Wealth-creator™.

[PhilipT]

I wonder if anyone has any figures on that phenomenon in the UK at the moment.

Good question. The nearest I have found so far, and it only goes up to 2010, is this: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore...n-uk-1998-2010. The interesting numbers are on page 5, but it's all too easy to think of questions they don't answer.

On a completely separate matter - if public services can be provided more cheaply by outsourcing the work isn't that the right course of action, given that it's public money that's being spent? Or is the purpose of public services to provide high-paying jobs for people who wouldn't be able to earn as much in the private sector?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

trickle down is a total lie imv....


some boredees may find this piece too gentle in its critique of the plutocratic elite

up The Intruders

[Serial_Apologist]

trickle down is a total lie imv....


some boredees may find this piece too gentle in its critique of the plutocratic elite

up The Intruders

I thought it was brilliant, and won't be knocking the younger generation any more.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ah the piece is a link to an article that is nowt to do with the splendid young people!

very full sandwich S_A!

[heliocentric]

if public services can be provided more cheaply by outsourcing the work isn't that the right course of action, given that it's public money that's being spent? Or is the purpose of public services to provide high-paying jobs for people who wouldn't be able to earn as much in the private sector?

I'm not sure what you mean by "high-paying jobs", but private-sector jobs (because of that all-important "more cheaply", even though, as we see, things generally don't work out that way at all) tend to be lower-paid, less secure, less numerous and not coincidentally non-unionised (which impacts not just on job security and pay but also safety in workplaces etc.) in comparison with the public sector. Public services should be a service not just to those who use them but also to those who work in them, in an interconnected society where cooperation and mutual support are valued, ie. not like the UK since the 1980s. The "savings" made by providing services more cheaply often don't translate to the service in question being provided more cheaply to those who use it, but rather to the salaries of company directors and dividends of shareholders. One could say that the net result of privatisation tends to be an upward redistribution of wealth.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

outsourcing of public sector work has another unfortunate effect ...consider the security fiasco at the Olympics, the armed services stepped in to offset the supplier's gross incompetence .... whwnever a supplier fails the tax payer pays .... privatised profits and socialised losses

i remain to be convinced that the well known disadvantages of major public sector employment/nationalisation etc were any worse than the nett effects of privatisation ... i suspect any difference to be marginal and based on assumptions not evidence ... there were gross inefficiencies and rent gathering by unions in the public sector but these could have been addressed to ameliorate the costs ...

so we no longer have our energy at the mercy of the NUM but the French National Utility ... meanwhile Mrs T's chums and backers pocketed the cash ... just like er Lord Fink ..... who would like to pay a lot less tax for not investing in the British people with his capital wheezes ...

[ahinton]

ah the piece is a link to an article that is nowt to do with the splendid young people!

very full sandwich S_A!

Whilst I regard the (hopefully now ebbing) prospect of forthcoming American Romnipotence with undisguised horror and whilst the means whereby some of those whom Monbiot accuses have acquired their wealth is obviously open to serious criticism, the problem that I have with his kind of argument is where one is supposed to draw the lines and how one answers the questions that his writings on the subject inevitably and invariably raise.

Firstly, is the amassing of wealth (whatever that is, given that there is no universally accepted set of statistics as to what might be seen to constitute it) a bad thing in every case regardless of how it was done or is it only so in the cases of "speculators, property barons, dukes, IT monopolists, loan sharks, bank chiefs, oil sheikhs, mining magnates, oligarchs and chief executives paid out of all proportion to any value they generate...looters, in short"? If it's the former, then everyone should surely be strongly discouraged as a matter of principle from acquiring any wealth at all - but what good would that do anyone?

Let's consider each of these categories.

Are there not "speculators" of one kind and another in most walks of life and at all levels of wealth and absence thereof? In other words, is life - or indeed can (or, for the matter, should) it ever be - so full of certainties that there is never any risk of their being room for necessary speculations of any kind?

Is a property "baron" is someone who owns more than a certain (unspecified) number of properties or can one be one by virtue of owning just one or two very high value properties? - and, leaving aside the tired and meaningless argument about property (ownership) being theft because, after all, someone has to own it, if property ownership is somehow morally unacceptable, what should become of it and how can the property itself no longer be owned by anyone? If we're considering corporate ownership, where would such an attitude leave the employees of the John Lewis Partnership which is now even proudly including in some of its advertising the fact that every one of them owns it? Should they not in fact "own" (a share in) it on the grounds that applying for, getting and working in a job with John Lewis constitutes some kind of act of speculative acquisition?

IT monopolists, like any other would-be monopolists, are such only as long as no one else can get a foot in their door.

Loan sharks often break the law or sail close to doing so and, as they really are a social scourge, the full force of appropriately amended and tightened law needs to be brought to bear upon them and indeed could be so given sufficient governmental and other will.

Bank chiefs are now very much in the firing line, but who decides on their pay and bonuses? - their shareholders, in the main - and, in any case, are those bank chiefs paid millions in annual salaries, bonuses and golden handshakes when they've performed very well for their shareholders and customers regarded by Monbiot as more deserving of their income as those who've been grossly overpaid for performing badly? - somehow, I doubt it!

As to "oil sheikhs, mining magnates (and) oligarchs", not all who have made fortunes out of oil are "sheiks" and if enough people start making a pile out of sustainable energy sources currently regarded as "alternative", they might lose those fortunes too, or at least cease being able to add to them. Is it even possible to be a successful mining magnate without making money? Some of those who do make some of it do so in countries in which, were their fortunes from it to be taxed to pieces, the governments of those countries would be able as a direct consequence to act even more corruptly than they do now. "Oligarchs" is a mere portmanteau word used without specific definition for the purpose of bolstering an argument, it seems to me. For chief executives, see bank chiefs.

Secondly, is inherited wealth immoral or only if the inherited amount exceeds a certain (again unspecified) figure? Is it immoral for charities to inherit wealth?

Thirdly, if wealth were to be taxed sufficiently heavily and successfully everywhere (which it would have to be if the risk of its movement from unfavourable to favourable tax régimes were to be curtailed), to what extent could one trust the governments of the countries taking that extra tax to use it wisely and efficiently and, even if so, who would benefit and mightn't enough of it used wisely enough risk making some poorer people wealthy?

Fourthly, the idea of bleeding the top 10% (or whatever figure anyone might choose) of wealthy people and corporations is daft because, once that's been done, there will always remain a top 10% (or whatever figure you may choose).

As I've observed more times than I can remember, my concern is less about wealth inequalities than it is about poverty and part of the reason for that is that the former is and will forever remain an inevitability everywhere whereas the latter is something that is amenable to being addressed, given the will and the ability to do so.

Monbiot provides credible and relevant statistics to bolster his arguments and there is much of which to take serious notice in what he writes, not least about those instances where individual and corporate wealth has demonstrably been created on the backs of grave injustices and advantage-takings; however, if the kind of wealth redistribution advocated by those of left leanings were encouraged successfully, would that not mean that, as governments would thereby acquire more to redistribute on the backs of the same injustices and advantage-takings, they would accordingly become dependent upon and in thrall to the wealth of such people otherwise they'd not have the sources from which to be able to acquire a slice of such individual and corporate wealth by means of taxation, which would surely identify them as being at least as immoral as those who made the money that they'd taxed in the first place!

Who is at fault when people and corporations used tax havens and more advantageous tax régimes - those who take advantage of them or those who set them up and operate them? As to the latter of these issues, I happen to know someone who relocated a small business with 23 employees from France to Ireland solely on tax grounds and that firm can now as a direct consequence afford to - and indeed does - employ 59 people and the fellow who owns it is taking no more out of it for himself now than he did when it was based in France. Was it or was it not commercially sensible and indeed morally justifiable for him to make and implement that decision?

I remember Sorabji (who was certainly no left-winger!) once saying that, in a more "equal" world, he would have been endowed with the same pianistic gifts as was Rachmaninov as well as the ability to use them well but that, in the real world, no one had such gifts besides Rachmaninov himself.

On the basis of some of the arguments presented by Monbiot and others of like mind, I should perhaps remember that, even though I am not at all wealthy, there are plenty of others poorer than I am and, even though neither fact is my fault, I must nevertheless be classifiable as parasitic just like Romney et al, at least by all of those poorer than me.

[ahinton]

outsourcing of public sector work has another unfortunate effect ...consider the security fiasco at the Olympics, the armed services stepped in to offset the supplier's gross incompetence .... whwnever a supplier fails the tax payer pays .... privatised profits and socialised losses

Sorry, aka, but your argument here is dependent upon a presumption that when such work in undertaken by the public sector all must always be well and only when and because it isn't can anything ever go awry as indeed was the case in the fiasco that you rightly mention; that presumption is itself in turn dependent upon a belief that only public sector employees can ever get it right. That said, had the government withdrawn armed forces troops from places where they've no place to be instead of relying so heavily upon the services of G4S, they'd at least have been seen to put the public money where there mouth ought to have been!

i remain to be convinced that the well known disadvantages of major public sector employment/nationalisation etc were any worse than the nett effects of privatisation ... i suspect any difference to be marginal and based on assumptions not evidence ... there were gross inefficiencies and rent gathering by unions in the public sector but these could have been addressed to ameliorate the costs ...

I'm largely with you on this, but only because it supports what I've always believed about such matters in that it's the levels of training, encouragement, incentives and will on the part of employers and employees alike to make the most of what they do that matters far more than whether any of them are public sector or private sector employers and employees.

[heliocentric]

outsourcing of public sector work has another unfortunate effect ...consider the security fiasco at the Olympics, the armed services stepped in to offset the supplier's gross incompetence .... whenever a supplier fails the tax payer pays .... privatised profits and socialised losses

Quite. I was also trying to point at a more philosophical angle on the question: whether we'd rather live in a society where everyone is out for themselves and trying to undercut one another no matter what the wider repercussions and implications might be, or one where everyone recognises their responsibility to contribute to improving life for everyone else. Ahinton says "The duty of (...) taxpayers is to protect their incomes and assets from as much tax as legitimately possible", and this strikes me as a sad reflection of Thatcher's "no such thing as society" attitude.

[Simon]

Quite. I was also trying to point at a more philosophical angle on the question: whether we'd rather live in a society where everyone is out for themselves and trying to undercut one another no matter what the wider repercussions and implications might be, or one where everyone recognises their responsibility to contribute to improving life for everyone else.

Well, clearly the latter is the best society, and clearly many people would wish it. It's unlikely to happen, though, because too many people are greedy, selfish and envious.

... a sad reflection of Thatcher's "no such thing as society" attitude.

Oh how incredibly boring. Another ill-thought-out comment from someone who has completely failed, or who doesn't wish, to grasp the philosophy behind her speech - which was the very opposite of what the left tries to portray it as.

[heliocentric]

Another ill-thought-out comment from someone who has completely failed, or who doesn't wish, to grasp the philosophy behind her speech - which was the very opposite of what the left tries to portray it as.

In fact it wasn't a speech but an interview in Woman's Own magazine in 1987. In what way would you say I haven't grasped the philosophy behind it? The passage in question, though in fact it's fairly inarticulate, is largely a diatribe, of the kind which has become increasingly prevalent in more recent years, calling into question the system of benefits for the less well-off on the grounds that some people abuse it (a relatively very small number then as now). The relevance to the current discussion is quite clear I think: we're looking at the difference between contributing as much as you can or as little as you can get away with (like ahinton's tax philosophy or Thatcher's "look after your own (family) and let everyone else go to hell").

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i do wish you would read what i actually posted and not what you thought i did ... i wrote that the disadvantages of public sector ownership were real but no worse than the ones from privatisation and i was not being one sided ... the implication is that the decision criteria might be values other than ££££££££££££ and decison processes that are not a faux rationality of cost benefit analysis with lacunae and assumptions ...

the constant wriggling about points on a pins head misses the point altogether ... the power system in our society is operated by gangsters .... they have to be dealt with before it will be possible to debate any policy other than theft and how to disguise it ... paid a utility bill this quarter day?

btw there is evidence for more optimal distributions of wealth and status in society - try reading The Spirit level or The Status Syndrome .... and the distribution of wealth measure is called the Gini Coefficient go read that up as well ...

[PhilipT]

i do wish you would read what i actually posted ... btw there is evidence for more optimal distributions of wealth and status in society - try reading The Spirit level or The Status Syndrome .... and the distribution of wealth measure is called the Gini Coefficient go read that up as well ...

To pick up on what you've actually said, then: Do you consider that getting the distribution right is all that matters? Is it not also important for there to be an incentive to create new wealth (bearing in mind the title at the head of all this)? Or is it wrong to have such an incentive if it results in inequality? (Hint: Cuba).

I don't suggest the opposite, that there should be unbridled inequality. Far from it. But can't you see that if you impose equality of outcomes (rather than equality of opportunity) then you remove the incentives to strive and innovate that create new wealth?

[heliocentric]

But can't you see that if you impose equality of outcomes (rather than equality of opportunity) then you remove the incentives to strive and innovate that create new wealth?

I know you aren't asking me, but no, I can't see that - plenty of people strive and innovate (many composers of music, for example) with little or no promise of creating wealth for themselves or anyone else: plus you're assuming that endless economic growth is both desirable and possible, which I think is quite unwarranted.

[Serial_Apologist]

I've had to edit out as this message was originally too long to send - apologies ahinton.

Whilst I regard the (hopefully now ebbing) prospect of forthcoming American Romnipotence with undisguised horror and whilst the means whereby some of those whom Monbiot accuses have acquired their wealth is obviously open to serious criticism, the problem that I have with his kind of argument is where one is supposed to draw the lines and how one answers the questions that his writings on the subject inevitably and invariably raise.

Start a public discussion, (as they're always described) - Where to draw the lines.

Where should we draw the lines on personal wealth amassment?

How far does one want the uncertainties that surround us to condition choices and decisionmaking - and presumably you are thinking in terms of such things as will the price of this property, collateral, whatever, or the market for this invention go up or down? Are uncertainties in life A Good Thing in themselves? If so, are there enough of them or should there be more? Or are they a bad thing, of which there should be less?

Why are properties very high valued in the first place? Where did the property "baron" get the money from to be able to own not just one, but two? What did s/he do in life to justify this right to such wealth and property? Would people, after exhaustively engaging with economiasts, psychologists, philosophers, sociologists, religious representatives and each other, not be coming up with answers to these questions, ignored, as they generally are, by the media?

One alternative coming immediately to mind could be ownership in common, with "the books" open to scrutiny under some form of disclosure of information legislation more amenable to public access than that of present.

If we're considering corporate ownership, where would such an attitude leave the employees of the John Lewis Partnership which is now even proudly including in some of its advertising the fact that every one of them owns it? Should they not in fact "own" (a share in) it on the grounds that applying for, getting and working in a job with John Lewis constitutes some kind of act of speculative acquisition?

Only because the employees at JLP are put in the position of being in competition with those of other companies making similar products in parallel, the exchange value of whose labour power they are thereby put in the position of wanting to be devalued in order to advantage themselves from disadvantage capitalism has contrived their brothers and sisters to be caught in.

IT monopolists, like any other would-be monopolists, are such only as long as no one else can get a foot in their door.

Quite!

Loan sharks often break the law or sail close to doing so and, as they really are a social scourge, the full force of appropriately amended and tightened law needs to be brought to bear upon them and indeed could be so given sufficient governmental and other will.

That almost goes without saying; but the follow-on question then becomes: what sort of government and governmental structure would secure such a will among the general public as to guarantee this?

As to "oil sheikhs, mining magnates (and) oligarchs", not all who have made fortunes out of oil are "sheiks" and if enough people start making a pile out of sustainable energy sources currently regarded as "alternative", they might lose those fortunes too, or at least cease being able to add to them. Is it even possible to be a successful mining magnate without making money?

Under the present system, it amounts to a tautology.

Some of those who do make some of it do so in countries in which, were their fortunes from it to be taxed to pieces, the governments of those countries would be able as a direct consequence to act even more corruptly than they do now. "Oligarchs" is a mere portmanteau word used without specific definition for the purpose of bolstering an argument, it seems to me. For chief executives, see bank chiefs.

Which is why it seems ethical to support critically political oppositions within such countries to such corruption, at the same time pointing out that we are all victims (apart from the rich and powerful, who gain through their support for or noncommitance regarding the existence of such governments).

[...] Is inherited wealth immoral or only if the inherited amount exceeds a certain (again unspecified) figure? Is it immoral for charities to inherit wealth?

Again, it's a question of where to draw lines.

If wealth were to be taxed sufficiently heavily and successfully everywhere (which it would have to be if the risk of its movement from unfavourable to favourable tax régimes were to be curtailed), to what extent could one trust the governments of the countries taking that extra tax to use it wisely and efficiently and, even if so, who would benefit and mightn't enough of it used wisely enough risk making some poorer people wealthy?

My answer to that one is suggested two paragraphs earlier

Fourthly, the idea of bleeding the top 10% (or whatever figure anyone might choose) of wealthy people and corporations is daft because, once that's been done, there will always remain a top 10% (or whatever figure you may choose).

Is the logical conclusion then that the top 10% should be bled less then, taxwise? Surely, leaving aside the issue of power, prestige and influence enjoyed by the wealthy, the problem we have arises from the massive, growing, income differentials between the top and bottom layers of society.

As I've observed more times than I can remember, my concern is less about wealth inequalities than it is about poverty and part of the reason for that is that the former is and will forever remain an inevitability everywhere whereas the latter is something that is amenable to being addressed, given the will and the ability to do so.

You seem unconcerned about the issue of power that wealth confers, and in this we differ.

Monbiot provides credible and relevant statistics to bolster his arguments and there is much of which to take serious notice in what he writes, not least about those instances where individual and corporate wealth has demonstrably been created on the backs of grave injustices and advantage-takings; however, if the kind of wealth redistribution advocated by those of left leanings were encouraged successfully, would that not mean that, as governments would thereby acquire more to redistribute on the backs of the same injustices and advantage-takings, they would accordingly become dependent upon and in thrall to the wealth of such people otherwise they'd not have the sources from which to be able to acquire a slice of such individual and corporate wealth by means of taxation, which would surely identify them as being at least as immoral as those who made the money that they'd taxed in the first place!

Not necessarily. You are choosing to generalise as universal the existing system of wealth generation, from which corruption, speculation, gross inequalities, environmental despoliation and, at the end, exchange values are generated. This is an awfully wasteful way of going about things.

Who is at fault when people and corporations used tax havens and more advantageous tax régimes - those who take advantage of them or those who set them up and operate them? As to the latter of these issues, I happen to know someone who relocated a small business with 23 employees from France to Ireland solely on tax grounds and that firm can now as a direct consequence afford to - and indeed does - employ 59 people and the fellow who owns it is taking no more out of it for himself now than he did when it was based in France. Was it or was it not commercially sensible and indeed morally justifiable for him to make and implement that decision?

I don't believe it is an issue of who is at fault - the presenting problem as I see it is one of the systematic failure of capitalism to produce rational, sustainable growth on the worldwide scale. Then, and only then, does the question of blame arise for those whom history has repeatedly proven to stand in the way of change, using the power of what is effectively their states to maintain their privileges and controls over the sociopolitical order.

In the kind of world my imagination conjures in order to give my own life some sense of meaning, there would be room for respecting all abilities, and undoubtedly for encouraging those the present system wastefully leaves on the margins.