hypocritical Archbishop

Wealthy families should pay more tax to help the poor, the Archbishop of Canterbury declares today.

In a major intervention sure to spark controversy, Justin Welby says he wants to rake in an extra £9billion a year with a shake-up of inheritance tax.

Multinationals who dodge their dues would also be hit. Proceeds would fund a higher minimum wage and pay for £10,000 handouts to help the young buy homes.

The recommendations come in a report – co-written by the Archbishop – that says Britain's economy is broken. Demanding radical action to reduce 'damaging wealth inequality', its key proposals include:
Wealthy families should pay more tax to help the poor, the Archbishop of Canterbury declares today




Higher capital gains tax and taxes on dividends – netting up to £27billion a year;



A £13billion-a-year corporation tax hike;

The creation of a £186billion 'Citizens Wealth Fund' by 2030.

The report, drawn up by the Left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research, calls for inheritance tax to be scrapped and replaced by a gifts tax.

An individual would be able to receive £125,000 over their lifetime – with any further gifts subject to income tax. The tax-free threshold for an entire estate is currently £325,000, or £650,000 for a couple.""



All very well, but before that happens shouldnt the dozy old hypocrit open the church coffers, AND shouldnt the church start paying tax???????

between the church of england and the catholic church there is more wealth held (much of it in secret) than anyone can guess

Interesting Lord Foul

I was unaware how much the Church of England have and its staggering

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/02/for-richer-or-poorer--where-is-the-church-of-england

The Catholic Church

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/index.html

I understand they have paid out 4 billion in damages to victims of child sex abuse

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/05/09/the-vatican-has-paid-nearly-4-billion-to-settle-for-children-harmed-by-sexual-abuse/

Time to tax both. I fail to see why any religious institution should be tax free.

Vic wrote:Wealthy families should pay more tax to help the poor, the Archbishop of Canterbury declares today.

The poor have nothing to do with it.  The rich should pay more taxes, because they get more from society.

Christians always confuse politics with charity.

Original Quill wrote:

Vic wrote:Wealthy families should pay more tax to help the poor, the Archbishop of Canterbury declares today.

The poor have nothing to do with it.  The rich should pay more taxes, because they get more from society.

Christians always confuse politics with charity.

They get more from society?

How?

When the money they pay, helps to have countless people benefit from the money they input into the system?

That means they would benefit far less

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The poor have nothing to do with it.  The rich should pay more taxes, because they get more from society.

Christians always confuse politics with charity.

They get more from society?

How?

They gain wealth. It's not a proprietary thing. It's formulaic. As society makes you wealthy, you support society in proportion.

Didge wrote:When the money they pay, helps to have countless people benefit from the money they input into the system?

That means they would benefit far less

That’s the trickle down theory, no one is responsible individually for the system. Again, you are misperceiving it from a proprietary viewpoint. If the system works well, its the system's both (1) achievement, and (2) benefit. The system is responsible for itself. If an individual gets lucky, he shouldn't complain.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


They get more from society?

How?

They gain wealth.  It's not a proprietary thing.  It's formulaic.  As society makes you wealthy, you support society in proportion.

Didge wrote:From hard work through their own buisnesses, where again society benefits from. They employ many people and thus pay many wages. They buiness then generates trade and buisness elsewhere and you have a spiral effect of then more people in employment.

That’s the trickle down theory, no one is responsible individually for the system.  Again, you are misperceiving it from a proprietary viewpoint.  If the system works well, its the system's both (1) achievement, and (2) benefit.  The system is responsible for itself.  If an individual gets lucky, he shouldn't complain.

You are speaking backwards here. 1% of people pay 27% of income tax, which then all society benefits from

How are they benefiting more, when they pay far more than the rest?

This money is instrumental in thus ensuring people have health care, benefits etc

That means they help out more people, by the amount they pay in and are more likley to have private health care

So how are they benefiting more?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They gain wealth.  It's not a proprietary thing.  It's formulaic.  As society makes you wealthy, you support society in proportion.



That’s the trickle down theory, no one is responsible individually for the system.  Again, you are misperceiving it from a proprietary viewpoint.  If the system works well, its the system's both (1) achievement, and (2) benefit.  The system is responsible for itself.  If an individual gets lucky, he shouldn't complain.

You are speaking backwards here. 1% of people pay 27% of income tax, which then all society benefits from

How are they benefiting more, when they pay far more than the rest?

This money is instrumental in thus ensuring people have health care, benefits etc

That means they help out more people, by the amount they pay in and are more likley to have private health care

So how are they benefiting more?

The system is working. But no one owns the system. Don't individuate. The rich pay more because they get more. By the same token, the poor pay less because they get less. Seems to be perfect divinity in action.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are speaking backwards here. 1% of people pay 27% of income tax, which then all society benefits from

How are they benefiting more, when they pay far more than the rest?

This money is instrumental in thus ensuring people have health care, benefits etc

That means they help out more people, by the amount they pay in and are more likley to have private health care

So how are they benefiting more?

The system is working.  But no one owns the system.  Don't individuate.  The rich pay more because they get more.  By the same token, the poor pay less because they get less.  Seems to be perfect divinity in action.

Nobody says its wrong that the rich do pay more, or the poor pay less

This was about your claim they benefit more from society

The point is though how can anyone justify how much more the rich should pay than others rationally and not emotively

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are speaking backwards here. 1% of people pay 27% of income tax, which then all society benefits from

How are they benefiting more, when they pay far more than the rest?

This money is instrumental in thus ensuring people have health care, benefits etc

That means they help out more people, by the amount they pay in and are more likley to have private health care

So how are they benefiting more?

The system is working.  But no one owns the system.  Don't individuate.  The rich pay more because they get more.  By the same token, the poor pay less because they get less.  Seems to be perfect divinity in action.

Nobody says its wrong that the rich do pay more, or the poor pay less

This was about your claim they benefit more from society

The point is though how can anyone justify how much more the rich should pay than others rationally and not emotively

quite easily didge, based on the concept of DISPOSEABLE income, as opposed to mere income

even at quite modest levels of income above the lowest paid, the amount "left in ones pocket" at the end of the month, after tax NI AND "normal" living expenses is often disparate to an unreasonable degree...

hence the relative cost of those normal living expenses is much less for the rich (unless they choose to "over indulge"

hence
rent/housing costs is a MUCH greater proportion of a poor mans wage than a rich mans
like wise food
and power

so while at the end of the month BOTH may have "(say) only 20% of their net income left that 20% is much more in £ p for the rich man, AND it is likely that the poor man will in fact have LESS than 20% left over since his base costs are a greater % of his net income......


and whilst there is good case to say that the rich man is indeed (due to his education/training/etc) entitled to somewhat more, how much more is open to debate, the problem comes when the disparity is too great AND social justice requires that the poor man gets assistance.....whence it is reasonable that the rich man in fact pays a bit more in taxation as a % of his income in order to offset that disparity of disposeable incomes.

the argument for social justice in THIS instance is NOT emotive, rather it is pragmatic and sensible since as history shows in great detail, when the disparity between rich and poor gets too great (and the size of that "gap depends entirely on the society it exists within due to educational factors etc (an uneducated and uninformed population being easier to control) ) then chaos and riot generally ensue, and, quite often revolution ....

Anybody want to buy a slightly used church  ???

The Anglican Church (Church of England) here in Oz is disposing of several small and under-utilised churches in rural and semi-rural areas, to help pay for victims of past abuses..

The Anglican Church in Australia alone owns $$$billions$$$ of real estate --  including churches, schools, retirement villages and nursing homes, orphanages and childrens homes, farms, and vacant "land-banked" properties set aside for future use.

As does the Catholic Church, as well..   Placing both these church organisations among the largest single land-holders in this country..

Very true mate, so why are they always holding their hands out and begging for more money ?

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Nobody says its wrong that the rich do pay more, or the poor pay less

This was about your claim they benefit more from society

The point is though how can anyone justify how much more the rich should pay than others rationally and not emotively

quite easily didge, based on the concept of DISPOSEABLE income, as opposed to mere income

even at quite modest levels of income above the lowest paid, the amount "left in ones pocket" at the end of the month, after tax NI AND  "normal" living expenses is often disparate to an unreasonable degree...

hence the relative cost of those normal living expenses is much less for the rich (unless they choose to "over indulge"

hence
rent/housing costs is a MUCH greater proportion of a poor mans wage than a rich mans
like wise food
and power

so while at the end of the month BOTH may have "(say) only 20% of their net income left  that 20% is much more in £ p for the rich man, AND it is likely that the poor man will in fact have LESS than 20% left over since his base costs are a greater % of his net income......


and whilst there is good case to say that the rich man is indeed (due to his education/training/etc) entitled to somewhat more, how much more is open to debate, the problem comes when the disparity is too great AND social justice requires that the poor man gets assistance.....whence it is reasonable that the rich man in fact pays a bit more in taxation as a % of his income in order to offset that disparity of disposeable incomes.

the argument for social justice in THIS instance is NOT emotive, rather it is pragmatic and sensible since as history shows in great detail, when the disparity between rich and poor gets too great (and the size of that "gap depends entirely on the society it exists within due to educational factors etc (an uneducated and uninformed population being easier to control) ) then chaos and riot generally ensue, and, quite often revolution ....

But you never say by how much mate? To then rationalize by how much, which is to me where it does get emotive

I agree on that the disparity should never be to the point where people have basically nothing. If people have a decent wage and less tax to pay I am all for that. So the disparity should never be too great, however if people are all comfortable paid and the rich disparity is massive. What would it then matter? 

However in ever day life do people apply the same reasoning on everyday things

For example if a group of friends went out together. How often would they devide the bill based on how much they earn or wealth they have?

I mean if you went for drinks with a wealthy friend. Would expect them to buy all the drinks all night? They may well offer to pay all your drinks, but ould it be right to expect them to pay based on a percentage of wealth you both have?

Do you see where I am coming from. We expect the rich to pay for society, but in reality in everyday life, hardly anyone would demand their rich friends pay for everything would they?

Green to Vic. You made the point about disposable income much better than I could have.

That is the practical side of the matter...people understand practice better than philosophy. My view of it is emphasis on the equitable (philosophical) position of the individual: a culture (or nation) possesses a fund of wealth; as individuals in the population, people pass through that culture, and so they pass through that fund of wealth; through skill, or luck, or inheritance--but mostly chance--some individuals do better than others; in return the people that are 'blessed' with more wealth, give back more of their wealth to support the system.

Take a more holistic view. The individual is just passing through something much greater than him or her. No individual "owns" the system; if anything, the system "owns" him or her.

The idea of surplus value has led some fortunate (I avoid the term 'rich') to think of their money in proprietary terms. They say, "I created it; I own it".

But no...the system created it, and gave it to the individual as caretaker. Too much goes into any given development to say the sole agent was one person: previous development, cultural trends, chance, all accidentally befall one lucky person, who was at the right place, at the right time.

The culture (system) owns the entrepreneurial moment. The individual at the point is indeed fortunate, and if he enjoys wealth in greater proportion, he must share wealth in greater proportion.

Didge wrote:This was about your claim they benefit more from society

That is incidental. Proprietorship doesn't even enter the equation, except and unless our lucky agent divines it in the first place. Yes, the proprietor benefits more by virtue of society being there (as consumers, as purchasers and as opinion-makers), but benefits what, if he is just passing through? He is only at that point by chance.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:This was about your claim they benefit more from society

That is incidental.  Proprietorship doesn't even enter the equation, except and unless our lucky agent divines it in the first place.  Yes, the proprietor benefits more by virtue of society being there (as consumers, as purchasers and as opinion-makers), but benefits what, if he is just passing through?  He is only at that point by chance.

So that is a poor way of admitting you were wrong on the rich benefitting more from society

You have not reasoned in any capacity that they do and as seen they take less from society

They have no benefits, are generally paying for private health, have health insurance among other things

What actually do they get from society?

I mean wht if this rich person only has foreign customers and no domestic trade?

You see you make bold claims and then can never back them up

Those with less will obviously benefit more from society than those who are rich, as the rich basically pay for themselves

Take a leaf out of Lord fouls book, that is how to debate and reason very well

It was point by point

Didge wrote:So that is a poor way of admitting you were wrong on the rich benefitting more from society

I wasn't wrong.

If you don't think wealth is a benefit, take an oath of poverty.

If you don't think wealth came from society, try living as a hermit.

Society --> benefit --> obligation (or taxes).
.....(instead of taxes)......└> proprietorship (mine).

Proprietorship was a concept invented to interrupt the above chain of equity, so that one could claim it all to himself.  It's the economic theory of selfishness.

Do you think Vanderbilt was responsible for western expansion, such that his railroads were lucrative?  Of course not.  Do you think Rockefeller was responsible for the popularity of the automobile, such that his oil business took off.  No.  Those are cultural trends.  The guys who got wealthy were just in the right place, at the right time.

Nobody owns chance!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So that is a poor way of admitting you were wrong on the rich benefitting more from society

I wasn't wrong.

If you don't think wealth is a benefit, take an oath of poverty.

If you don't think wealth came from society, try living as a hermit.

Society --> benefit --> obligation (or taxes).
.....(instead of taxes)......└> proprietorship (mine).

Proprietorship was a concept invented to interrupt the above chain of equity, so that one could claim it all to himself.  It's the economic theory of selfishness.

Do you think Vanderbilt was responsible for western expansion, such that his railroads were lucrative?  Of course not.  Do you think Rockefeller was responsible for the popularity of the automobile, such that his oil business took off.  No.  Those are cultural trends.  The guys who got wealthy were just in the right place, at the right time.

Nobody owns chance!

Again tha is a load of nonsense on every level

Your definition is not based on reality, but on taxation, of which they contribute the most and yet get the least out of society

Which was your claim, they get the most of society

OMG, so now people of success, were lucky to you?

wow and this is what Jorsan Peterson is absolutely right about the Far left

They are inherantly bad in how they look down on the poor, but how they in fact hate those successful and rich. Its a form of intolerance the left have for those who do well through hard work and success. To say these people have been lucky, shows you have again no idea what you are talking about. You give two really poor examples, as if this then means its always down to chance. That is not scientific thinking, but emotive based on a hate of those who are rich

The reality is some people are highly intelligent and able to do well in society and chance does not play much of a factor in this. Some people simple are good at what they do. But for you to claim this is merely down to chance, is why you will never be able to run a successful buisness

they get the most out of society by being able to have the position to Earn so much.
If society didn't exist in the form that it currently exists they would not have any more mud and sticks than any one else.

My God it's really not a hard concept, Mark Zuckerberg gets more out of society because society lets him run a company like Facebook that can only exist with the infrastructure (Physical, Administrative and Social) that exists because of Society ... same with anyone else.

veya_victaous wrote:they get the most out of society by being able to have the position to Earn so much.
If society didn't exist in the form that it currently exists they would not have any more mud and sticks than any one else.

My God it's really not a hard concept, Mark Zuckerberg gets more out of society because society lets him run a company like Facebook that can only exist with the infrastructure (Physical, Administrative and Social) that exists because of Society ... same with anyone else.

Nonsense, as they have earn that position by how they are good at buiness, again something they have created themselves and not society

He created that company himself and built to be so succesful he is not worth a fortune
They will however take less out of society, than they put in and again he has created countless jobs

Didge wrote:But for you to claim this is merely down to chance, is why you will never be able to run a successful buisness

Anyone can run a company. The main feature is to luck out and have a successful one.

I already run a successful law practice. And you...

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:But for you to claim this is merely down to chance, is why you will never be able to run a successful buisness

Anyone can run a company.  The main feature is to luck out and have a successful one.

I already run a successful law practice.  And you...

And how did you come to learn to run a successful law practice?

Did you build it up from scratch?

So not everyone can run a company. As seen there is a number of people that run companies into the ground

It goes back to what I said

What are the characteristics for this?

and how good you are at business only matter because SOCIETY gives them more bits of paper with higher number on it

fuck me, It's not a hard concept MONEY is merely a product of society it's all worthless in reality 
Mark Zuckerberg can only run a business because Society prevented the Violently inclined people from beating him to death.
his Business is worth ZERO if society decides tomorrow that the right to Personal Privacy exceeds his right to Profit from selling peoples Private details.
He has taken Billions off society Vastly More than 99.9% of society will ever get from Society.


his business skill mean Absolutely Fucking Nothing to Mother nature 
His Business skills are only worth what society says they are worth 


anyway like most things, It's your ignorance and lack of intellect that are the issue... no one else thinks this is a debate... just you being a dumb twat that doesn't know basic stuff trying to argue with those that do

veya_victaous wrote:an how good you are at business only matter because SOCIETY gives them more bits of paper with higher number on it

fuck me, It's not a hard concept MONEY is merely a product of society it's all worthless in reality 
Mark Zuckerberg can only run a business because Society prevented the Violently inclined people from beating him to death.
his Business is worth ZERO if society decides tomorrow that the right to Personal Privacy exceeds his right to Profit from selling peoples Private details.
He has taken Billions off society Vastly More than 99.9% of society will ever get from Society.


his business skill mean Absolutely Fucking Nothing to Mother nature 
His Business skills are only worth what society says they are worth 


anyway like most things, It's your ignorance and lack of intellect that are the issue... no one else thinks this is a debate... just you being a dumb twat that doesn't know basic stuff trying to argue with those that do

In your opinion, which fails then to recognise buisness before the advent of money

Basing this on one person and how well he has made social media popular is based to the time and how well he has used intelligence to then build up such a company

Ideas do come and go, but for the time he has built up from scratch a popular idea

That takes intelligence, hard work and the ability to succeed

All characteristics that you lack

This can be applied to anything, where people have built up companies whether that be a plumbing industry, to building houses to Lawyer firms etc

The point you are missing and notone of you can defend. Is your claim that they benefit more from society. When as seen they are basically self sufficient

Didge wrote:So not everyone can run a company. As seen there is a number of people that run companies into the ground

It goes back to what I said

What are the characteristics for this?

The most important ingredient in a successful business, is standing on the tracks when the railroad comes through. Is that too elusive an image for you? It is being in the right time and place when favorable winds come along.

The vectors that make for a successful business include business acumen, yes, but that is only a tiny, tiny part of it. Well positioned companies have survived with lousy managers; and many a PhD in management has failed when he did have the right product.

When a war came along and horses had gone out of style, a little tiny automotive company produced a vehicle known as the General Personnel, or GP (later Jeep), which became a major auto manufacturer. That's luck…being on the track when the train comes along.

The claim that great titans built the great industries is a myth. But of course, everyone wants to brag...look at Trump, taking credit for ending nuclear war. And when it comes to economic issues (like taxes) you want to claim all the credit you can. So you exaggerate your importance in order to get a greater share: It's mine, cause I built it.

Bullshite. That's just someone inflating his role so he can grab more marbles for himself. Haven't you ever learned how to bargain? Societies and opportunity builds industries...individuals are mere ants.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So not everyone can run a company. As seen there is a number of people that run companies into the ground

It goes back to what I said

What are the characteristics for this?

The most important ingredient in a successful business, is standing on the tracks when the railroad comes through.  Is that too elusive an image for you?  It is being in the right time and place when favorable winds come along.

The vectors that make for a successful business include business acumen, yes, but that is only a tiny, tiny part of it.  Well positioned companies have survived with lousy managers; and many a PhD in management has failed when he did have the right product.

When a war came along and horses had gone out of style, a little tiny automotive company produced a vehicle known as the General Personnel, or GP (later Jeep), which became a major auto manufacturer.  That's luck…being on the track when the train comes along.

The claim that great titans built the great industries is a myth.  But of course, everyone wants to brag...look at Trump, taking credit for ending nuclear war.     And when it comes to economic issues (like taxes) you want to claim all the credit you can.  So you exaggerate your importance in order to get a greater share: It's mine, cause I built it.

Bullshite.  That's just someone inflating his role so he can grab more marbles for himself.  Haven't you ever learned how to bargain?  Societies and opportunity builds industries...individuals are mere ants.

Really?

Actually the biggest factor for lucrative buisness is war

Its when society excellerates in knowledge, inventions and expertise, exponentially

Sorry you then make bold claims, again not based on evidence that business acumen?

You then base this again based on a claim on some companies that have survived people who are poor at buisness in charge

That in no way understands how people with intelligence, the will to succeed and working hard. (they have an average working week of about 80 hours) are continually successful in business, but this comes at a price with love.

I really continue to laugh how you and veya pick out one thing as if this then backs your argument and in no way looks collectivelly at how many buisnesses are successful and off the bases of those who are leading them

I mean the jeep?

I mean why not go off the German peoples car, the volkswagen, even succesful through the age of Nazism?

I mean seriously Quill, your point was that the rich gain more from society and yet they actually help more people benefit from society and again are self reliant. Based on the welath and profits they have accumalated and what they provide to society. Society gains jobs, which provide money and benefits to help then countless more people. Where even then this provides people with an affordable car. I mean this revolutionized the automobile industry

I think most successful buisness men would simple laugh at your views

For one is based on a bitterness you have towards successful, intelligent hard working people and second, they would scratch their head in wonder at how where you claim to be a successful buisnessman yourself. Where I never questioned this as you did with my elevation from poverty. How again you never answered whether you did so from scratch. How you think your intelligence and hard work, with a will to succeed did not be the major factors that made your law firm successful?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:an how good you are at business only matter because SOCIETY gives them more bits of paper with higher number on it

fuck me, It's not a hard concept MONEY is merely a product of society it's all worthless in reality 
Mark Zuckerberg can only run a business because Society prevented the Violently inclined people from beating him to death.
his Business is worth ZERO if society decides tomorrow that the right to Personal Privacy exceeds his right to Profit from selling peoples Private details.
He has taken Billions off society Vastly More than 99.9% of society will ever get from Society.


his business skill mean Absolutely Fucking Nothing to Mother nature 
His Business skills are only worth what society says they are worth 


anyway like most things, It's your ignorance and lack of intellect that are the issue... no one else thinks this is a debate... just you being a dumb twat that doesn't know basic stuff trying to argue with those that do

In your opinion, which fails then to recognise buisness before the advent of money

Basing this on one person and how well he has made social media popular is based to the time and how well he has used intelligence to then build up such a company

Ideas do come and go, but for the time he has built up from scratch a popular idea

That takes intelligence, hard work and the ability to succeed

All characteristics that you lack

This can be applied to anything, where people have built up companies whether that be a plumbing industry, to building houses to Lawyer firms etc

The point you are missing and notone of you can defend. Is your claim that they benefit more from society. When as seen they are basically self sufficient

LOL businesses as they are today didn't exist before money  

And your trying to forget the foundation without which everything falls over
SOCIETY stopped him being eaten by wolves, killed by another human or just plain starving to death
Doesn't matter how good you are at stealing your room mates code if your dead or having to spend all your time on basic survival

So all you points are toppled Because they lack any foundation  

Didge wrote:I really continue to laugh how you and veya pick out one thing as if this then backs your argument and in no way looks collectivelly at how many buisnesses are successful and off the bases of those who are leading them

One thing?  No...you miss the point that each time, the example is different.  Veya and I have a stockpile of examples, and indeed, together it constitutes a massive plurality of singular items.  What do you want to talk about" Computers?  Aircraft?  Automobiles?  Canning?  Razor blades?  Soap?  Cameras and film?

Frozen foods?  Pharmaceuticals?  Industrial equipment?  Tooling?  Steel?  Aluminum?  Paint?  Light bulbs?  Batteries?  Electrical small appliances, like can openers, irons, microwave ovens, food processors, toasters and toaster ovens, pressure cookers, hot plates, etc.?  Vacuum cleaners?  Building supplies and tools?  Lumber?

The generalities, if that's your concern, are endless.  Every industry was the result of some capability and opportunity that came along, that even a dummy would recognize.  Someone got rich on chance, not skill and hard work. And it was chance that society delivered up, not some hard working businessman.  The myth of hard work and suffering is utter bullshite--even if bulls don't have utters.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I really continue to laugh how you and veya pick out one thing as if this then backs your argument and in no way looks collectivelly at how many buisnesses are successful and off the bases of those who are leading them

One thing?  No...you miss the point that each time, the example is different.  Veya and I have a stockpile of examples, and indeed, together it constitutes a massive plurality of singular items.  What do you want to talk about" Computers?  Aircraft?  Automobiles?  Canning?  Razor blades?  Soap?  Cameras and film?

Frozen foods?  Pharmaceuticals?  Industrial equipment?  Tooling?  Steel?  Aluminum?  Paint?  Light bulbs?  Batteries?  Electrical small appliances, like can openers, irons, microwave ovens, food processors, toasters and toaster ovens, pressure cookers, hot plates, etc.?  Vacuum cleaners?  Building supplies and tools?  Lumber?

The generalities, if that's your concern, are endless.  Every industry was the result of some capability and opportunity that came along, that even a dummy would recognize.  Someone got rich on chance, not skill and hard work.  And it was chance that society delivered up, not some hard working businessman.  The myth of hard work and suffering is utter bullshite--even if bulls don't have utters.

It's funny that he asks for examples when it is literally everything from Cave Art to Artificial Intelligence

Poor old Dodge should never enter into debates about economics, business and taxation...

As every single time he is left floundering in his obvious naive ignorance of the subject..

Big businesse and their lobbying/propaganda arms must love those like Didge, all too willing to freely defend their greed, thievery, exploitation and usurious ways.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I really continue to laugh how you and veya pick out one thing as if this then backs your argument and in no way looks collectivelly at how many buisnesses are successful and off the bases of those who are leading them

One thing?  No...you miss the point that each time, the example is different.  Veya and I have a stockpile of examples, and indeed, together it constitutes a massive plurality of singular items.  What do you want to talk about" Computers?  Aircraft?  Automobiles?  Canning?  Razor blades?  Soap?  Cameras and film?

Frozen foods?  Pharmaceuticals?  Industrial equipment?  Tooling?  Steel?  Aluminum?  Paint?  Light bulbs?  Batteries?  Electrical small appliances, like can openers, irons, microwave ovens, food processors, toasters and toaster ovens, pressure cookers, hot plates, etc.?  Vacuum cleaners?  Building supplies and tools?  Lumber?

The generalities, if that's your concern, are endless.  Every industry was the result of some capability and opportunity that came along, that even a dummy would recognize.  Someone got rich on chance, not skill and hard work.  And it was chance that society delivered up, not some hard working businessman.  The myth of hard work and suffering is utter bullshite--even if bulls don't have utters.

Miss what point?

That you have no idea what you arer talking about and clearly show why you are envious of successful people  

Stockpile of examples, by never showing how they became successful?

I mean I must admit its very fummy watching you both struggle and again such views come from a distain and hate of the rich

I notice you have gone very quite about your claim on having a successful lawyer firm, but I am not surprised

So it does not matter if there is an opportunity, as also people invent many opportunities and ideas (which both of you are also silent on). All of which is makes your views irrelevant. You still have to make it successful and to prove this. I dare you to go out tomorrow and make a social media company successful Quill?

Care to take up this challenge?

Some how I do not think you will, because the first person you would be going to for advice is Mark Elliot Zuckerberg

And after all that garbage from you, not once have you shown that the rich benefit more from society

The debate has turned now more into desperation for either you and Veya to be for once right

That is never going to happen ha ha

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


In your opinion, which fails then to recognise buisness before the advent of money

Basing this on one person and how well he has made social media popular is based to the time and how well he has used intelligence to then build up such a company

Ideas do come and go, but for the time he has built up from scratch a popular idea

That takes intelligence, hard work and the ability to succeed

All characteristics that you lack

This can be applied to anything, where people have built up companies whether that be a plumbing industry, to building houses to Lawyer firms etc

The point you are missing and notone of you can defend. Is your claim that they benefit more from society. When as seen they are basically self sufficient

LOL businesses as they are today didn't exist before money  

And your trying to forget the foundation without which everything falls over
SOCIETY stopped him being eaten by wolves, killed by another human or just plain starving to death
Doesn't matter how good you are at stealing your room mates code if your dead or having to spend all your time on basic survival

So all you points are toppled Because they lack any foundation  

But buisnesses did exist, hence the stuipidity of your understanding

Again not one of you can prove your point, where again the rich pay for themselves

Jordan Peterson is right about you far left Maxists, you hate the rich and successful

I mean not one of you have made a substanciated argument and shows what is wrontg today with middle class champigne socialists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRGB7J9Qv8c

 

Priceless

Didge wrote:Stockpile of examples, by never showing how they became successful?

You don't know how automobiles became successful?  You don't know about the success of air travel?  Electronics?  The steel or aluminum industries?  The computer that you are now working on?

I can't take you seriously.  Much of it has happened in your lifetime...before your eyes.

I gather you are angling for some rabbit-hole by which you might declare yourself a winner.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Stockpile of examples, by never showing how they became successful?

You don't know how automobiles became successful?  You don't know about the success of air travel?  Electronics?  The steel or aluminum industries?  The computer that you are now working on?

I can't take you seriously.  Much of it has happened in your lifetime...before your eyes.

I know inspirational and intelligent people made the sale of cars successful

The point is this, none of these things would have gotten off the ground, without people being able to sel the idea of them to others

You do realise there was two types of automobiles at the start

This is why I am not going to take you seriously, as why did not the steam car take off?

Now here is the flaw in your argument

ouch

Re: Dodge's whacky video offerings :

And where, exactly, is this supposed "common sense" or "reason" in that vacuous albino Tory apologists self-serving and empty-headed "greed is good" video clips...

Her mealy-mouthed abuse of the English language makes it look like she uses the same dictionary as Tommy, Dodge, Smelly and Stormee..

Didge wrote:I know inspirational and intelligent people made the sale of cars successful

And janitors swept up the back room. They were just functionaries.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Re: Dodge's whacky video offerings :

And where, exactly, is this supposed "common sense" or "reason" in that vacuous albino Tory apologists self-serving and empty-headed "greed is good" video clips...

Her mealy-mouthed abuse of the English language makes it look like she uses the same dictionary as Tommy, Dodge, Smelly and Stormee..

Can we actually have a counter point?

Not your fanatsies about masterbating picturing me?

Did anyone notice that wolf called me a she

A sure sign of misogyny

A sure sign that wolf looks down on female opinions and classes me as a girl as an insult

wow

Didge wrote:The point is this, none of these things would have gotten off the ground, without people being able to sel the idea of them to others

Let me introduce you to the fundamental concepts of supply and demand.  Economics itself begins with societal need, which we call demand.  Need is derived from the society, collectively desiring something.  Once the demand is established, suppliers step in to furnish the product.

Among those suppliers are your entrepreneurs, where your idea about the rugged businessman begins.  As you can see, they didn't start the process.  They came relatively late in the cycle.  The opportunity came first, the wealthy simply plucked it.  Hard work, indeed.  

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Re: Dodge's whacky video offerings :

And where, exactly, is this supposed "common sense" or "reason" in that vacuous albino Tory apologists self-serving and empty-headed "greed is good" video clips...

Her mealy-mouthed abuse of the English language makes it look like she uses the same dictionary as Tommy, Dodge, Smelly and Stormee..

Can we actually have a counter point?

Not your fanatsies about masterbating picturing me?

Did anyone notice that wolf called me a she

A sure sign of misogyny

A sure sign that wolf looks down on female opinions and classes me as a girl as an insult

wow

Are we back to bullying again, didge? The topic is economics.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I know inspirational and intelligent people made the sale of cars successful

And janitors swept up the back room.  They were just functionaries.

Did they

Wel;l lets look at criminality and the stupidity of stopping people enjoying things they enjoy

How did prohibition work out?

How has the war on drugs worked out?

The point is, you are nothing more than a resentful hateful little dick, of people more succesful of you

The reason is simple

You never went to any elite school and have to big yourself up

You even make out you know famous and intleligent people

One word to say to that

Insecurities

I would have taken you on face value, but you continually spoil this by trying to big yourself up

I expect you studied law at college

Not that this is a problem, but it proves you are driven by elitism and social exceptance

Frankly, I would simple walk into the room and laugh at how you are constantly bitter of people more succesful than you

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Can we actually have a counter point?

Not your fanatsies about masterbating picturing me?

Did anyone notice that wolf called me a she

A sure sign of misogyny

A sure sign that wolf looks down on female opinions and classes me as a girl as an insult

wow

Are we back to bullying again, didge?  The topic is economics.

Well tell me Quill, is my views wrong if they could be classed as feminine?

Is that you defending a bully, who hates women?

I mean I am sure many women and men would agree with my views

To say "her" was a sign to demean women

Why are you defending his misogyny?

Do you hate women as wolf does, when this is very clear when he has called posters slags?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And janitors swept up the back room.  They were just functionaries.

Did they

Yes, first came demand, then came supply. Anyone who tried to supply where there was no demand, lost. The successful industries served an alive and active demand.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The point is this, none of these things would have gotten off the ground, without people being able to sel the idea of them to others

Let me introduce you to the fundamental concepts of supply and demand.  Economics itself begins with societal need, which we call demand.  Need is derived from the society, collectively desiring something.  Once the demand is established, suppliers step in to furnish the product.

Among those suppliers are your entrepreneurs, where your idea about the rugged businessman begins.  As you can see, they didn't start the process.  They came relatively late in the cycle.  The opportunity came first, the wealthy simply plucked it.  Hard work, indeed.  

So you think supply and deman is just simple supply and demand?

Seriuously

You think there is no coordination in this?

You think no intelligence is required for this?

Why do we have poorer countries then Quill?

Why is there succesful business people there Quill?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are we back to bullying again, didge?  The topic is economics.

Well tell me Quill, is my views wrong if they could be classed as feminine?

Is that you defending a bully, who hates women?

I mean I am sure many women and men would agree with my views

To say "her" was a sign to demean women

Why are you defending his misogyny?

Do you hate women as wolf does, when this is very clear when he has called posters slags?

Didge, this is why posters call you dodge. You are dodging the subject. The topic is economics, not misogyny. I'm sure it was just a typo.

Get back on topic.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Did they

Yes, first came demand, then came supply.  Anyone who tried to supply where there was no demand, lost.  The successful industries served an alive and active demand.

Are you sure?

The native indians?

What happened there?

I mean they beat the US Calvarly at the battle of the Little Big horn, because they had repeating rifles in greater numbers than the 7th US seventh Cavalry

The indians lost the war, where there was demand

Ouch

Want to test me some more on your own historical ignorance?

Didge wrote:The point is, you are nothing more than a resentful hateful little dick, of people more succesful of you

The reason is simple

You never went to any elite school and have to big yourself up

You even make out you know famous and intleligent people

One word to say to that

Insecurities

I would have taken you on face value, but you continually spoil this by trying to big yourself up

I expect you studied law at college

Not that this is a problem, but it proves you are driven by elitism and social exceptance

Frankly, I would simple walk into the room and laugh at how you are constantly bitter of people more succesful than you

Didge, don't try to bully me. The topic is not even about me. The subject is economics.

Get back on topic.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well tell me Quill, is my views wrong if they could be classed as feminine?

Is that you defending a bully, who hates women?

I mean I am sure many women and men would agree with my views

To say "her" was a sign to demean women

Why are you defending his misogyny?

Do you hate women as wolf does, when this is very clear when he has called posters slags?

Didge, this is why posters call you dodge.  You are dodging the subject.  The topic is economics, not misogyny.  I'm sure it was just a typo.

Get back on topic.

Why is it that you ignore the points Quill?

Is it that you have a haircut and share a dress sense with Trump?

The topic was based on your claim

You claimed the rich get more out of society than everyone else

I proved with facts this was bullshit

You then along with the women hating brigade (wolf) decided to continue your stupidity here

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The point is, you are nothing more than a resentful hateful little dick, of people more succesful of you

The reason is simple

You never went to any elite school and have to big yourself up

You even make out you know famous and intleligent people

One word to say to that

Insecurities

I would have taken you on face value, but you continually spoil this by trying to big yourself up

I expect you studied law at college

Not that this is a problem, but it proves you are driven by elitism and social exceptance

Frankly, I would simple walk into the room and laugh at how you are constantly bitter of people more succesful than you

Didge, don't try to bully me.  The topic is not even about me.  The subject is economics.

Get back on topic.

Actually the subject is based on your false claim

I am correcting that claim

I am on topic and as seen, you are no w running away from that

I do not not even have to declare victory

You simple conceeded

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, first came demand, then came supply.  Anyone who tried to supply where there was no demand, lost.  The successful industries served an alive and active demand.

Are you sure?

The native indians?

What happened there?

I mean they beat the US Calvarly at the battle of the Little Big horn, because they had repeating rifles in greater numbers than the 7th US seventh Cavalry

The indians lost the war, where there was demand

Ouch

Want to test me some more on your own historical ignorance?

You've answered your own question. The demand was the westward expansion of the Europeans. The Indians fell to the same movement that made the railroad so successful.

The answer is right under your nose. Process! Didge put your brain in gear and process your thoughts.

Didge wrote:Actually the subject is based on your false claim

You are so confused.  Even if a claim is false, it frames the debate.

Didge wrote:I am correcting that claim

I am on topic and as seen, you are no w running away from that

I do not not even have to declare victory

You simple conceeded

Yet, you have said nothing.  You haven't even debated the question.  You are just declaring yourself the winner.  Shame...that makes you look weak.

Get in the debate, didge.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are you sure?

The native indians?

What happened there?

I mean they beat the US Calvarly at the battle of the Little Big horn, because they had repeating rifles in greater numbers than the 7th US seventh Cavalry

The indians lost the war, where there was demand

Ouch

Want to test me some more on your own historical ignorance?

You've answered your own question.  The demand was the westward expansion of the Europeans.  The Indians fell to the same movement that made the railroad so successful.

The answer is right under your nose.  Process!  Didge put your brain in gear and process your thoughts.

But that is wrong again

Can you think why?

The sale of guns to native americans was not the issue, was it?

The answer is under your nose, but you are avoiding it
So was the sale at the time to the japanese also down to American expansion

Lets see if you truely know your history?

I mean the worst part here, is that you hate those who are more intelligent than you and are successful

I mean why be envious of them when they succeed, when you never have?