[rocketassist]

Yeah the rich got rich cause they all worked hard so when the son of Lord Toff becomes a Toff himself, we can celebrate the mountain he climbed to get there.

[EddceLLent]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

harder sanctions will contain the revolution in the mean time but they won't be able to extinguish the unerlying causes behind it

Lol at you spunking your pants at the thought of a revolution. Talk of a revolution is absolute nonsense.

Originally Posted by shiaben

There's no problem with the rich or even having wealth. But they should pay taxes like the rest of the working class. It would help the economies of their respective nations.

Most of them do, and we wouldn't be able to provide safety nets for the poor without their contributions.

Originally Posted by star

2. Rich people are usually rich because they inherited wealth from their relatives. That is the most usual way people have acquired wealth.

Is this based on any kind of evidence or is it just you making the assumption?

Originally Posted by star

In reality, hard work does not lead to wealth. Many working class people work longer hours and at body crushing labor and never become rich or are even able to get medical insurance. And here I am only talking about western economies. I’m not talking about the millions and millions who toil from dawn to dusk to merely stave off starvation.

So please don’t even entertain the thought that people who do not have money are lazy. You have no idea what people go through to merely maintain their families at malnourished levels.

You're right here - hard work doesn't automatically lead to wealth. Wages are based on the availability of labour to perform a certain role, if there's not many people who can do a certain job then it'll pay better.

In a sense I agree with your assertion that it's wrong to call poor people lazy - because they're mostly not. I don't think the poster you were replying to was really saying that though, I think he was referring specifically to the guy who started the thread. (btw I assume everyone is male, sorry idk your genders)

Originally Posted by abraxas21

like i said to certinfy: read the whole article. it's not just her case, it's the way the english courts have dealt with all of the people who have been involved or were involved in the riots.

The courts have the power to give sentences as a deterrent. I, as a law abiding citizen of the UK, am happy to see that they've done so here. There's a duty to protect the law abiding majority of the country, and so it needs to be made abundantly clear that we will not allow the kind of behaviour that we saw during the riots. It was made absolutely clear before the riots became widespread that it'd be dealt with severely, and so anyone that took part has only him or herself to blame now that they're having to face the consequences of their actions.

Who are people kidding anyway???? This wasn't a revolt against the rich...look at the victims of the rioting - the ordinary citizens whose homes were burned to the ground, the small business owners who lost everything that they'd worked for, the emergency services that came under attack in the course of trying to protect us. It's outrageous. What annoys me even more is that some people with a left wing agenda started to make noises about inequality, thus giving the rioters a shred of an excuse for their actions. They might say now that it's a protest against the rich, but you can bet that was never on their mind when they were busy stealing trainers and electrical goods FOR THEMSELVES, exhibiting the very greed that any anti-capitalist protestor would espouse as being the source of such evil.

Before people harp on about inequality why don't they think about the people in countries where there are no safety nets, where the poor rely on only their own ingenuity to avoid starving to death. The reason that we, except for a very small number of isolated cases, don't have that in the UK is because of capitalism - enabling us to use our resources effectively in order to allow everyone the opportunity to have an acceptable standard of living.

Capitalism does result in inequalities - there's no doubt about that - but that's not the argument - the question we need to ask ourselves is what other system could we use to allocate resources more effectively? The truth is there is no better system that's proven to work as well in achieving the best standard of living possible for as many people as possible. Without capitalism there would be little opportunity for redistribution of wealth because there'd be comparatively so little of it to redistribute. So hows about we stop to think about those who are truly needy before we start denigrating the very system that means we're lucky enough to not be going hungry.

[Lopez]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Yeah the rich got rich cause they all worked hard so when the son of Lord Toff becomes a Toff himself, we can celebrate the mountain he climbed to get there.

Either they themselves worked hard or someone in their family . You're saying Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg didn't work hard?

Fact is, success is based on hard work, there are a lot of studies about it... Businessmen hone their craft as well.

It's time people stop being jealous and start being productive.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Lopez

Either they themselves worked hard or someone in their family . You're saying Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg didn't work hard?

Fact is, success is based on hard work, there are a lot of studies about it... Businessmen hone their craft as well.

It's time people stop being jealous and start being productive.

Did the Royal Family work hard to be rich? I suppose William the Conqueror 'earned' the throne at Hastings, did he not?

[safin-rules-no.1]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Did the Royal Family work hard to be rich?

All those countries didn't invade themselves.

[Lopez]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Did the Royal Family work hard to be rich? I suppose William the Conqueror 'earned' the throne at Hastings, did he not?

Yes because all rich people have been kings

Isn't it better to actually try to create the possibilities for yourself than complain about it? Fact is, a lot of rich people create their own fortune and that's what I aim to do as well.

Naturally I'm working under the assumption that a country has the things organized which I mentioned (education, health etc.).

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by EddceLLent

Lol at you spunking your pants at the thought of a revolution. Talk of a revolution is absolute nonsense.

apples and oranges, i know, but when the english courts where condemning youngters to 10+ month sentences over stealing sneakers, in iceland they were planning the way for a new constitution, a more democratic one, after the corrupt former leaders of the country were put in prison due to the people taking a stand against the abusive forces of today's capitalism.

sooner or later, many other countries will follow iceland's path and they won't be revolutions (like in iceland, the system won't be totally replaced) but they certainly help the course of democracy and the cleaning up of the political machinery.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Lopez

Yes because all rich people have been kings

Isn't it better to actually try to create the possibilities for yourself than complain about it? Fact is, a lot of rich people create their own fortune and that's what I aim to do as well.

Naturally I'm working under the assumption that a country has the things organized which I mentioned (education, health etc.).

Because everyone's talented enough to run a business

The ConDems lie about the NHS cuts. Under this appalling government, the NHS will be screwed if they somehow fluked a second term (or if the Tories won the next election)- neither are happening.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

apples and oranges, i know, but when the english courts where condemning youngters to 10+ month sentences over stealing sneakers, in iceland they were planning the way for a new constitution, a more democratic one, after the corrupt former leaders of the country were put in prison due to the people taking a stand against the abusive forces of today's capitalism.

sooner or later, many other countries will follow iceland's path and they won't be revolutions (like in iceland, the system won't be totally replaced) but they certainly help the course of democracy and the cleaning up of the political machinery.

Sometimes I wonder if you have any connection to reality at all.

FACT: In a global corruption index, the western countries are clearly separated from the rest of the world. The correlation is almost perfect: western capitalist system = least corrupt societies.

Iceland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world - ahead of every single Latin American country. What made news was that there was actually some corruption in Iceland. But compared to every non western country, it was insignificant. If you want to see corruption-free countries, the Western capitalist model has been proved 100% to be the route to take. Just the facts.

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

FACT: In a global corruption index, the western countries are clearly separated from the rest of the world. The correlation is almost perfect: western capitalist system = least corrupt societies.

keep believing in the indexes of people's perceptions about their countries' corruption levels. in nations in which the media is inevitably tied to commercial interests, the general public is only gonna get access to certain things.

Iceland is one of the least corrupt countries in the world - ahead of every single Latin American country. What made news was that there was actually some corruption in Iceland.

some? No, sir. "Some corruption" doesn't account for the results that happened. No sure why you have to add Latin America to the mix but let me tell you, my country, easily one of the most capitalist of the region, also fairs well in corruption indexes and I know it's BS. Corruption might not happen much at a small citizen-cop or citizen-gvt level, but it's completely institutionalized at at big business-state level. Most of our legislators and top gvt official are riddled with commercial conflicts of interest. Most people are of course unaware (thanks again, free press), hence why we fare relatively well in those so called indexes.

But compared to every non western country, it was insignificant. If you want to see corruption-free countries, the Western capitalist model has been proved 100% to be the route to take. Just the facts.

right.

Sometimes I wonder if you have any connection to reality at all.

no mirrors in your house, it seems...

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

keep believing in the indexes of people's perceptions about their countries' corruption levels. in nations in which the media is inevitably tied to commercial interests, the general public is only gonna get access to certain things.


Most people are of course unaware (thanks again, free press), hence why we fare relatively well in those so called indexes.

Who ever said it was ''people's perceptions''?

You are so lucky to be so different and unique as to be not one of the general public. But then, that is not the ''people's perception'', just your own.

But at least the answer you came up with to my statement that the path to least corruption has been overwhelmingly shown to be the western economic model is ''right.''
Not much else you could say, actually.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

my country, easily one of the most capitalist of the region, also fairs well in corruption indexes and I know it's BS. Corruption might not happen much at a small citizen-cop or citizen-gvt level, but it's completely institutionalized at at big business-state level. Most of our legislators and top gvt official are riddled with commercial conflicts of interest. Most people are of course unaware (thanks again, free press), hence why we fare relatively well in those so called indexes.

Maybe you haven't woken up to the fact that even though your country is capitalist and has a lot of corruption, RELATIVE to surrounding states that are more socialist, Chile is the LEAST corrupt.

But of course, you once again fall back on your standby answer that nobody knows the truth but yourself. Self delusion is your forte.

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

Who ever said it was ''people's perceptions''?

what are they based on then? Independent studies from independent organizations?

But at least the answer you came up with to my statement that the path to least corruption has been overwhelmingly shown to be the western economic model is ''right.''
Not much else you could say, actually.

not sure how you got to that conclusion, but whatever floats your boat, i guess.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

what are they based on then? Independent studies from independent organizations?



not sure how you got to that conclusion, but whatever floats your boat, i guess.

Right wing studies from right wing organizations. Isn't everything you don'l like automatically sourced to western imperialist lies?

It was your conclusion, I thought.

[abraxas21]

not really my conclusion

but the western economic model is kind of a vague term. for starters, i'd much prefer iceland over england or canada over the USA. i'm not really anti western as many times you and others have labeled me. i simply advocate for democracy (the truly inclusive and participative one), respect for human rights, respect of other countries' internal affairs, social assistance to those in need and freedom. then again, this wasn't about me...