you cannot stop people for being an d***, you just need regulation to made sure they dont pull some d*** move to screw everyone for their own gain.

this is way off topic.

how do you regulate 6 billion people?

in our capitalistic world, the top 10% of the world population holds 85% of the world's wealth. the top 2% holds 50%.

this means that if the world population is 100 people, and the total wealth of the world is 100 units, the top 10 people have 8.5 units per head, while the rest of the 90 people of the world only have 0.16 units per head. The top 10% people has 53 times more wealth than the rest of the world.

and obviously none of them deserve most of their wealth.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are perhaps the two richest men alive. Can you tell me what exactly it is that they do everyday that deserves them +USD40 billion in their banks, which is probably a million times more money than you and i will ever see in our lives? Does this mean that they are working a million times harder than you and me?

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: May 22 2010, 01:03 AM

Hi kitteh, the world's billionaires aren't working a million times more than you & I. They're just many times smarter, and braver. They use financial leverages to do heavy lifting in the same way as you'd use a pulley to lift something 100 times heavier than you. Their spend their time searching for these leverages while we work for hourly wages.

We can only say they don't deserve their wealth if they cheated others in the process. In a free market, its willing buyer willing seller. People allow themselves to be used as leverage like M'sia Boleh's infamous Ali Baba system, for a fee of course. Both sides take a risk. Maybe it isn't fair but come to think of it, is anything really fair in the world?

In my opinion, the one who DESERVES a billion dollars is not one who works a million times harder than anyone else, but one who makes work easier for a million people.

So you're saying it's morally okay for the super wealthy people to deserve all their money not by contributing towards society by physically working like how it's supposed to be in the first place, but by outsmarting everyone into giving them more money? And getting returns a hundred fold compared to other people who actually physically work day by day in blood and sweat?

And difference between me using a pulley to lift heavy objects and an tradesman who overcharges his product 500% more than it's worth and underpays his workers is that one involves manipulation of machinery, while the other involves manipulation of HUMAN BEINGS.

This post has been edited by mylife4nerzhul: May 22 2010, 04:41 PM

i have to disagree, does contribution to society only comes through blood and sweat? how about thinkers, philosopher and researchers?

and society in general seemed to be allowing such practise to happen, cause no one actually forced the workers to work for the bosses. you seemed to be under the impression that top CEOs are nothing more than fat kings living off the toils of their corporate slaves.

I think you're missing the point. What kitteh was saying is that it's immoral for a certain few privileged people to prosper over the backs of other people's work, regardless of whether it's the farmer, the factory manager or the teacher. The "blood and sweat" wasn't meant to be taken literally.


Really? In this world, you either work for someone, or you're the boss. If you're really lucky, you will work for someone who won't exploit you. If you're a person of good-heart, you will treat your employees well without exploiting them. Unfortunately, there's too much of the former, too little of the latter.

I will let my friend, Tom Morello, explain further:



Replace America with any other country, and you'll still get the same result.

Granted, there's people out there who treat their workers as more than just sweatshop factory mules, but they are few and far between.

This post has been edited by VMSmith: May 22 2010, 05:16 PM

well, i feel that proper leadership is worth much more than grunt work. in any system you ll need proper overseeing and strategy to direct and focus the grunts below them to a cohesive force.

now the issue is, is this exploitation? a general generally stays out of harms way and direct soldiers to risk their lives. in a war, which is more valuable? i dont think you can assign the same value for a soldier vs a general.

correct, if you feel like you are "exploited" and dont like it, you are free to start your own business and "exploit" others. quotation is that i dont feel it is exploitation per se. slaves and serfs are exploited, employer/employee is a symbiotic relationship

Dude, don't get me wrong. I know where you're coming from and when you put it that way, yes it sound immoral.

BUT, firstly do re-examine again if someone like Bill Gates really contributed nothing to society. Try and google up "Bill Gates charity" and see what you get. Gates and many other billionaires like him provide one important function: they provide employment and with it, salaries, benefits, taxes, and other things that ripple down to your pocket and mine. If you removed Gates & others like him, not only you won't have Windows. Tens of thousands of people who work for Microsoft will be out of work. There will be hardship for their dependents, and the merchants that provide to them, and their dependents, merchants who sell computers on Windows and so on and so forth.

So how do you propose people like Gates be compensated? Pay him $5 an hour?

If the people who provide us employment are outsmarting us, then could you give an example of how we could get jobs and not be outsmarted?

And I agree, the pulley system analogy and your example of overcharging is different. Its apples and oranges lah, cannot be compared. Here's how I can do a financial pulley. I use my salary, say $10k, to take out a bank loan of $50,000 for a business. I use that $50k to pay a downpayment for goods worth $100,000. So from $10k on paper, I get goods worth ten times the value. That is how I leverage. Its willing buyer willing lender/seller all the way, everything's transparent, no one's forced.

Now I would agree not everyone's an angel. There are those who manipulate others big time and they should be called for who they are - unethical opportunists and some, criminals. But trust me, it would be a mistake to think that everyone is business is like that.

---

Added on May 22, 2010, 7:47 pmIf I work for a boss, can I say that I am exploiting him for money, especially if I'm a lazybones sort of guy who goofs off much of the workday?

i think in economics, exploit is a neutral technical term, meant to mean getting something in exchange for something. For example working 8 hours a day in return for X amount of pay. It is not meant to carry the negative connotation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This post has been edited by Beastboy: May 22 2010, 09:31 PM

So Bill Gates set up a charity foundation and suddenly it's all okay? So you're saying if i rob $1 million from a bank and give half of it to charity then it'd be okay? He can act philanthropic all he wants, but stealing is stealing.

Compensating Gates? It's HIM who should compensate everyone else, since in the early days, Microsoft bullied and drove other competitors out of business which resulted in the Windows monopoly that you see today.

I'm not saying that all employers are taking advantage of their employees. What I'm saying is that the employer is morally responsible in paying their employees their due, and not just giving only the top executives RM50,000 bonuses a year while their employee wages remain stagnant or even dropping.

If by leveraging you mean setting up a business with a loan, then there is nothing wrong with that. As long as you pay the bank, your tax collectors, your workers, and everyone else their rightful dues, there is nothing wrong. It's when you start overpaying yourself and start underpaying others and overcharging your services when things start to go wrong. Unfortunately that's is the norm among employers and corporations these days.

No one's forced? You speak as if the willing buyer/willing seller system is flawless and incorruptible. Tell me, what OS are you using right now? Windows? Are you using windows because it's a superior operating system? Or because it's the only OS that supports all your favorite programs, which is the direct result of Windows monopoly? I bet it's the latter. It doesn't seem like a choice now is it?

Back in my college days, there was a mamak restaurant nearby who overcharges their food. The thing is they are the only mamak restaurant within that area, so it's either travel 8 km away to eat or pay RM6.00 for just fried chicken and rice. Now it doesn't seem like a choice now is it?

Do you see the problem complaining about rich people?

Ok, in your ideal world, some one like Warren Buffett should not have USD40b in his account. Ok, so lets say we cap his earnings per year to 100k. What would happen then? He would simply do enough to earn 100k and just chill for the rest of the year. Whose is going to make up for the lost income generated by him? There would be a significant lost of productivity from one of the best asset allocators in the world. This is what is known as a deadweight lost.

The fact is, he is worth USD40b because he has done USD40b worth of net work. And he has done it legally while indirectly it also increased social welfare. If you think he is overpaid, go do what he does. Increase in supply would drive down the price. Simple economics.

The socialist nirvana in a lot of younger people's mind simply does not exist. A bricklayer laying bricks for 10 hours does not equal to the amount of work that Warren Buffett does in 10 hours. Firstly, 10 hours of bricklaying work would probably only add USD1000 to the value of the house/economy. 10 hours of Buffett's work would add maybe 1000x of USD1000 to a company/economy. It is easy to see why Buffett's work is valued higher by everyone(market participants). It is because he adds tremendous value. Secondly, almost every able bodied person could do bricklaying after a short amount of training. And the fact is, no one is able to do what Buffett is able to do. Even people with a parallel amount of technical skill (ie Charlie Munger) cannot do what he does. He has a certain je ne sais quoi and a certain talent combined with a favourable environment that makes him really really good at what he does. A socialist nirvana would not reward either of those. Talented people that could positively change the world are suppressed. The world would be worse off if you do not allow talent to flourish.

I have 2 PCs. One is SUSE, the other Ubuntu. If you have admin access to the forum you can even check to see what OS I'm using if you feel I'm not telling the truth.

Dude, you're making all kinds of generalizations without checking/asking first. Its hard to have a sensible conversation when you don't give the other party the benefit of doubt.

Mac OS X FTW! ofc, we are OT

in case of that overpriced mamak, you'd wonder why no one else opened a more "reasonable" priced store. My uni was totally different, thre was 1 popular mamak where seniors traditionally bring juniors go, then he started overcharging and under delivering on quality. by the time i grad, no one goes there anymore.

its easy to say "pay their dues" but how do you know they are not already being paid their dues?

last time i heard his salary is around 50k per month.....that's more than enough for him for the rest of his life

i think bill gate and warren buffet don't have 40+ billion in their bank account

if im not wrong it's their net worth mostly base on stock market price....and who drive the price? invester

if microsoft stock suddenly plummet at around $1...do you think bill gate will still rate as world number 1 richest person?

This post has been edited by dr2k3: May 22 2010, 11:24 PM

Doesn't matter. I was just trying to make a point. It is easier to illustrate it when you consider his asset as cash. Bringing in networth and stock's market value would just open a can of liquidity worms that is probably more suited for another topic.

so if i have a house (100k) + cash 10k

so you count me have 110k cash?

I would count you as having 110k cash if:
1) The market has sufficient liquidity to allow you to liquidate your house as soon as you want to
2) The market has enough liquidity to ensure that you receive fair value for your house ie. close or marginal to the value of a previous sale of a similar asset that offers the same risk and return.
3) The is no cyclical bust in the market that is currently artificially depressing your house and the liquidation of your house has little to no impact on the market.
4) There is minimal to no transaction cost

Like I say, I am only using USD40b in the bank to illustrate a point. That was not the crux of my previous post. How does having USD40b in the bank or networth make any difference to the spirit of original post you quoted?

actually i m responding to mylife4nerzhul $40billion in bank