'Brexit boom' gives Britain record 134 billionaires

[Elegiac]

Resources are actually scarce and finite. There is only so much arable land and nearby fresh water for agriculture. Only so much cheap easy to transport energy. Building comfortable separate houses so people are not cramped together takes a lot of resources. Redistribution doesn't solve those issues.

Few things.

Both arable land and fresh water are functions of energy price; with the advent of chemical fertilizers and desalination you can farm pretty much anywhere, it's just a matter of cost which is unprofitable in current market conditions.

Moreover, this idea that everyone should have a house with a backyard is a western pipe dream rather than an actual restriction on human habitability. In New York conditions we could fit the entire population of the planet into Texas.

So yes, these are issues of distribution, refinement of resources, and the fact the current economic model doesn't really promote social goods that aren't profitable in of themselves.

[Stormspark]

So people who get rich should just hand it out to everyone else? WHY? That style of thinking makes no sense. if you "redistribute"(lets face it. you want to play robin hood and steal it to give it to the poor) then you just create an unsustainable welfare state because once you do it, no one will ever want to be wealthy again, who would want to be successful when you're just going to get torn down?

Yep, noone should be able to have more than a certain amount. Billionares should not be allowed to exist. Millionaires, sure. Billionaires, no. People don't live in a vacuum. There is supposed to be this thing called a "society" that doesn't work if a few greedy people try to hog it all to themselves. Screw them.

You can get to be a millionare without stealing from people under you, self made millionares exist. Billionare, no way. I want the same thing to happen to the upper 1% that happened during the french revolution. Now the "let them eat cake" comment was an urban legend, it didn't happen. But what did happen, there was a rich politician that argued that if the poor were hungry they could eat straw. So they got the guy, stuffed his mouth full of straw, dragged him through the streets of Paris, then decapitated him and his whole family and basically made scarecrows out of them.

[Elegiac]

I'm not arguing how the world is, I'm only arguing that rich people spending their money is good for the economy. The person I replied to seemed to be scoffing about a rich person buying a second yacht (spending money) and didn't look to be aware of what that actually does for the yacht-maker's employees and their families.

Instead of sneering at a rich person for buying their second yacht we should be encouraging them to live more lavishly. Buy more things.

There are not nearly enough rich people to sustain an appreciable industry for any one of the luxury products they consume.

It's much more cost effective and economically beneficial to tax the rich and use that for services to enable the middle class to spend more money.

[PC2]

Moreover, this idea that everyone should have a house with a backyard is a western pipe dream rather than an actual restriction on human habitability. In New York conditions we could fit the entire population of the planet into Texas.

Surface area and the volume of a human is never the concern when it comes to population. There isn't much for us to debate when your solution is authoritarian urbanism. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Adolecent]

So people who get rich should just hand it out to everyone else? WHY? That style of thinking makes no sense. if you "redistribute"(lets face it. you want to play robin hood and steal it to give it to the poor) then you just create an unsustainable welfare state because once you do it, no one will ever want to be wealthy again, who would want to be successful when you're just going to get torn down?

Thats the bullshit they want you to believe. Most parts of the EU have fair social security systems and those are among the richest regions in the world.

[alexw]

I'm not arguing how the world is, I'm only arguing that rich people spending their money is good for the economy. The person I replied to seemed to be scoffing about a rich person buying a second yacht (spending money) and didn't look to be aware of what that actually does for the yacht-maker's employees and their families.

Instead of sneering at a rich person for buying their second yacht we should be encouraging them to live more lavishly. Buy more things.

Ummm no. We should be taxing them more. The marginal utility of a rich person buying a 2nd yacht is tiny. However improving the educational resources of under-resourced schools in poor areas (which there are many of) is massive. This is what is so stupid and wasteful about the current sky-high levels of income inequality. The only things the super rich do spend additional income on (as opposed to buying up ever more assets) is to buy some sort of giant penis extension so as to outdo the penis extension of other super-rich people. Its entirely wasteful of scarce resources on a finite planet.

[Elegiac]

So people who get rich should just hand it out to everyone else? WHY? That style of thinking makes no sense. if you "redistribute"(lets face it. you want to play robin hood and steal it to give it to the poor) then you just create an unsustainable welfare state because once you do it, no one will ever want to be wealthy again, who would want to be successful when you're just going to get torn down?

What's wrong with a welfare state.

[Taneras]

There are not nearly enough rich people to sustain an appreciable industry for any one of the luxury products they consume.

Never said there was, I only said that spending money helps drive the economy. Me and my wife going out to a restaurant to eat helps drive the economy, but not as much as Bill Gates buying a second yacht.

It's much more cost effective and economically beneficial to tax the rich and use that for services to enable the middle class to spend more money.

1.) Citation needed.
2.) Cost effective and government don't really go hand in hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Ummm no. We should be taxing them more. The marginal utility of a rich person buying a 2nd yacht is tiny. However improving the educational resources of under-resourced schools in poor areas (which there are many of) is massive.

My comment mentioned nothing about taxes, nor did it assume that a single yacht sale effected the economy in a major way. It only tried to highlight that we shouldn't be critical of rich people spending their money, we should be encouraging it.

[Elegiac]

Never said there was, I only said that spending money helps drive the economy. Me and my wife going out to a restaurant to eat helps drive the economy, but not as much as Bill Gates buying a second yacht.

Cool story. We aren't talking about individual spending habits.

1.) Citation needed.
2.) Cost effective and government don't really go hand in hand.

Are you seriously going to argue against consumer spending drives a market economy?

I'm going to ignore the typically American assumption that 'da gubmint' is evil and wasteful.

[Macaquerie]

Never said there was, I only said that spending money helps drive the economy. Me and my wife going out to a restaurant to eat helps drive the economy, but not as much as Bill Gates buying a second yacht.

It's hardly efficient to expend all of those resources and labor to build a boat that nobody wants and isn't going to get used much, redistributing it so that lots of little guys can go out to eat more often would help the economy far more. Besides, like most billionaires these days, Bill Gates goes out of his way to project a down to earth image and it's hard to imagine him going on lavish sprees of conspicuous consumption. Most luxury goods are not marketed towards actual rich people, but towards idiots who think that buying junk they can't afford will improve their social status, which obviously never happens.

[Taneras]

Cool story. We aren't talking about individual spending habits.

You jumped into the conversation between Noomz and I, you don't get to decide what that topic was about.

Are you seriously going to argue against consumer spending drives a market economy?

Do you seriously think the only way money ends up in people's pockets is from government hand outs? No? Ok then... People spending money helps drive the economy, and rich people are not magically excluded from this phenomenon

- - - Updated - - -

It's hardly efficient to expend all of those resources and labor to build a boat that nobody wants and isn't going to get used much, redistributing it so that lots of little guys can go out to eat more often would help the economy far more. Besides, like most billionaires these days, Bill Gates goes out of his way to project a down to earth image and it's hard to imagine him going on lavish sprees of conspicuous consumption.

That yacht building company has to have employees to design and build the yachts. They have to buy materials from companies who sell the materials needed to build the boat and those material companies have employees as well. Ensuring they continue to get pay checks from rich people buying yachts ensures they (the employees of these companies) can spend money at movie theaters, restaurants, etc.

[alexw]

Never said there was, I only said that spending money helps drive the economy. Me and my wife going out to a restaurant to eat helps drive the economy, but not as much as Bill Gates buying a second yacht.



1.) Citation needed.
2.) Cost effective and government don't really go hand in hand.

- - - Updated - - -



My comment mentioned nothing about taxes, nor did it assume that a single yacht sale effected the economy in a major way. It only tried to highlight that we shouldn't be critical of rich people spending their money, we should be encouraging it.

Except we should not be doing that. Its wasteful. What are they going to spend it on except gilded palaces they never use, giant yachts they barely set foot on, and similar things?

Instead we should be taxing these piles of wealth down and putting the resulting income to productive use. There's a hell of a lot of things in our societies that need fixing that would massively increase living standards - better infrastructure, investment into R&D, improved healthcare, swifter movement to a renewable economy, etc, etc.

[Deleted]

So people who get rich should just hand it out to everyone else? WHY? That style of thinking makes no sense. if you "redistribute"(lets face it. you want to play robin hood and steal it to give it to the poor) then you just create an unsustainable welfare state because once you do it, no one will ever want to be wealthy again, who would want to be successful when you're just going to get torn down?

There's a point where being Rich becomes excessive. Plus, people aren't buying things the wealthy make anymore. Not to the extent they were. If the rich want us to keep consuming there has to be some give. But there's less and less give each day.

Paying people to be able to live is not stealing. Withholding that from them is.

People who are in the middle class who think themselves wealthy really don't know who and how the 'truly wealthy' operate. And let me tell you. At this point in time, they're the thieves. And they're playing you like puppets to believe the dichotomy of the 'slacking poor persons out to rob you of all you hold dear' because it averts your attention away from them splendidly.

[Wildpantz]

Redistribution in the form of better wages is not a wellfare state. It's bringing the value of work done more in-line.

Do you actually think millionaires work SO hard and are SO skilled that they actually deserve their wage, relative to someone who makes, say, 80k a year?
Impossible.

There are a few selfmade billionares they deserve it but most ate 2nd third gen

[Taneras]

Except we should not be doing that. Its wasteful. What are they going to spend it on except gilded palaces they never use, giant yachts they barely set foot on, and similar things?

Instead we should be taxing these piles of wealth down and putting the resulting income to productive use. There's a hell of a lot of things in our societies that need fixing that would massively increase living standards - better infrastructure, investment into R&D, improved healthcare, swifter movement to a renewable economy, etc, etc.

Understood, comrade.

[PC2]

There are a few selfmade billionares they deserve it but most ate 2nd third gen

I'm not sure about that. Maybe in Europe. In the US most are self-made.

[Stormspark]

There's a point where being Rich becomes excessive. Plus, people aren't buying things the wealthy make anymore. Not to the extent they were. If the rich want us to keep consuming there has to be some give. But there's less and less give each day.

Paying people to be able to live is not stealing. Withholding that from them is.

People who are in the middle class who think themselves wealthy really don't know who and how the 'truly wealthy' operate. And let me tell you. At this point in time, they're the thieves. And they're playing you like puppets to believe the dichotomy of the 'slacking poor persons out to rob you of all you hold dear' because it averts your attention away from them splendidly.

[Dhrizzle]

That's great news. Couple this with the social mobility opportunities available to the uk population, post brexit should be a bed of roses for all us brits.

Yay, let's all become billionaires and have a country that's made entirely of the 1%

[Macaquerie]

That yacht building company has to have employees to design and build the yachts. They have to buy materials from companies who sell the materials needed to build the boat and those material companies have employees as well. Ensuring they continue to get pay checks from rich people buying yachts ensures they (the employees of these companies) can spend money at movie theaters, restaurants, etc.

Spending money alone doesn't grow the economy, it requires making useful things that people actually deem valuable. Contrary to popular belief, billionaires don't get any more use out of excess consumption than anyone else, and most tend to hold off on frivolous purchases in favor of simply parking their money in offshore tax havens. It's telling that the only rich people you actually see going on lavish spending sprees are celebrities and athletes and, surprise surprise, they don't tend to stay wealthy for very long.

[Akka]

Usually, such philosophical uncertainties tend to get answered by a judge in a rather final manner. Morality doesn't really care much about philosophy, or vice versa.

I precisely wrote "moral imperative" to avoid such trite answers which completely dodge the point.
Though considering you say that morality and philosophy don't care for each other, maybe you just have a pretty weird definition of both.