Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    01 May '12 13:14
    In response to the rich creating jobs, which class, rich, middle, poor are more likely to be to motive force that helps create capital?
  2. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    01 May '12 14:17
    Originally posted by kmax87
    In response to the rich creating jobs, which class, rich, middle, poor are more likely to be the motive force that helps create capital?

    *bump*
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 May '12 17:00
    Originally posted by kmax87
    In response to the rich creating jobs, which class, rich, middle, poor are more likely to be to motive force that helps create capital?
    Well, it's usually poor or middle clas people who build houses. What exactly do you mean by capital - do you mean money or physical wealth? The government creates the money.
  4. 01 May '12 18:31
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Well, it's usually poor or middle clas people who build houses. What exactly do you mean by capital - do you mean money or physical wealth? The government creates the money.
    Poor people build pretty much everything, which then gets sold by middle class people, usually to poor and middle class people and then the middle class people give the majority of the resulting wealth to the rich people.
  5. Subscriber Rajk999
    Enjoying
    02 May '12 14:57 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Poor people build pretty much everything, which then gets sold by middle class people, usually to poor and middle class people and then the middle class people give the majority of the resulting wealth to the rich people.
    The rich people build everything, utilizing the labour of the poor and usually at the going rate of labour, utilizing finance at the going interest rate at the finance institutions. Who ends up with the resulting wealth is a function of their ability to bargain.

    Certain types of labour is in abundant supply so they have very little bargaining power. Finance companies, insurance companies, engineering firms, etc etc are not dime a dozen so they can get a larger piece of the pie.

    Thats life.
  6. 02 May '12 17:41
    bargaining power did'nt help Steve Jobs and Linda McCartney , BUT THATS LIFE.
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    03 May '12 14:07
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Well, it's usually poor or middle clas people who build houses. What exactly do you mean by capital - do you mean money or physical wealth? The government creates the money.
    The capital that the rich like to boast without which no production would occur. You know the rich who without whose largesse to invest in anything the poor would be so much poorer. Which is a crock, because the poor aren't really being given any favors. There's no loyalty to the investment, because as soon as it can be done cheaper somewhere else that's where the capital flows. To places where the poor can enhance its value. Hence the question. Which should really read this way more as a rhetorical statement.
    Do not the poor create capital
  8. Subscriber Rajk999
    Enjoying
    03 May '12 14:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    The capital that the rich like to boast without which no production would occur. You know the rich who without whose largesse to invest in anything the poor would be so much poorer. Which is a crock, because the poor aren't really being given any favors. There's no loyalty to the investment, because as soon as it can be done cheaper somewhere else that's wher ...[text shortened]... read this way more as a rhetorical statement.
    [b] Do not the poor create capital
    [/b]
    You have still not defined the word capital.

    In the Economic sense capital is the man-made resources used in the production process and includes machinery, factories, equipment etc.

    In the Accounting sense capital is finance used in business.

    Both arise in different ways. What kind are you referring to?

    By neither definition could the poor be said to creating capital.
  9. 03 May '12 22:12
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    The rich people build everything, utilizing the labour of the poor and usually at the going rate of labour, utilizing finance at the going interest rate at the finance institutions. Who ends up with the resulting wealth is a function of their ability to bargain.

    Certain types of labour is in abundant supply so they have very little bargaining power. Fin ...[text shortened]... ng firms, etc etc are not dime a dozen so they can get a larger piece of the pie.

    Thats life.
    Yeah but I am right and you are wrong. The rich do not build anything they pay other people to do it. I think you are mistaking the ownership of a thing with the building of it.

    And the present social and economic reality is only 'life' as long as the power remains in the hands of the few, and that can change really quickly; ask the 'Romonovs'.
  10. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    04 May '12 10:11
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You have still not defined the word capital.

    In the Economic sense capital is the man-made resources used in the production process and includes machinery, factories, equipment etc.

    In the Accounting sense capital is finance used in business.

    Both arise in different ways. What kind are you referring to?

    By neither definition could the poor be said to creating capital.
    I would argue all of the above. At some point, productive effort led to goods which in turn became profit which transformed into accumulated wealth which in turn purchased all the man made(here again ain't it ironic) resources used in the production process, and gives rise to the structure, whereby debt can be created and financial services spawned. All on the back of someone's physical labor at some moment in time...cue the Lion King....the circle of life....
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 May '12 14:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You have still not defined the word capital.

    In the Economic sense capital is the man-made resources used in the production process and includes machinery, factories, equipment etc.

    In the Accounting sense capital is finance used in business.

    Both arise in different ways. What kind are you referring to?

    By neither definition could the poor be said to creating capital.
    The financial capital employed to purchase productive assets represents a form of accumulated wealth. An entrepreneur seeking to construct innovative business in a way that adds value on any level has to have access to financial capital as a condition of doing business. However, it has to be seen that the supplier of financial capital represents a "stakeholder" and is not a sufficient condition for any successful enterprise. Plenty of money has been sunk into failed enterprises over the centuries. There are a lot of important questions to be asked about the role of finance in any economy, its relative power and its entitlement to reward.

    Multinationals, which can integrate the value chain from raw materials through to retail sales, represent a triumph of financial engineering over any values that apply to productive enterprise. The Vesey Brothers were one of the early exponents of this model, integrating the chain from Argentinian cattle ranches to European retail outlets. Their wizardry established a standard model because they could determine both costs and prices at every stage of the chain. Argentinian ranchers were offered pitiful prices and European markets paid high prices, but the costs were siphoned away into intermediate parts of the chain like transport, insurance and other costs, all in the control of the Vesey Brothers. It is called "transfer pricing" and it ensured that nobody anywhere got a fair price, except the Vesey brothers, who not only decided where in the chain to take their profits, but also evaded taxes at every point in the chain. You can only really tax profits, so when taxes were imposed, profits disappeared, to reappear magically elsewhere in the value chain. Even when it came to taking profit out of the business, this was chanelled through trusts which in turn could evade both tax and accountability. That was in the early days of the 20th Century. Things today are far more comfortable for this type of project.

    Because multi nationals can manipulate costs and prices in this way, they are able to out compete any rival that is not equally taking advantage of the cross border flow of financial assets. Increasingly, any enterprise that shows signs of success is quickly absorbed into a multi national corporation which does not add any value whatever, but can maximise profit by financial engineering. Indeed, mergers and acquisitions have become dominated by purely finance led entities which hide their assets offshore and rest on speculative levels of debt raised in the offshore markets.

    Stop kidding yourself. Wealth today is not creating enterprise or jobs, nor is it paying a fraction of its share towards the social capital (education, health, legal structures, environment and infrastructure) which makes capitalism possible and on which it depends. That social capital is the product of collective effort by whole communities and it is in this respect that the poor create wealth. Maybe you can quibble about the destitute and the incapable poor, for whom Nazi Germany had a more frank and up front solution than the vicious callousness of modern capitalism. However, it is the collective effort of the great majority of ordinary folk, who have not benefitted from any of the fruits of economic growth since the Seventies, who continue to create the social capital that that supplies the wealth which is skimmed off and enjoyed by the very rich.
  12. 04 May '12 16:57
    Of course the poor create capital , renumeration for all work within capitalist systems produces surplus value , businesses don't pay more than their goods and services cost to produce , wheres does this value go . The many financial instruments used to expand capital created by work , such as credit default swaps (insurance on toxic loans ), are just that ,exploitation of value produced by the billions of poor. Most work is unnecessary anyway ,we work for that one object that will make our lives complete , untill the next one comes along ,tied to the next object , steve jobs ,bill gates knew the pull of the next pointless object.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    04 May '12 19:12
    Originally posted by finnegan
    The financial capital employed to purchase productive assets represents a form of accumulated wealth. An entrepreneur seeking to construct innovative business in a way that adds value on any level has to have access to financial capital as a condition of doing business. However, it has to be seen that the supplier of financial capital represents a "stakehol ...[text shortened]... ial capital that that supplies the wealth which is skimmed off and enjoyed by the very rich.
    This post is sheer poetry intertwined with brilliance. Too bad you had to fall into the trap of Godwin's Law
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 May '12 21:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    This post is sheer poetry intertwined with brilliance. Too bad you had to fall into the trap of Godwin's Law
    I take your point and will take care in future, because it is a sensible principle, and I would edit accordingly if it was not too late, but for the present argument I plead the following defence from Wikipedia:

    While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.


    The harm done to the poor by irresponsible capitalism is immense and in my humble opinion justifies the remark I made without being a case of hyperbole. Funding war in a country like the Congo, while extracting mineral wealth through corrupt channels, leads to death and destruction for whole societies without hope of redress. The drug wars in Central America stand in contrast to the laundering of drug money through offshore havens without which it would be worthless to the barons. America will send in its forces and pay to help local forces to sustain the hopeless battle, just as it will imprison a depressing proportion of its own population for drug related offences, while refusing to lift a finger against the shadowy routes by which drug wealth (worth more than Saudi Arabia's oil) is laundered and made legitimate. As long as criminals, tyrants and corrupt elites are actively enabled to launder staggering sums through the secretive offsore finance industry, there is absolutely no prospect of improving the condition of the poor in the Third World. Africa according to good research (I suppose I could look this up and cite it) has far more assets than liabilities, but its assets are in the form of personal wealth stashed in secret accounts in Miami or Geneva or Jersey or Cayman Islands (et al) while the liabilities remain as public debts for the governments and publics of the African states. More wealth is extracted from Africa through corrupt channels than ever reaches Africa as aid from a hypocritcal, crocodile-smiling West. The harm being done in Africa and Latin America is staggering and it goes on and on. It's time America and the developed World (notably Britain) confronted its idological distortion of reality. The Third World is poor because the First World keeps it that way and the consequences of that poverty are dreadful.

    Hyperbole? I think not.
  15. 04 May '12 21:33
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I take your point and will take care in future, because it is a sensible principle, but for the present argument (in which my reference to the Nazi's was hardly prominent) I plead the following defence from Wikipedia:

    [quote]While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, God ...[text shortened]... it that way and the consequences of that poverty are dreadful.

    Hyperbole? I think not.
    And yet the condition of the poor in the third world appears to be steadily improving.