RSS Feed Share on Facebook Send this to Twitter | Login Login | Register
City Independent
The Hull City Fanzine
 
Hull City Forum

Hull City Forum

Deails Post
24 posts. < 1 2 > Show 15 30

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11465 posts
First used 11/01/17

#16
01/07/2018 at 17:05

Quote Quote by candw on 01/07/2018 at 12:11
It's the way that someone can have £20 000 000 000 in the first place that amazes me. If his diggers made that much it's because the people who built the diggers were grossly underpaid doing their work. Or people had to pay over the odds for the product because rivals didn't reduce prices to win a trade monopoly. Cartels.

It's not all factories. Ordinary people would invest in different things, like better housing, but they can't afford the one they've got or rent, let alone finance another.

Nobody is morally worth a billion ordinarily people. Nor financially worth it.


They are only creating assets worth that money because of millions of MUTUALLY beneficial trades. The idea that somehow it’s wrong to create many such two-way opportunities without coercion, threat or violence is ridiculous. You don’t seem to understand the very basics of economics. You really need to study the nature of value.

Such hierarchy existed way way before capitalism anyway so you need to look for much deeper causes to inequality. 

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11465 posts
First used 11/01/17

#17
01/07/2018 at 17:07

Quote Quote by essexgull on 01/07/2018 at 13:48
Radcliffe doesn't have £20 billion sat in a bank account. He owns a company of what his share is currently valued at that. If he took his money out, the economy would be far worse off.

I mentioned JCB as a second example of a British industrialist invested in the UK. They pay half a billion in tax every year and employ 12000 British people in professional, skilled and semi skilled capacity. Not sure why anyone would begrudge this company, the family who own it or it's effect on the British economy. Do you really think any British government or state employed project manager in the last 3 decades could create the same?

Current British politicians of both sides don't seem that they will be happy until the main sources of employment in the UK are 'cash in hand' taxi drivers, mind how you go civil servants and talking heads paid by the BBC telling 45 million people how privileged and racist they are.


ESSEX GULL


Excellent post  

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

New Back To Top

Obadiah

User Image

6413 posts
First used 09/01/17

#18
01/07/2018 at 22:17

Quote Quote by essexgull on 01/07/2018 at 10:00
You're using unnecessary pedantry.

I'm stating you were wrong to imply that the ruling/wealthy class sit on a pile of locked away cash that doesn't benefit the economy, this assertion is a Dickensian stereotype and the truth is actually the complete opposite.

Radcliffe, worth an estimated £20 billion, will probably have £1 billion in locked assets such as property and boats etc, with the remaining 95% of his wealth actively working in the economy of his companies. The average British skilled/professional class man will have around 90% of their wealth tied up and economically inactive in their property, cash savings and low risk pension funds.

If you genuinely believe that money should be freed up and invested in the British economy, you need to encouraging your peers to remortgage their homes and cash in their pensions early and then take a risk on starting a business.

ESSEX GULL


I wouldn't say that the ruling class are sat on a pile of locked away cash. I believe the opposite. They are sat on very liquid assets that can be quickly disposed off thereby restricting any losses they may incur. The capitalist class that Exiled referred to saw their investment in locked away buildings, machinery, stock, employees, etc. The current crop learnt the errors of doing business like that and have reduced their risk.

From what little I've read about Radcliffe he's built no business himself but has made his money from buying existing companies and increased their profits by reducing their costs. Maybe the football club he owns is the one exception to that.

I presume you haven't found an example of him building a factory rather than buying one that already exists?

You can control what you don't own. The people who own Britain's wealth don't want to invest in industry its far too risky. There are exceptions, but in general, they are perfectly happy with the current arrangements.

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26376 posts
First used 09/01/17

#19
02/07/2018 at 10:10

Millions of mutually beneficial trades is one of those sayings like the market will fix it. It hides as much as it enlightens.

Mutually beneficial trades sounds as if they are equal in some way. A bloke buying a digger is not an equal partner in the deal with a multinational company until he is buying his fiftieth. Or hundredth. The market has fixed it in conjunction with governments who enable the fixers.

New Back To Top

essexgull

8825 posts
First used 12/01/17

#20
02/07/2018 at 19:11

I imagine the bloke buying the digger sees it as a mutually beneficial trade, as digging his hole by hand would be the alternative.


ESSEX GULL 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26376 posts
First used 09/01/17

#21
02/07/2018 at 21:11

And because of that he can be charged a little bit more? 

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11465 posts
First used 11/01/17

#22
03/07/2018 at 09:10

The trade adds value to both parties, there is no coercion vilolence or threat either way.

You do it all the time and most of the time without even giving it a second thought. It requires no long term investment for you unlike the producer and you only (perhaps) pay one tax (VAT) for the privilege.

The alternative is..... 

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26376 posts
First used 09/01/17

#23
03/07/2018 at 11:20

There is perhaps one producer for 100000 potential customers. The producer sets a price he thinks he can get. A new producer to add competition will be against a huge disadvantage and if making some progress may well be bought out by the bigger player or squashed. The advantage is always with the producer. 

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11465 posts
First used 11/01/17

#24
03/07/2018 at 17:47

Nah,

Not in a world where people have everything they need and the only reason to replace stuff is for the better. Innovation, price competition, more value for similar cost etc etc.

Market sets the price and determines the ‘value’ to both parties.

JK Rowling wrote a book, people read it and derived such value they told their friends, more bought the book, the cycle continued.

Most of the FTSE 100 weren’t even in the 100 a decade ago. Your hypothesis is interesting, dated, and ideologically driven but not supported by the data.

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

24 posts. < 1 2 > Show 15 30