arses off, and actually thanking the
unscrupulous capitalists for giving them that opportunity. HA! It's
laughable. There aren't enough resources on this planet to make it
possible for everyone to make it rich."
end quote
I don't think it's fair to judge people who are just above survival level as unscrupulous capitalists, I think when you typed that you had a much higher level of wealth in mind? To me most people would define rich (in financial terms) as exceptionally wealthy i.e. well above the average, the sample that you use for that average creates problems though. For example if you are talking globally then you might have a point as people do starve to death, however I think most people tend to judge from the basis of their own pier group
1 edit
Originally posted by stevetoddEeeeeeh! Wrong! You didn't upset me (I was already a sorry SOB before
It's not that important to me to define it (sorry if I upset you) but it seemed to me that some of the debate was at cross purposes as to who the rich were, and it's hard to debate something if you have not defined it. But your definition of having more than basic survival needs doesn't really fit in with what you said earlier:
quote:
"Where is all th death, however I think most people tend to judge from the basis of their own pier group
this thread), and no I didn't have filthy rich people in mind specifically,
but also the filthy rich west. I was talking on many levels at once (yes, I
can be that advanced in my thought process sometimes 😏 ). You may
not purposely take from the poor and put in your own pocket, but in
effect that's what our modern societies are doing to other parts of the
world. That was my point. I'm as much a greedy capitalist as the
next guy simply by living in this society and accepting the conditions on
which it is built. And to clean my conscience a bit I whine about it in
public forums and give everything I don't need to homeless people here
in my own city. That way I can be sure the money goes directly to those
who need it. The fact that most of them only buys whiskey or drugs to
keep warm in our unusually springtime-like winter nights is disturbing,
but I'm trying to convince them to try and turn things around. Of course,
that's easier said than done. When you've sunken so low that you don't
even have a home in Sweden, you've probably sunken beyond return
because it's really, really hard to get homeless over here. At least it used
to be. Perhaps the times are a-changing, eh?
Originally posted by stockenI'm sure Sweden has a higher standard of living than the UK so it's probably no surprise to you when I say that we too have a homeless problem.
Eeeeeeh! Wrong! You didn't upset me (I was already a sorry SOB before
this thread), and no I didn't have filthy rich people in mind specifically,
but also the filthy rich west. I was talking on many levels at once (yes, I
can be that advanced in my thought process sometimes 😏 ). You may
not purposely take from the poor and put in your own pocket, bu ...[text shortened]... t homeless over here. At least it used
to be. Perhaps the times are a-changing, eh?
There has been recent talk over here about certain supermarkets (I forget which ones but it MAY have been Tesco and Asda) who are selling cheap clothes made in far east countries were the workers are being paid less than the survival rate. I thought it was quite ironic that the purchasers of these clothes will IN THE MAIN PROBABLY be poorer people who are unwittingly supporting the supermarket’s exploitation of these people. I'm not sure of the supermarket's extent of involvement whether they have direct links with these sweatshop factories or merely dealing with agents. But I thought at the time that they missed out on an opportunity to start a brand of clothes that advertised itself as being cheaper than other clothes but not as cheap as it could be BECAUSE the extra money was going to the workers to provide a living wage. That way the workers get a decent wage and the supermarkets get the good PR. Possibly a bit naive of me to think the extra money would find its way back to the workers but I'm sure the supermarkets could influence this IF they really wanted to.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeThe point you have overlooked is that there are thousands of people with 'cleaner' skills to one with the ability to become a successful entrepreneur or chief executive of a major successful enterprise.
I would support a law which dictates that the highest paid person in an organisation cannot be paid more than 10X that of the lowest paid.
If you want to pay a CEO £10million a year, you have to pay the cleaners £1 million a year.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by wedgehead2This is true. However, do you agree in principal that a skilled worker is worth more per hour than an unskilled worker?
It also about the effort you put in- the top mangement won't work 10x harder than the basic worker.
And I'm not defending the $10 million dollar per year CEO because I actually kind of like RedMike's idea having worked for a company where the "celebrity" CEO overpayed himself as he ran the company into the ground. Often times one gets to be CEO not because of ability but because they've invested capital or know how to play the boardroom politics.
Originally posted by UllrA skilled worker can produce more valuable goods than an unskilled worker, yes. An interesting point is why one worker is more skilled- better life opportunities, more natural ability, more drive?
This is true. However, do you agree in principal that a skilled worker is worth more per hour than an unskilled worker?
And I'm not defending the $10 million dollar per year CEO because I actually kind of like RedMike's idea having worked for a company where the "celebrity" CEO overpayed himself as he ran the company into the ground. Often times one gets ...[text shortened]... of ability but because they've invested capital or know how to play the boardroom politics.
Just because someone has more ability doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD be paid more than they need, and more than the unskilled worker.
Originally posted by scipio2It rather depends what you have to clean up, if it's one of these things then the cleaner probably is more skilled than your CEO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extremely_hazardous_substances
The point you have overlooked is that there are thousands of people with 'cleaner' skills to one with the ability to become a successful entrepreneur or chief executive of a major successful enterprise.