View Full Version : What type of people own high-high-end gear?
1200reasons
15-03-2017, 04:11
I know this is an almost rude question, but I've been wondering for a while. On forums and whatnot I sometimes see users with systems that must cost tens of thousands. Sometimes it looks like at least $50k.
Do such users tend to be particularly wealthy, or just spend a particularly large amount of their income on hifi? A little of both?
It's not polite to enquire about people's incomes, nor question the value of their purchases; but if I don't ask, I'll never know.
Audio Al
15-03-2017, 04:45
Rich ££££££££££££ ? $$$$$$$$$$$$ :)
Light Dependant Resistor
15-03-2017, 06:42
..and poor, if they choose very wisely equipment that outperforms
all expectations of audiophiles be they rich or poor, offered at reasonable price.
Cheers / Chris
Hi Hugo,
I think an important consideration is that most people who own the sort of systems you describe have assembled them over a number of years, thus spreading the cost.
Very few folks (on forums anyway) go out and buy $50k systems in one go. If they have them, they represent the culmination, or continuing 'hi-fi journeys,' of the owners concerned.
That's certainly the case in my instance :)
Marco.
inclined to agree with above. most folk start with a modest system and improve it over a period of time. A bit like cars and houses really. Some obviously have more cash available and can go further up the scale, quicker. Not having kids would be a big advantage too. They can really become expensive :lol:
Or they bought it all second-hand for a lot less than you might think.
Almost all of the people I know who could afford high end hi-fi have zero interest in it and only ever listen to music whilst driving. I can think of one exception but he is waiting for his youngest children to get to the age where they will respect it before he splashes out.
Rothchild
15-03-2017, 08:22
'The 1%' equates to roughly 74 million people, and there appear to be plenty of people who pull up outside expensive schools in expensive cars to pick up multiple children to be returned to eye-wateringly expensive houses. Sure, some of them are doing it on the never never but for many it's real, I'd hazard a guess that at the upper end of that group of people dropping 50k on some trinkets is a pleasant afternoon out.
Or they bought it all second-hand for a lot less than you might think.
Indeed. Paying full retail price for the most expensive new equipment is as daft as doing the same with cars. Let someone else take the initial hit! ;)
Marco.
The 1% of what population, Marc? I can't see any reference to the percentage you're quoting.
...there appear to be plenty of people who pull up outside expensive schools in expensive cars to pick up multiple children to be returned to eye-wateringly expensive houses. Sure, some of them are doing it on the never never but for many it's real, I'd hazard a guess that at the upper end of that group of people dropping 50k on some trinkets is a pleasant afternoon out.
Yes, but in the UK, how many of those types exist outside of London? ;)
Unfortunately, in terms of the UK, the 'big smoke', down south, falsely (and massively) skews these types of 'wealth stats', as in that respect London is very much a 'law unto its own', and getting more and more divorced from the rest of the UK every day.
Take London out of the equation, and almost any meaningful stat you care to levy at the UK changes dramatically!
Marco.
I think Marc is referring to the richest 1% of the population, of the world.
1% of the world population owns nearly as much wealth as the other 99% worldwide. Its a disgraceful state of affairs in 21st century, and can only end in disaster.
farflungstar
15-03-2017, 08:45
I think it's subjective. If money were not a problem I might spend 150 quid on a fuse or 20k on an interconnect simply because it's pocket change - but that doesn't mean it's actually any better sonically than a 200 quid interconnect. Buying second hand and using ones intelligence means even ordinary folk like me can buy well chosen hi end pieces where it counts.
Ah I see... We're talking about 1% of the world's richest population. Yes, it is a truly disgraceful statistic.
If it were up to me, I'd bring in a law that forces the world's multiple millionaires and billionaires to forfeit a chuck of their fortunes, and use the total sum accrued to end homelessness and famine.
Marco.
I am not envious that 1% have he same wealth as 99% of the population. Envy, jealousy, anger even, are all reactions best left out in the cold where they belong. My family is my wealth, and no-one else has that but me. I count myself fortunate to live in the relatively peaceful west, have a roof over my head, clothes on my back and food in my stomach. To be able to walk outside without fear of persecution, to have health, to have purpose. These are the real riches of the world.
On the hifi front, judging by the gallery here, a surprising number of people on this forum are in the "High ed hifi club" including myself. As Marco says, it's something done over a period of years, not all at once, and the intention is seldom to own such kit for bragging rights (there are exceptions...) but because it sounds good. I don't care what others listen to or own. I'm just grateful that I and my family enjoy the musical fruits of what we have, and always have done since humble beginnings.
It isn't a 21st century phenomenon. it has always been the case. Check out the amount of country mansions in this country built 1500 to 1800, costing hundreds of millions in today's money, and the poor people were a lot poorer back then.
I can never get with the idea of wealthy people demanding wealth re-distribution, It is always someone else's wealth they want re-distributed, they never think it would affect them. Whereas if we were really to whack it all out evenly we would all have to be poor. Relatively, anyway.
If money were not a problem I might spend 150 quid on a fuse or 20k on an interconnect simply because it's pocket change...
You see, I don't buy that mentality. Being wealthy shouldn't automatically divorce you of common sense or the desire to obtain value for money. In fact, the most wealthy people I know are such because they're as tight as gnat's arse...
I can honestly say, hand on heart, that if I won The National Lottery this week, I wouldn't overnight lose the common sense and values I've held dearly for the previous 51 years and 7 months of my existence...
So those 20k interconnects would still be considered as ludicrous nonsense, fit only for vulgar spendthrifts and show-off merchants, and left left well alone! ;)
Marco.
Bigman80
15-03-2017, 08:57
You see, I don't buy that mentality. Being wealthy shouldn't automatically divorce you of common sense or the desire to obtain value for the money you spend. In fact, the most wealthy people I know are such because they're as tight as gnat's arse...
I can honestly say, hand on heart, that if I won The National Lottery this week, I wouldn't overnight lose the common sense and values I've held dearly for the previous 51 years and 7 months of my existence... So those 20k interconnects would still be considered as ludicrous nonsense, and left left well alone! ;)
Marco.
+1
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
It isn't a 21st century phenomenon. it has always been the case. Check out the amount of country mansions in this country built 1500 to 1800, costing hundreds of millions in today's money, and the poor people were a lot poorer back then.
I can never get with the idea of wealthy people demanding wealth re-distribution, It is always someone else's wealth they want re-distributed, they never think it would affect them. Whereas if we were really to whack it all out evenly we would all have to be poor. Relatively, anyway.
Not saying its a modern thing. Quite the opposite, and it should have been stopped, but of course turkeys dont vote for xmas, and the truely rich control the politicians and lawmakers etc. Nothing has changed. Rich folk start wars and poor folk fight them, was always the way it went and is probably still same today.
It isn't a 21st century phenomenon. it has always been the case.
Indeed so, but that doesn't make it right. And the fact is, it *could* be eradicated.
I can never get with the idea of wealthy people demanding wealth re-distribution, It is always someone else's wealth they want re-distributed, they never think it would affect them. Whereas if we were really to whack it all out evenly we would all have to be poor. Relatively, anyway.
I'm talking purely about those who have multiple millions (and more) of pounds/dollars that is simply excess to requirements, just lying in bank accounts doing nothing, or tied up in assets, which could be sold.
It's disgraceful that those concerned simply hoard it for the sake of 'feeling good about themselves', or whatever, whilst millions around the world starve and have no roof over their heads.
Yes, that shameful GREED has gone on since time and memorial, but that doesn't make it right - and I'm all for fighting for what's right and just in this selfish and corrupt world we live in.
Marco.
Not saying its a modern thing. Quite the opposite, and it should have been stopped, but of course turkeys dont vote for xmas, and the truely rich control the politicians and lawmakers etc. Nothing has changed. Rich folk start wars and poor folk fight them, was always the way it went and is probably still same today.
Exactly, and it's truly sickening. Don't get me started, though, on one of my hobbyhorses!! ;)
Marco.
If I won the lottery, I would arrange (several) home demonstrations of high end systems to compare with what I have.
It would be a lot of fun....
1% of the world population owns nearly as much wealth as the other 99% worldwide. Its a disgraceful state of affairs in 21st century, and can only end in disaster.
1+ It is indeed a disgrace that we still havn't found a way to distribute wealth more evenly.
To the subject. I tend to agree that buying x-end hifi second hand is the best way to go. But then, some folk want new equipment. Good for them. It gives us second-handers a better price and more choice.
farflungstar
15-03-2017, 09:18
I think there is a difference between rich and super rich. I agree that wealthy people (a couple of million) still tend to have one foot in the same world as the rest of us. But the super rich live on a different planet. I've mixed with them and they wouldn't drink a bottle of wine for less than 5k. Different ballgame, different mentality. A few million in the back is nothing special - but I'd like it!
I think there is a difference between rich and super rich. I agree that wealthy people (a couple of million) still tend to have one foot in the same world as the rest of us. But the super rich live on a different planet. I've mixed with them and they wouldn't drink a bottle of wine for less than 5k. Different ballgame, different mentality. A few million in the back is nothing special - but I'd like it!
Haha, yes it's different, all right - truly pathetic! What vulgar and pretentious snobs they are :lol: [said as someone who consumes and knows all about fine wine].
Honestly, such folk are beyond risible, almost pitiable. For them, it's all about portraying an image (I suspect often due to self-esteem issues). And yes, it's the 'super rich' I was referring to earlier, with more wealth than they know what to do with.
Marco.
martian sunrise
15-03-2017, 10:13
We are super rich to some...
I've been on other forums that are just full of snobs. Asking if something is worth the money will bring the wrath upon you, as they insinuate that if you can't afford it, then this is not the hobby for you!
But I fall into the category that has built my system over many years, and right now, every single piece is used! Audio depreciates so well that I can't imagine buying new. My system is state of the art! Or, it was 20 years ago! Surely people were not listening to garbage back then? I've got about 1/3rd to 1/4th of their new prices invested.
But there most certainly is a certain level of audio that is reserved for millionaires. I am simply shocked at the number of speakers that sell new for $50,000 and over. Literally too many to count.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We are super rich to some...
Absolutely. Many of us in the west can't grasp just how true that is.
Marco.
I've been on other forums that are just full of snobs. Asking if something is worth the money will bring the wrath upon you, as they insinuate that if you can't afford it, then this is not the hobby for you!
Well, not here. That's the very antithesis of the AoS ethos; in fact I'd go as far to say that we actively discourage those sorts from joining! They also wouldn't last very long if they were here.
Marco.
Well, not here. That's the very antithesis of the AoS ethos; in fact I'd go as far to say that we actively discourage those sorts from joining! They also wouldn't last very long if they were here.
Marco.
That's why I love it here!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
anthonyTD
15-03-2017, 11:59
Like others here,
I have built up the system I now have over many years, I consider myself fortunate [not rich] to have been able to build biggest part of it myself.:)
A...
It isn't a zero-sum game. One person being fabulously wealthy is not preventing another person from becoming wealthy. It isn't a game of monopoly where there is only so much to go around. Also those multi-millionaires give staggering amounts of money to charity. Those you hear about are just the tip of the iceberg. Okay so they may be assuaging their own guilt, but the end result is the same. People are poor and starving due to idiocy and incompetence, not because some fat bastard is hoarding all the food and money in a warehouse somewhere.
Rothchild
15-03-2017, 12:11
The 1% of what population, Marc? I can't see any reference to the percentage you're quoting.
Yes, but in the UK, how many of those types exist outside of London? ;)
Unfortunately, in terms of the UK, the 'big smoke', down south, falsely (and massively) skews these types of 'wealth stats', as in that respect London is very much a 'law unto its own', and getting more and more divorced from the rest of the UK every day.
Take London out of the equation, and almost any meaningful stat you care to levy at the UK changes dramatically!
Marco.
I agree London is an extreme and represents the top-end of that '1%' idea (it's the 1% of the 1% if you will) but to be fair I've also driven around the nicer bits of Cheshire, Bristol and a few other areas of the UK where there are plenty of Aston Martins, Range Rovers, multi-million pound properties and fancy schools, so it's not exclusive to London, just magnified.
And yes, significant proportions of the UK population are technically in the one percent (if you compare what someone on minimum wage has compared to a Somali farmer most folk are doing ok) but our culture still doesn't have a sensible way of describing or dealing with the disparity between DAVOS / The Cheshire set / North Eastern former manufacturing community and the horrors of 'developing' countries.
For 99% of the global population, Hifi is utterly irrelevant - clean water and basic education would be a start. Because Hifi is a somewhat esoteric hobby even for those who can afford it, it means that margins have to be high because the size of the potential market is relatively small.
It isn't a zero-sum game. One person being fabulously wealthy is not preventing another person from becoming wealthy. It isn't a game of monopoly where there is only so much to go around. Also those multi-millionaires give staggering amounts of money to charity. Those you hear about are just the tip of the iceberg. Okay so they may be assuaging their own guilt, but the end result is the same. People are poor and starving due to idiocy and incompetence, not because some fat bastard is hoarding all the food and money in a warehouse somewhere.
Sorry, couldn't disagree more!!! I'll explain why later.
You should change your name to Macca The Closet Capitalist ;)
Marco.
IFor 99% of the global population, - clean water and basic education would be a start. .
You could argue that would be a start for 99% of London...
Rothchild
15-03-2017, 12:21
You could argue that would be a start for 99% of London...
Meh 'basic' probably describes it quite well ;-)
martian sunrise
15-03-2017, 12:25
You could argue that would be a start for 99% of London...
Haha. Well played
walpurgis
15-03-2017, 12:28
You could argue that would be a start for 99% of London...
You might struggle to find somebody in London who could respond to that in English.
Not in same league. The water a huge proportion of world get, if they can get it, is a bigger health hazard than ours was way back in dirty london days before sanitation.
Trouble is that people who exist in these areas really shouldnt. They are really uninhabitable by mosts standards. The people there need to realise this. BUT, we as a member of the human race should be doing more as a united group on humanitarian grounds and not individually for political purposes, or through greed.
So where does one draw the line between 'You've got more money than most, but you've earned it/paid your taxes, so you get to keep it' and 'You've got way too much money; give some of it back'? How much is 'too much'?
Rothchild
15-03-2017, 15:00
So where does one draw the line between 'You've got more money than most, but you've earned it/paid your taxes, so you get to keep it' and 'You've got way too much money; give some of it back'? How much is 'too much'?
The line probably exists around the definition of 'Earned' for most people.
I don't begrudge the guys who set up google their wealth, they earned it.
Whereas someone who had their education bought for them (particularly if bought with un-earned wealth), moved in the right circles to access the right type of city job (where you move money around to generate more money, drive financialisation of services (rent taking) and asset strip companies - rather than efficiently allocate capital to generate innovation) those people are on the wrong side of the line, because they don't 'earn' IMO and they are not 'wealth creators' they are 'value destroyers'.
martian sunrise
15-03-2017, 15:28
what about the guys from google's kids? they will have that education bought for them and end up in good jobs...
RothwellAudio
15-03-2017, 15:38
It isn't a zero-sum game. One person being fabulously wealthy is not preventing another person from becoming wealthy.
I think they are preventing people from having what would otherwise be within their grasp. The fabulously wealthy in London have pushed up property prices to the point where most people can't afford to buy. The same applies to the rest of the country to a lesser extent.
BTW, one of the (many) outrages of the past ten years is the way savers have been robbed. The low interest rates have deprived savers of literally billions of pounds. Of course, bankers get their million pound bonuses because they have "talents" that we mustn't lose. What talent????
I think they are preventing people from having what would otherwise be within their grasp. The fabulously wealthy in London have pushed up property prices to the point where most people can't afford to buy. The same applies to the rest of the country to a lesser extent.
BTW, one of the (many) outrages of the past ten years is the way savers have been robbed. The low interest rates have deprived savers of literally billions of pounds. Of course, bankers get their million pound bonuses because they have "talents" that we mustn't lose. What talent????
Fair point about the property, but you can still buy cheap property in some parts of the country. Not many Russian Oligarchs pushing up prices around here.
Low interest rate have made mortgages more affordable so that is a double-edged sword.
In the past we had the concept of noblesse oblige - in that those who had become wealthy via good fortune or inheritance recognised that an obligation came with that wealth and used it to look after people.
Regretably the concept of a 'meritocracy' has killed that to an extent, now we have the 'I earned it so it's all mine, so screw you' attitude.
Although 'meritocracy' is now considered to be a good or ideal concept, the term itself was actually coined to describe a society that is socially dysfunctional due to the rich assuming they are rich because they are hard working geniuses and that the poor are poor because they are lazy and stupid.
farflungstar
15-03-2017, 16:45
Here's a prediction - I will be dead by the time it comes true.
The elite want the world for themselves without the poor crawling scum that shares it with them. But we are useful, we do their work, we build things for them, we clean for them, invent for them - but they want robots. When we have robots we will no longer be necessary, or at least a very significant portion of us - and so they will unleash a plague, a pandemic to kill off everyone but a chosen few. Those left will be forced to apply for permission to have a child.
This is their agenda - not setting up camp on Mars as some would have us believe.
Rothchild
15-03-2017, 16:53
what about the guys from google's kids? they will have that education bought for them and end up in good jobs...
Ergo they may have crossed the line - my point wasn't about paid for education per-se it was about the definition of 'earned'
One of the more interesting radical ideas I've ever heard was the notion that the only tax should be inheritance tax, so people can generate and use as much wealth as they're capable of during their lifetime but the incentive is to put it back in the economy before you die, because you can't pass it on. This helps bypass some of the socially unhelpful behaviours that spring from accumulation and sedimentation of power, each generation truly will rely on its 'merit' to make itself, you can deliver your kids a 'head start' during your life but they can't rest on your legacy.
hifinutt
15-03-2017, 16:56
all about priorities . many of my friends have expensive cars and go on expensive holidays .i prefer to spend money on hifi !! [ not so high end i admit !]
martian sunrise
15-03-2017, 17:21
Ergo they may have crossed the line - my point wasn't about paid for education per-se it was about the definition of 'earned'
One of the more interesting radical ideas I've ever heard was the notion that the only tax should be inheritance tax, so people can generate and use as much wealth as they're capable of during their lifetime but the incentive is to put it back in the economy before you die, because you can't pass it on. This helps bypass some of the socially unhelpful behaviours that spring from accumulation and sedimentation of power, each generation truly will rely on its 'merit' to make itself, you can deliver your kids a 'head start' during your life but they can't rest on your legacy.
It can't work. The wealthy will find a way of giving it to their offspring before they die and the povvs (like me) will lose out even more when they can't even pass on the little bit extra they have earned.
I understand your point about earning it, but it is a blurry line
Here's a prediction - I will be dead by the time it comes true.
The elite want the world for themselves without the poor crawling scum that shares it with them. But we are useful, we do their work, we build things for them, we clean for them, invent for them - but they want robots. When we have robots we will no longer be necessary, or at least a very significant portion of us - and so they will unleash a plague, a pandemic to kill off everyone but a chosen few. Those left will be forced to apply for permission to have a child.
This is their agenda - not setting up camp on Mars as some would have us believe.
Maybe, but IME very rich people are not bothered, they don't hate poor people and want to see them suffer, but likewise they are too wrapped up in their rich lives to give it any thought. They live in opulent areas, go to the best shops, stay at the best hotels, poor people are just not on their agenda as they never have to mix with them.
Fair point about the property, but you can still buy cheap property in some parts of the country. Not many Russian Oligarchs pushing up prices around here.
Low interest rate have made mortgages more affordable so that is a double-edged sword.
Aside from Russian Oligarchs, another factor is the buy-to-let market. In some towns/cities, entire streets are bought up by cash-rich investors on low-rate mortgages, thus depleting the housing stock for young couples and families seeking a toehold on the housing ladder.
Aside from Russian Oligarchs, another factor is the buy-to-let market. In some towns/cities, entire streets are bought up by cash-rich investors on low-rate mortgages, thus depleting the housing stock for young couples and families seeking a toehold on the housing ladder.
May be true in some areas but 20 years ago rents round here were £300 to £350 for a 2 bed terrace in a not that good area. Now it is £500 to £600; allow for inflation and that is pretty static. But there is a lot of private rented accommodation in these parts so that will keep prices down to an extent.
Rothchild
15-03-2017, 19:00
Here's a prediction - I will be dead by the time it comes true.
The elite want the world for themselves without the poor crawling scum that shares it with them. But we are useful, we do their work, we build things for them, we clean for them, invent for them - but they want robots. When we have robots we will no longer be necessary, or at least a very significant portion of us - and so they will unleash a plague, a pandemic to kill off everyone but a chosen few. Those left will be forced to apply for permission to have a child.
This is their agenda - not setting up camp on Mars as some would have us believe.
This, I believe, is (more or less) one of the 'Four Futures' described by Peter Kase, I think your analysis is right but I hope that your prognosis is wrong and I'm raising my kids to fight it as best they can.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/24/four-futures-life-after-capitalism-peter-frase-review-robots
There is a lot of good argument here covering most aspects of the problems of wealth distribution IMO, but some of, or perhaps almost all concepts of socio-economic terms can be corrupted with time.
I would like a meritocracy; we should be paid in proportion to how hard we work, how much training and education we have had to undergo, and a whole list of other variables. Is Philip Green really a hard worker showing devotion to tasks? Or Mike Ashley (I own you!) of Sports Direct?
I am impressed with the common sense here, and think optimistically about the world's population, who will also be discussing this on other forums. There really could IMO be a revolution against the rulers and the rule setters.
Food banks for British families in work is a mild form of the same obscenity as that of people dying of starvation whilst we here are dying of over eating.
And, on the Hi-Fi costing the earth;
https://www.higherfi.com/speakers?page=1
http://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers
1200reasons
16-03-2017, 00:26
I appreciate the ethos of this forum. The reason I asked this question here and not on other forums that I lurk is because I was confident that it would quickly devolved into unsavoury arguments on those.
This has been very enlightening and interesting.
Light Dependant Resistor
16-03-2017, 01:36
There is a lot of good argument here covering most aspects of the problems of wealth distribution IMO, but some of, or perhaps almost all concepts of socio-economic terms can be corrupted with time.
I would like a meritocracy; we should be paid in proportion to how hard we work, how much training and education we have had to undergo, and a whole list of other variables. Is Philip Green really a hard worker showing devotion to tasks? Or Mike Ashley (I own you!) of Sports Direct?
I am impressed with the common sense here, and think optimistically about the world's population, who will also be discussing this on other forums. There really could IMO be a revolution against the rulers and the rule setters.
Food banks for British families in work is a mild form of the same obscenity as that of people dying of starvation whilst we here are dying of over eating.
And, on the Hi-Fi costing the earth;
Hi Chris
See Post #3 on Page 1
If we simplify the very best audio to the very worst, the common denominator is applying electronics which is physics in
better ways. Applying electronics in better ways is not necessarily related to price, rather experience and courage by
some of us who strive for the best, and who are prepared to provide at modest cost.
As example in late 1975/76 current dumping by Quad , which was extension of ideas around Harold Blacks proposals of 1936
the actual parts involved with current dumping ( not the main amplifier parts ) you could spend the same on a cup of tea
and a nice cake at a cafe, or have those parts on a table before you.
Yet current dumping was a major step forward in amplifier thinking as was transistor triples that preceded it - also by Quad.
If we look at major advancements in audio the fet and the mosfet are way ahead, yet manufacturers of high end gear - so called,
still don't use them. So carefully studying audio and electronics rather than racing around because something says high end, is the path
to much enjoyment cost saving and usually a far better result.
A study of valve amps will inform they are always better into higher impedance speakers - this is the physics involved with transformers
and loads. About 4 Pounds will buy 2 x 3.3 ohm ( not wire wound type) resistors with a rating of 10 watts each that can be placed in the
positive speaker lead to dramatically improve a low impedance speaker when used with a valve amp. Or you could waste many
thousands of pounds trying to satisfy the valve amps needs buying high end gear, and still not get as good as a result as spending 4 pounds.
Your choice..
Cheers / Chris
https://www.higherfi.com/speakers
Personally, I think 'high-end' is about performance, and not price. However, it's obvious that in most markets, the pricing of luxury goods is not solely determined by their manufacturing and distribution costs. It seems to me that marketers apply 'psychological pricing' to most things nowadays. In our consumer world of (too much) choice, difficult to differentiate complex products, and the impossibility of us having in-depth product expertise about every purchase we make, we all use price and brand to identify (what we hope will be) the 'best'. For wealthy customers, they judge on price, aesthetics and exclusivity. In their shoes, I'd do the same.
At the start of my career, my boss was an elderly electronics design consultant who used to tell a story about inventing a better multimeter when in his twenties. Broadly, it's specs were about twice as good as all predecessors, and as it was simpler to manufacture, it could actually be sold for half the selling price of current competitors. In his mind, this was a recipe for market domination. And yet, when launched, it hardly sold any .... until the marketing dept raised the price up to slightly more than the best of their competitors, when it rapidly became the market-leader. And that was a product aimed at 'rational' engineers, not wealthy fashionistas!
Veblen Goods:
In economics, Veblen goods are types of material commodities for which the demand is proportional to its high price, which is an apparent contradiction of the law of demand; Veblen goods also are commodities that function as positional goods. Veblen goods are types of luxury goods, such as expensive wines, jewelry, fashion-designer handbags, and luxury cars, which are in demand because of the high prices asked for them. The high price makes the goods desirable as status symbols, by way of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure; conversely, a decrease of the prices of Veblen goods would decrease demand for the products
Haselsh1
16-03-2017, 08:26
People who actually believe it's worth it...?
Rothchild
16-03-2017, 08:33
Veblen Goods:
Ahh, that's what it's called - I always just called it 'Hagen Daas Marketing' ;-)
Those Germans have a word for everything :lol:
walpurgis
16-03-2017, 09:14
Those Germans have a word for everything :lol:
Yeah. It's 'alles'! :D
Ok, lets tackle this pish... :eyebrows:
It isn't a zero-sum game. One person being fabulously wealthy is not preventing another person from becoming wealthy. It isn't a game of monopoly where there is only so much to go around.
Yes, but that's not the point I was making.
Also those multi-millionaires give staggering amounts of money to charity. Those you hear about are just the tip of the iceberg.
Many undoubtedly do, but also many undoubtedly don't. I guess that I would exempt the former from the ruling I proposed, but they would be required to maintain their contributions at that level for as long as they remained in the category of the 'super rich'.
People are poor and starving due to idiocy and incompetence, not because some fat bastard is hoarding all the food and money in a warehouse somewhere.
Honestly, your inability to look beyond the framework of your own 'world view', when discussing these matters, sometimes beggars belief. The above statement demonstrates that even more than your once infamous assertion that in the UK "there is no such thing as food banks"! ;)
Aside from "idiocy and incompetence", the fact is, lots of underprivileged people (from birth) simply don't have access to the same opportunities as others, like you and me, never mind the 'super rich'. That isn't their fault, but merely symptomatic of how society treats the 'haves' and 'have nots', and is nothing whatsoever to do with their "idiocy and incompetence".
However, even if they were idiotic and incompetent, as many people no doubt are (and that applies to everyone, including some of the 'super rich'), we, as members of the privileged in society, have [or should have] a duty to look after those less fortunate than ourselves.
That's a fundamental humanitarian principle that any good and right-thinking person should have ingrained in their DNA - and the 'super rich' who are in the best position to offer financial support to the needy, should be required to do that, and at a level that can make a REAL difference.
As Grant wrote earlier:
we as a member of the human race should be doing more as a united group on humanitarian grounds and not individually for political purposes, or through greed.
*That* is it in a nutshell.
There are WAY too many selfish 'I'm all right Jack, fuck you' types around, and so anything that forces a change in such self-centred attitudes, and spreads the division of wealth more fairly and evenly, has to be a good thing - or at least considered as such by those able to look beyond the cosy confines of their insular little bubbles.
Greed for wealth and/or power has been (and still is) the catalyst for so much that is wrong with the world we live in, and something needs to be done about that before it's all too late.
Marco.
Ok, lets tackle this pish... :eyebrows:
Yes, but that's not the point I was making.
Many undoubtedly do, but also many undoubtedly don't. I guess that I would exempt the former from the ruling I proposed, but they would be required to maintain their contributions at that level for as long as they remained in the category of the 'super rich'.
Honestly, your inability to look beyond the framework of your own 'world view', when discussing these matters, sometimes beggars belief. The above statement demonstrates that even more than your once infamous assertion that in the UK "there is no such thing as food banks"! ;)
Aside from "idiocy and incompetence", the fact is, lots of underprivileged people (from birth) simply don't have access to the same opportunities as others, like you and me, never mind the 'super rich'. That isn't their fault, but merely symptomatic of how society treats the 'haves' and 'have nots', and is nothing whatsoever to do with their "idiocy and incompetence".
However, even if they were idiotic and incompetent, as many people no doubt are (and that applies to everyone, including some of the 'super rich'), we, as members of the privileged in society, have [or should have] a duty to look after those less fortunate than ourselves.
That's a fundamental humanitarian principle that any good and right-thinking person should have ingrained in their DNA - and the 'super rich' who are in the best position to offer financial support to the needy, should be required to do that, and at a level that can make a REAL difference.
As Grant wrote earlier:
*That* is it in a nutshell.
There are WAY too many selfish 'I'm all right Jack, fuck you' types in existence, and so anything that forces a change in such self-centred attitudes, and spreads the division of wealth more fairly and evenly, has to be a good thing - or at least considered as such by those able to look beyond the cosy confines of their own little bubbles.
Greed for wealth and/or power has been (and still is) the catalyst for so much that is wrong with the world we live in, and something needs to be done about that before it's all too late.
Marco.
I have never asserted that 'there is no such thing as food banks'. Proof of that or a retraction, please. :ner:
Secondly you miss my point so spectacularly ... I was not saying that the people starving etc are starving because they are incompetent. They are starving because the people whose job it is to see that they don't starve are incompetent. (Or don't care, or both).
I don't know but I suspect that the number of very rich who don't give to charity is very small. I don't agree that they should be forced to give. They should give because they want to. I don't agree with attempting to solve social problems via legislation.
I don't agree with attempting to solve social problems via legislation.
I don't see how else they're going to be solved. It took legislation to stop factories employing 8-year-olds for 10 hours a day, for example.
I have never asserted that 'there is no such thing as food banks'. Proof of that or a retraction, please.
Ha - trawling through the archive looking for the comment in question sadly would be too much like hard work.
However, I possess a retentive memory and you definitely asserted to something very much along those lines, until I pointed out that I contribute to food banks every week at church! ;)
Secondly you miss my point so spectacularly ...
Perhaps that's because it was spectacularly badly put! :ner:
Scroll back and read what you wrote again, and you'll see why. When you say: "People are poor and starving due to idiocy and incompetence", without qualifying who or what you consider is responsible for said idiocy and incompetence, then its inevitable the point you're making will be misconstrued.
Just because a sentence you've written makes sense in your head, doesn't necessarily mean that will be the case for others, unless you make what's in your head absolutely clear........
I don't know but I suspect that the number of very rich who don't give to charity is very small.
Perhaps, but neither of us have access to the relevant stats to comment factually on the matter.
The point, however, is that there are millions of hugely wealthy people in the world, who have more money than they know what to do with [especially criminals, corrupt governments and politicians], so if the cumulative amount that they 'don't know what to do with' was taken from them and put towards ending homelessness and famine, the world would be a much better place.
Essentially, without getting too hippy about things, it's about 'spreading the love'.
Marco.
anthonyTD
16-03-2017, 13:08
The problems of the world briefly discussed here are far to big, and shall we say kept "deliberately complicated" that it would take many pages to even scratch the surface, one example close to home for eg, the UK national health service, years ago for instance you had individuals in charge of every aspect of it, including Matrons on each ward, these people were in charge of their own enviroment, and therefore had the ability to know exactly what was going on in their own enviroment, that is no longer the case, hence we keep throwing money at it, without it would seem having the fogiest idea of where its all going!
My point is; its not enough throwing money at bad situations, we need to know first and foremost what the problem is, and what to do to fix it.
The same goes for HI FI.
A...
Just not that simple. We've ben throwing money at the problem for decades and it doesn't go away. The idea that the cause of all our problems is a lack of money to throw at them is both simplistic and in many cases, demonstrably wrong.
I don't see how else they're going to be solved. It took legislation to stop factories employing 8-year-olds for 10 hours a day, for example.
So because that worked it is okay to make it legal to rob people of their money?
Drink-driving is a good example. Legislation did not really put a dent the problem, it becoming socially unacceptable did.
So because that worked it is okay to make it legal to rob people of their money?
Well, the ones I'm mainly referring to probably 'robbed it off' someone else in the first place, so I guess it's a case of 'what goes around, comes around'! ;)
We need to make mobile phone obsession similarly socially unacceptable [especially brainless lunacy such as texting while driving], with hopefully the same result.
Marco.
Well, the ones I'm mainly referring to probably 'robbed it off' someone else in the first place, so I guess it's a case of 'what goes around, comes around'! ;)
.
That accusation could be levelled at anyone, though. What is the cut off point where someone is so filthy rich that we consider it morally okay to take it off them? A million in assets? 2 million? if I live alone in a 5 bed house is it okay to stick a family of refugees in with me because I'm a rich selfish bastard?
What if the cut off point was £250,000 and they come round yours to re-possess the Merc and the stereo? You could get by with a Hyundai and a Bose wave radio after all, and people are starving, don't you know?
anthonyTD
16-03-2017, 13:30
Bump.
The problems of the world briefly discussed here are far to big, and shall we say kept "deliberately complicated" that it would take many pages to even scratch the surface, one example close to home for eg, the UK national health service, years ago for instance you had individuals in charge of every aspect of it, including Matrons on each ward, these people were in charge of their own enviroment, and therefore had the ability to know exactly what was going on in their own enviroment, that is no longer the case, hence we keep throwing money at it, without it would seem having the fogiest idea of where its all going!
My point is; its not enough throwing money at bad situations, we need to know first and foremost what the problem is, and what to do to fix it.
The same goes for HI FI.
A...
That accusation could be levelled at anyone, though.
Not at all. Every single penny I've ever made has been earned legally and morally. The same can't be said for most of the 'super rich'!
So, let's just say all 'ill-gotten gains', which worldwide would amount to trillions, should collectively be taken away from the 'super rich' concerned and used instead to end world famine and homelessness.
Simples :)
And while we're at it, get (corrupt) governments to stop starting senseless wars, simply to ensure that 'the elite' continue to remain that way, diverting the [hugely obscene] funds spent instead, to eliminating poverty.
Marco.
martian sunrise
16-03-2017, 14:15
wherever you draw the line, there will be haves and have-nots, unless we all have a fuckload less than what we have now. i think a lot of the ill-gotten gains you are talking about are probably not ill-gotten, but legal because of the questionable intentions of legislation and the ability to get around rules relating to taxation etc.
martian sunrise
16-03-2017, 14:16
"i'm all for equality, as long as everyone has at least as much as i have now..."
Not at all. Every single penny I've ever made has been earned legally and morally. .
Morality is a very individual thing. Why is your definition of 'moral' earnings the one we should all accept? What level of wealth are we defining as 'super-rich' and how can you be certain that some/all of their money was made illegally?
This just sounds like 'Lets take money off rich people who are not me'.
Anthony TD has it right. Quantify the problem, identify the root causes, and tackle them directly. Otherwise you just rob all the rich people, spunk all the money, and end up back at square one.
wherever you draw the line, there will be haves and have-nots, unless we all have a fuckload less than what we have now. i think a lot of the ill-gotten gains you are talking about are probably not ill-gotten, but legal because of the questionable intentions of legislation and the ability to get around rules relating to taxation etc.
Indeed... In a word, corruption, which arguably is even worse (and more rife amongst governments and the elite) than illegality! ;)
Marco.
jandl100
16-03-2017, 14:19
People are poor and starving due to idiocy and incompetence
I didn't think Martin was referring to the ability of the poverty-stricken themselves, but to those in power.
But a very important factor was left out there - corruption.
That without doubt imo is a principal contributor to the poverty issues faced in many "3rd world" countries.
What wealth and wealth growth there is is being illegally diverted to the already wealthy. The ultimate poverty trap.
So because that worked it is okay to make it legal to rob people of their money?
Drink-driving is a good example. Legislation did not really put a dent the problem, it becoming socially unacceptable did.
Of course there's no way of knowing retrospectively what effect legislation on drink-driving had, compared to what effect 'it becoming socially unacceptable' had; my guess is that the two were inextricably linked. In the same general area, do most people wear seatbelts because it's simple common sense, or because it's 'socially acceptable'? Either way, my guess is that the legislation requiring seatbelts to be fitted and worn has been a significant factor in encouraging their use.
As far as 'robbing people of their money' is concerned, all taxation is legalised theft, so if Parliament passes a law taxing all wealth above a certain figure at 100%, it's the same principle as them taxing my paltry income at 20%.
Morality is a very individual thing. Why is your definition of 'moral' earnings the one we should all accept?
I'm not asking anyone to 'accept' anything; simply voicing an opinion.
What level of wealth are we defining as 'super-rich' and how can you be certain that some/all of their money was made illegally?
This just sounds like 'Lets take money off rich people who are not me'.
Not at all. I think the point I'm making is pretty clear, unless you condone money being illegally earned from the likes of child trafficking, slavery or pedophilia, all of which right now are making some of the super-rich, even richer!
So are you saying that they should be allowed to keep that money?
Anthony TD has it right. Quantify the problem, identify the root causes, and tackle them directly. Otherwise you just rob all the rich people, spunk all the money, and end up back at square one.
I also agree on that aspect, so no argument there.
Marco.
People are poor and starving due to idiocy and incompetence
I didn't think Martin was referring to the ability of the poverty-stricken themselves, but to those in power.
Yup, and we've addressed that issue.
But a very important factor was left out there - corruption.
That without doubt imo is a principal contributor to the poverty issues faced in many "3rd world" countries.
What wealth and wealth growth there is is being illegally diverted to the already wealthy. The ultimate poverty trap.
Precisely. I've just said as much, and it makes me sick to my gut. I abhor, to my very bones, ANY form of corruption... It should be wiped out from the face of this earth, along with those responsible! :guns:
Marco.
Of course there's no way of knowing retrospectively what effect legislation on drink-driving had, compared to what effect 'it becoming socially unacceptable' had; my guess is that the two were inextricably linked. In the same general area, do most people wear seatbelts because it's simple common sense, or because it's 'socially acceptable'? Either way, my guess is that the legislation requiring seatbelts to be fitted and worn has been a significant factor in encouraging their use.
.
I picked drink-driving as that is a generally-acknowledged example of where social pressure succeeded where legislation did not. IME you tell people 'You can't do that' they just get resentful and may do it anyway just to spite you. If they don't do it because they personally feel it is wrong then everybody is happy.
IME you tell people 'You can't do that' they just get resentful and may do it anyway just to spite you.
If it's done for what is justifiably perceived as the greater good of all, some folks need to learn to do what they're told, and like it, by those with the authority to boss them ;)
I have no time for pig-headed idiots with an irrational resentment of authority, together with an innate desire, regardless of the consequences to others, to do what they like, when they like.
Marco.
I picked drink-driving as that is a generally-acknowledged example of where social pressure succeeded where legislation did not. IME you tell people 'You can't do that' they just get resentful and may do it anyway just to spite you. If they don't do it because they personally feel it is wrong then everybody is happy.
And I think you need both; gentle persuasion for sensible people, backed up with laws and stiff penalties for 'less sensible' people. Anyone whose thought processes run 'Those bastards want to stop me drinking and driving; I'll down 10 pints of beer and drive at 90mph just to spite them' is probably not long for this world anyway.
If it's done for what is justifiably perceived as the greater good of all, some folks need to learn to do what they're told, and like it, by those with the authority to tell them such ;)
I have no time for pig-headed idiots with an irrational resentment of authority and an innate desire, regardless of the consequences to others, to do what they like, when they like.
Marco.
'It's for the greater good' has been used as an excuse for many of the abominations in history. Reminds me of that other quote, 'Only the most intelligent of men can understand so evil a philosophy.'
And who decides who is the authority and whose version of morality is the right one? Ultimately there is only one authority and that is physical force. So are we going to use physical force with those who won't 'do as they are told'.
'Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come on everyone, come and see the violence inherent in the system!'
Rothchild
16-03-2017, 15:37
Wrong to think in terms of figures IMO, much more sensible to think in terms of ratios.
If the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the pay of FTSE100 directors in the same period (since the introduction of the minimum wage) it would now be worth ~£16ph. Have the FTSE directors really added so much more value than their staff in that period? Absolute figures are a bum steer, ratios are all that matters.
That said it's fair to say that it's not the gap between have a have-not that's the issue, globally the very poorest have (on average) been lifted by neo-liberalism in the past 30 years, it's the gap between have and have-yachts that's been stretching out (and that's why we're seeing more unrest in the global-north, the global-south has seen benefits).
And who decides who is the authority and whose version of morality is the right one?
Whoever makes the law obviously has the authority to impose it, and those who don't obey it, face the consequences. Simples! That's how civilised society works.
I'm not saying that those who make the rules are always right, far from it, but anyone who thinks that being spiteful and opposing the law, for the sake of 'acting awkward', and considers that as justifiable behaviour, needs a good kick up the arse and a rude introduction to the real world! ;)
Marco.
Could you please answer this, from earlier:
Not at all. I think the point I'm making is pretty clear, unless you condone money being earned illegally from the likes of child trafficking, slavery or pedophilia, all of which right now are making some of the super-rich, even richer!
So are you saying that they should be allowed to keep that money?
Marco.
Do poor people really care that there is an increasing gap between them and the super-rich? That someone can afford a 100 ft yacht whilst they are struggling to keep their 10 year old Fiat Punto on the road? IME no, they really don't care, they don't even think about it. Only the educated middle classes think that this matters.
They might care if they were getting poorer at the expense of the super-rich, but they are not so there isn't really an issue unless you are of the mentality that says 'If we can't all have 100 ft yachts then no-one should have one.'
I've never understood that outlook, personally. I'm glad that there are people who have 100 ft yachts even though I will never have one. The same applies to high end hi-fi.
They might care if they were getting poorer at the expense of the super-rich, but they are not so there isn't really an issue unless you are of the mentality that says 'If we can't all have 100 ft yachts then no-one should have one.'
Lol.... You still don't get it, do you? :doh:
I'm the very last person to begrudge anyone their (legally earned) wealth, within reason.
To use your example above, own a 100ft yacht, by all means, two even, perhaps even three, if it floats your boat (no pun intended), but no-one *needs* 100 x 100ft yachts, or rather more accurately, that much disposable income, especially when it's been earned both illegally and immorally, as I outlined earlier, whilst there are others in the world who don't even have a roof over their heads or the wherewithal to feed their children.
That's fundamentally WRONG, on all levels, and obscene - and something needs done about it. I've already said what I would do, so have no intention of repeating myself for you to miss the point again, or twist it to suit your counter argument.
Marco.
Alas, No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer.
Can we change? Well, as much as Star Trek said we will, it is probably going to remain sifi fiction.
Rothchild
16-03-2017, 16:55
Do poor people really care that there is an increasing gap between them and the super-rich? That someone can afford a 100 ft yacht whilst they are struggling to keep their 10 year old Fiat Punto on the road? IME no, they really don't care, they don't even think about it. Only the educated middle classes think that this matters.
'JAMS' are not 'the poor' folk who live in the global-south are poor. Potentially, if they had chance to stop worrying about where their next meal came from, or if their kid was going to succumb to easily preventable sickness ('there's some lovely filth over here') they might take form a positive view of the yacht owner but they might also view them as absurd. ('King? I didn't vote for him')
From herein I propose that if your argument can't be illuminated via Python quotes it is inadmissible to the debate ;-)
Rothchild
16-03-2017, 16:57
Whoever makes the law obviously has the authority to impose it, and those who don't obey it, face the consequences. Simples! That's how civilised society works.
Marco.
Ergo Trump's travel ban is the height of civilisation?
('Some watery bint handing out scimitars isn't the basis for effective goverment...')
Lol.... You still don't get it, do you? :doh:
I'm the very last person to begrudge anyone their (legally earned) wealth, within reason.
To use your example above, own a 100ft yacht, by all means, two even, perhaps even three, if it floats your boat (no pun intended), but no-one *needs* 100 x 100ft yachts, or rather more accurately, that much disposable income, especially when it's been earned both illegally and immorally, as I outlined earlier, whilst there are others in the world who don't even have a roof over their heads or the wherewithal to feed their children.
That's fundamentally WRONG, on all levels, and something needs done about it. I've already said what I would do, so have no intention of repeating myself for you to miss the point again, or twist it to suit your counter argument.
Marco.
Your assuming that was in response to something you wrote but it wasn't I was just speaking generally. I agree with you that immoral or illegal earnings should not be kept but given that no-one disputes this and that there are laws in place I don't really understand what you are arguing about?
Several factors lead to the current malaise of a divided-wealth society.
Lack of opportunity, which I feel I have had for psychological reasons in my early formation; family 'script', constant belittlement and irresponsible parents who put there own narcissism first.
in the 70s when blitzed out with fellow hippies in my bedsit, we would all sit around listening to that great music full of revolution, and which many here may now regard as classic stuff. Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Pink Floyd and much other rebellious prog. rock.
I modelled that I wanted to be able in a room of say 12 people, to be able when we had purchased a cake, to divide it into 12 and also be able to trust all not to be greedy thieves; I wanted to be able to go out and know that when I came back my piece was still there.
But what happens is, someone takes two pieces, and then another sees this, and thinks "I'd better take mine - no two pieces". A third onlooking can see that he has to be wary, and then grabs three, and the pattern extends; before long there s nothing left and seven people have no cake.
Doesn't society seem to be a little like this, the polarisation through fear, causing greed?
The obscenity of 100 yachts also incurs a stupidity; we can only be in one place at any given time, and we can only drive one car at a time.
What do we do when we have eaten at all the best restaurants? Had all the most beautiful ladies, (if that is your style of living), have numerous luxury houses all over the world; have the best in everything? Where is there to go from there?
One option is to ostentaciously parade one's wealth, and I think that is happening all the time, even at a much lower financial status, and I see it all around me in my town, even with a medium Merc., or BMW. The attitude reveals all.
With our Hi-Fi we enjoy the pursuit and the resulting progress, and for me that represents achievement, an irreplaceable satisfaction. Isn't this how humanity can best fulfil itself, by application to progress on all areas to improve the human predicament?
RobbieGong
16-03-2017, 17:06
I actually dont have any problem with wealth and admire people who have come good - the jealousy that sometimes results from that is plain lame,
I mean we all aspire to a level of comfort and being able to do the things we enjoy.
I'm glad for folk who have done well, good on them. Never had what you'd call a lot so I aspire to that comfortable level where financial pressures are no longer a worry, where I can help my children a bit more, surprise my wife who deserves more of those occasional nice things, help people out etc and hope it happens for most of us one day maybe.
But there's wealth and greed which are two completely different things.
We are called so to speak to give back, to help the poor needy and so, it is absolutely right and good to do so.
BUT as has been expressed it is just wrong to have a world that has the so called most intelligent creature - made in Gods own image
allowing an existence where some have obscene amounts of wealth, self indulgence and an abundance of 'play things' whilst so many starve and live in poverty. There's a point where 'that certain type' and existence equates to gluttony.
A very simplistic view and obviously not a fresh one but still very true and sad in my opinion.
The 'I'm alright jack' mindset has to be changed from every level too - far easier said than done though unfortunately :(
Your assuming that was in response to something you wrote but it wasn't I was just speaking generally. I agree with you that immoral or illegal earnings should not be kept but given that no-one disputes this and that there are laws in place I don't really understand what you are arguing about?
Because the current laws clearly aren't doing enough to stop the vermin concerned (not the super-rich who've earned their money via just and legal means) from coining it in!! :rolleyes:
Something rather more radical and hard-hitting needs to be done to target corruption and remove those guilty of such of the illegal and immoral fortunes they've amassed - and distribute the money instead to those around the world who so desperately need it.
Got it now, or is the message still failing to penetrate? ;)
Marco.
But there's wealth and greed which are two completely different things.
Absolutely. I have no problem with wealth (within reason), but utterly abhor greed for wealth and power [a rather different thing], as it's been responsible, over many centuries, for creating war and division.
I will also always champion what I consider is right and fair, and whenever equality is justly deserved, which brings me neatly onto the (inevitable) forthcoming Scottish referendum, and after years of unjust control and oppression from Westminster, the Scottish people finally getting what is rightly theirs.... :D:eyebrows:
No we'll not go there now! ;)
Marco.
I modelled that I wanted to be able in a room of say 12 people, to be able when we had purchased a cake, to divide it into 12 and also be able to trust all not to be greedy thieves; I wanted to be able to go out and know that when I came back my piece was still there.
But what happens is, someone takes two pieces, and then another sees this, and thinks "I'd better take mine - no two pieces". A third onlooking can see that he has to be wary, and then grabs three, and the pattern extends; before long there s nothing left and seven people have no cake.
Doesn't society seem to be a little like this, the polarisation through fear, causing greed?
In a nutshell, yes [and nicely put], although sadly it's also often a case of greed, for greed's sake.
Marco.
Ergo Trump's travel ban is the height of civilisation?
Nope, and I despise what that man stands for and the division and hatred he's creating. Like I said, not all laws are just, and those that aren't should be fought, but neither is the attitude of 'fuck you, I'll do what I like', acceptable either.
Folk need to learn not just to think about looking after No1, but instead how their actions impact on others - and that mantra needs rolling out on a global scale!
Marco.
Food banks for British families in work is a mild form of the same obscenity as that of people dying of starvation whilst we here are dying of over eating.
Another rather astute comment, Dennis :thumbsup:
That state of affairs is both shameful and an utter disgrace.
Marco.
Light Dependant Resistor
16-03-2017, 19:00
But a whole group of extremely wealthy has escaped the forums radar, namely those
who have extreme wealth but do not enjoy it at all. Rather share portfolios are chosen
where their money wreaks havoc on the poor, and causes the most damage to the planet.
Share portfolios are in gambling industries, mining in third world countries, unrenewable
resources.
Do they ever do anything with their wealth to make their own lives better ... No
rather they die seemingly happy seeing the misery they silently have created,
Like an inability to argue verbally then asserted silently by their chosen others, to win that
argument for them no matter what.
This video shows South Australia's premier on the left bringing many issues of concern
to the federal representative but packaged into one very neatly.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/jay-weatherill-tirade-josh-frydenberg-calculated/8360354
See the reaction of the person on the right not arguing back with reference to the above description
Simply because everything is in place already to cause the most damage to the planet.
Ask yourself what is the sense of Submarines in 2017 when starving millions are dying
In this case hopeless agenda using taxpayers money... even worse.
To keep right up to date with all issues see https://www.theguardian.com/profile/first-dog-on-the-moon
.
'JAMS' are not 'the poor' folk who live in the global-south are poor.
Sorry, Marc. I haven't a clue what that sentence was supposed to mean? :scratch:
Marco.
Rothchild
16-03-2017, 20:07
Sorry, Marc. I haven't a clue what that sentence was supposed to mean? :scratch:
Marco.
JAM = 'Just About Managing' the current government's preferred version of 'hard working families' (or in as Macca put it, the person trying to keep a 10yr old punto on the road')
'Global-South' - generally a consensus has emerged / is emerging to use this term rather than '3rd world' or 'developing world' as there are issues with both those naming conventions.
What I'm saying is that Martin's description of someone who struggles to keep a 10yr old punto on the road as being 'poor' is wrong, by a matter of degree, whilst they are relatively poor in a wealthy nation, like the UK, they are rich beyond belief compared to those living in the slums of the global south, who endure absolute poverty (rather than just relative poverty).
For every wrong thing he's done or said Frankie Boyle nailed it with this:
"There has to be something wrong with a world where the best employment option for a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa isn’t being a farmer in sub-Saharan Africa, but crossing the Mediterranean on a punctured lilo, only to spend days dangling under a lorry so that he can end up selling lollipops in a nightclub toilet."
Ha - love it (and very apt)!
Thanks for the explanation. That's the problem with using political buzzwords, only those with an interest in such would recognise.. It's all a foreign lingo to me! ;)
Marco.
What I'm saying is that Martin's description of someone who struggles to keep a 10yr old punto on the road as being 'poor' is wrong, by a matter of degree, whilst they are relatively poor in a wealthy nation, like the UK, they are rich beyond belief compared to those living in the slums of the global south, who endure absolute poverty (rather than just relative poverty).
Obviously there was a context to my example of 'poor'. I am aware of absolute poverty. No matter what anyone says there are no easy answers to that.
Light Dependant Resistor
16-03-2017, 20:54
Obviously there was a context to my example of 'poor'. I am aware of absolute poverty. No matter what anyone says there are no easy answers to that.
Never the less there are answers.
I think that greed as a trait can be to a great extent attributed to Freud's nephew Edward Bernhays, the founder of Public Relations.
His declared aim was to get people to buy things on the basis of 'want' rather than 'need'.
His psychology was used to persuade people to smoke cigarettes, particularly women, for whom it became a symbol of emancipation.
Looking at TV ads. it is apparent that depictions of things are usually in very unrealistic contexts, so they seem to me to be using his principles.
I bet many here have ended up with a desire for a piece of Hi-Fi which has been implanted by images and concepts rather than auditory evaluation, I know that I have, and later regretted my mistake.
walpurgis
16-03-2017, 22:52
I think that greed as a trait can be to a great extent attributed to Freud's nephew Edward Bernhays, the founder of Public Relations.
I don't think so. Historically, there has been greed as far back as human history extends. Comparatively recently the 'clearances' suffered by the crofters in Scotland two hundred or so years ago, were driven purely by greed.
I don't think so. Historically, there has been greed as far back as human history extends. Comparatively recently the 'clearances' suffered by the crofters in Scotland two hundred or so years ago, were driven purely by greed.
Not to mention the plundering of whole continents and the enslavement and/or murder of millions of their native inhabitants.
There has always been greed to a point, but mostly as a means to power, which is the real riches folk seek. (an not the obvious type now)
I still think that point valid, but admittedly it applies to consumerism in which we are encouraged to buy loads of crap, rather than the greater tyrannies of the politics of history.
I agree with you Walpurgis regarding history, but now we do not invade and take over countries as we did in the past; Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, and of course the British Empire.
What we have now is capitalism, and its use to allow greed by those running large 'empires' to exploit the masses by the means above. This is in some ways worse because it has the appearance of free will laissez faire transactions, when in fact, the most insidious psychology is used to incite purchases.
RothwellAudio
17-03-2017, 10:29
There's some interesting stuff in this thread, but some of it doesn't make any sense - literally. Take as an example "'JAMS' are not 'the poor' folk who live in the global-south are poor". Even after applying Rothchild's translation we only get "Hard working families are not "the poor" folk who live in the 3rd world are poor". Eh?
Or how about "...admittedly it applies to consumerism in which we are encouraged to buy loads of crap, rather than the greater tyrannies of the politics of history". Yes, consumers buy crap - they don't buy the greater tyrannies of the politics of history, maybe because they can't find a shop that sells them. Or have I misunderstood?
1) Humans are noble and perfect creatures sadly corrupted by the work of a few evil people.
Or 2) we are just a bunch of complete f**K-ups who will believe any bollocks we are told if it feels right to us and are capable unconciously of lying to ourselves and others about what fine and upstanding people we are without a shred of self doubt; leading to slavery, the holocaust (you think the Nazis knew they were evil but did it anyway?), and a thousand wars and revolutions, and this will never change.
I'm going with option 2.
Rothchild
17-03-2017, 10:53
I'm not sure how it could be much clearer? Sure, out of context it's a bit clunky but there is a thread here not just an individual post.
Martin, I wasn't suggesting you didn't understand the difference between relative and absolute poverty, it was just that at that point in the discussion it seemed that absolute poverty was the more pertinent version and your 'punto driver' was an easily available shorthand to explain to Marco what I was on about.
What I'm getting at more generally is there are more people in 'The 1%' that one might be given to think and that actually there may be quite a number of people who (thanks to our generally high living standards) we wouldn't think are in this club who actually are (even if they can't drop £50k on hifi).
Rothchild
17-03-2017, 10:56
I'm going with option 2.
Unfortunately you're probably right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8a/d9/b2/8ad9b28cd2de76ee1023b7cfbb313261.jpg
I'm not sure how it could be much clearer? Sure, out of context it's a bit clunky but there is a thread here not just an individual post.
Martin, I wasn't suggesting you didn't understand the difference between relative and absolute poverty, it was just that at that point in the discussion it seemed that absolute poverty was the more pertinent version and your 'punto driver' was an easily available shorthand to explain to Marco what I was on about.
What I'm getting at more generally is there are more people in 'The 1%' that one might be given to think and that actually there may be quite a number of people who (thanks to our generally high living standards) we wouldn't think are in this club who actually are (even if they can't drop £50k on hifi).
Well true, I have met some pretty well educated people to whom it had not occurred that despite with what they considered to be their modest salary and home were actually amongst the top 1% or possibly top 0.1% of the wealthiest people in the world.
You show them the stats and you can see from their faces and body language what a surprise this is to them and also that it clearly makes them feel uncomfortable. No-one wants to think they are actually part of the wealthy elite causing all the world suffering that they wring their hands over.
They see themselves as underdogs, fighting against the uneven distribution of wealth and the tyranny of the rich when the fact is that without the existing system of tyranny and wealth distribution their lives would be massively worse.
farflungstar
17-03-2017, 11:34
1) Humans are noble and perfect creatures sadly corrupted by the work of a few evil people.
Or 2) we are just a bunch of complete f**K-ups who will believe any bollocks we are told if it feels right to us and are capable unconciously of lying to ourselves and others about what fine and upstanding people we are without a shred of self doubt; leading to slavery, the holocaust (you think the Nazis knew they were evil but did it anyway?), and a thousand wars and revolutions, and this will never change.
I'm going with option 2.
Sadly option 2
RothwellAudio
17-03-2017, 11:41
I'm not sure how it could be much clearer? Sure, out of context it's a bit clunky but there is a thread here not just an individual post.
I'm not sure if this is a reference to my post (#111) or not, but I'll assume it is and offer some possible clarification.
'JAMS' are not 'the poor' folk who live in the global-south are poor = unclear.
'JAMS' are not 'the poor'. Folk who live in the global-south are poor = clear.
All it takes is a full stop and a capital letter and the whole thing is changed. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being pedantic but I'm just asking to people consider the benefits of writing sentences that make sense. After all, we're on a forum and the written word is our only form of communication (apart from pictures and links to videos and diagrams etc., etc. :lol: )
Sadly option 2
It is depressing isn't it? Way I look at it is that whilst I may be indirectly culpable it is only because I was lucky enough to be born in a specific place and time where I get to have it relatively easy. I can sit here on paid holiday talking bollocks on the internet while someone else is needlessly dying on the street in Calcutta.
In that context getting angry or upset that some people who got even luckier can afford a £50K hi fi or a Porsche when I can't seems a little absurd.
In the end all I can do is try my best not to be a complete bastard all of the time. I try to make that my contribution :)
What we have now is capitalism, and its use to allow greed by those running large 'empires' to exploit the masses by the means above. This is in some ways worse because it has the appearance of free will laissez faire transactions, when in fact, the most insidious psychology is used to incite purchases.
Ain't that the truth! You've just earned the title of 'Captain Insightful' Wear the badge with pride ;)
Marco.
Rothchild
17-03-2017, 11:57
I'm not sure if this is a reference to my post (#111) or not, but I'll assume it is and offer some possible clarification.
'JAMS' are not 'the poor' folk who live in the global-south are poor = unclear.
'JAMS' are not 'the poor'. Folk who live in the global-south are poor = clear.
All it takes is a full stop and a capital letter and the whole thing is changed. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being pedantic but I'm just asking to people consider the benefits of writing sentences that make sense. After all, we're on a forum and the written word is our only form of communication (apart from pictures and links to videos and diagrams etc., etc. :lol: )
Ahh, apologies.
Must. Punctuate. More.
;-)
They see themselves as underdogs, fighting against the uneven distribution of wealth and the tyranny of the rich when the fact is that without the existing system of tyranny and wealth distribution their lives would be massively worse.
Please explain why you consider that so. I'm referring specifically to the bit in bold. I'm intrigued to know why, according to you, my life would be worse for it.
Marco.
Please Rothwell Audio will you clarify your criticism in post111 of my own earlier one, in which you say I am unclear?
I would appreciate adhesion to correct grammar and accurate syntax, as well as correct punctuation, the latter of which you having expressed a need for in others' posts.
If, hypothetically speaking, and if there was a means to do it, we were to even wealth out right across the world, bring everyone to the same standard of living, they would be significantly worse off. Since we couldn't bring everyone up to the standard they currently enjoy, by definition their standard of living would have to drop, I would guess quite significantly.
By 'they' I mean 'us', obviously.
Please Rothwell Audio will you clarify your criticism in post111 of my own earlier one, in which you I am unclear?
I would appreciate adhesion to correct grammar and accurate syntax, as well as correct punctuation, the latter of which you having expressed a need for in others' posts.
'Come and see the violence inherent in the syntax!'
In that context getting angry or upset that some people who got even luckier can afford a £50K hi fi or a Porsche when I can't seems a little absurd.
As far as I can see, no-one here qualifies for the above, least of all me (in case you were thinking that). So why mention it?
What I get "angry or upset" about are either those who run their lives, driven by a selfish and rather vulgar 'greed for gold', über alles, or some corrupt, deranged waste of oxygen making tens of millions from child trafficking, whilst others, well, you know the script....
If that doesn't make you "angry or upset", or want to punish those responsible, then I guess nothing will ;)
Marco.
As far as I can see, no-one here qualifies for the above, least of all me (in case you were thinking that). So why mention it?
.
Because the o/p is asking about the sort of people who own £50K systems.? Sorry for trying to be on topic, I'll try harder next time ;)
Rothchild
17-03-2017, 12:21
According to this, mid last year, to be in the top 1% globally you're on an income of just shy of 30k euros a year and/or sit on around 700k euros of assets (including house, investments, car etc)
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
They point out: "So if you’re an accountant, a registered nurse or even an elementary school teacher, congratulations. The average wage for any of these careers falls well within the top 1% worldwide."
So I'll amend my initial answer as to 'who buys £50k Hifi', it's a lot more likely to be the 0.1%
In order for the billions of people who make up the 99% to be elevated, even slightly, those of us at the lower end of the 1% will have to accept real and significant reductions in our expectations and living standards (which may well be why we're seeing such huge nationalist surges, as people realise that global equality is likely to equal reducing living standards for people in rich countries)
If, hypothetically speaking, and if there was a means to do it, we were to even wealth out right across the world, bring everyone to the same standard of living, they would be significantly worse off.
Yes, but that's *not* what I'm proposing. Why do you always insist in taking things completely out of context? Of course some people will always be wealthier than others (for many legitimate reasons) - that's inevitable and perfectly acceptable.
What I'm saying is to level the playing field [by a significant margin] from how it is now, and create more fairness and equality by, let's call it for the sake of brevity, 'robbing the corrupt fat cats of their ill-gotten gains', and dividing whatever that sum amounts to amongst the very poorest in the world, in order to provide them with an existence fit for a human being.
Now whilst that's obviously much easier said than done, it's a rather different concept from that which you were suggesting.
Marco.
Because the o/p is asking about the sort of people who own £50K systems.? Sorry for trying to be on topic, I'll try harder next time ;)
Lol - the statement is still largely irrelevant because nowhere does the OP indicate he's upset that some people, who got even luckier than him, can afford a £50K hi fi or a Porsche, when he can't.
You do have a rather unfortunate habit of extrapolating discussions into an area that exists entirely in your head :ner:;)
Marco.
RothwellAudio
17-03-2017, 12:51
Please Rothwell Audio will you clarify your criticism in post111 of my own earlier one, in which you I am unclear?
I would appreciate adhesion to correct grammar and accurate syntax, as well as correct punctuation, the latter of which you having expressed a need for in others' posts.
In the case of Rothchild's post, after some head-scratching, I managed to make sense of it by guessing that it was two sentences, not one.
Unfortunately, I couldn't make any sense out of what you wrote, sorry. I can't even make sense of "... in which you I am unclear".
Well true, I have met some pretty well educated people to whom it had not occurred that despite with what they considered to be their modest salary and home were actually amongst the top 1% or possibly top 0.1% of the wealthiest people in the world.
You show them the stats and you can see from their faces and body language what a surprise this is to them and also that it clearly makes them feel uncomfortable. No-one wants to think they are actually part of the wealthy elite causing all the world suffering that they wring their hands over.
It doesn't bother me much, but then I don't wring my hands over all the suffering. I'm just a heartless bastard.
My request to Rothwell Audio in his post 111, was for him to clarify criticism of;
"...admittedly it applies to consumerism in which we are encouraged to buy loads of crap, rather than the greater tyrannies of the politics of history".
which I assume was from a previous post of mine.
RothwellAudio
17-03-2017, 13:02
To get back on topic, I think the best people to answer the question are the people who sell the stuff. A mate of mine sells some pretty expensive hi-fi and tells me that the people who buy it are usually not super-rich footballers or investment bankers, they're just blokes with pretty ordinary jobs who save up to buy the hi-fi they desire. The super-rich are generally just as oblivious to high-end hi-fi as the rest of the population is.
According to this, mid last year, to be in the top 1% globally you're on an income of just shy of 30k euros a year and/or sit on around 700k euros of assets (including house, investments, car etc)
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
)
Hmm so I'm not in the top 1 percent according to that. Right then, to the barricades, comrades!
RothwellAudio
17-03-2017, 13:10
My request to Rothwell Audio in his post 111, was for him to clarify criticism of;
"...admittedly it applies to consumerism in which we are encouraged to buy loads of crap, rather than the greater tyrannies of the politics of history".
which I assume was from a previous post of mine.
I wasn't criticising the statement, just saying that I didn't understand it. Best I can make of it is that consumers are encouraged to buy loads of crap instead of buying the greater tyrannies of the politics of history. That still doesn't make sense to me.
If everyone else understands it and I'm the only numpty who doesn't get it, please help me out by explaining what it means in simple terms which I might understand.
I understand your last point Rothwell Audio, and apologise, I missed out a word because I am as sore as hell and resultantly tired, after training. I have just corrected it by adding the missing word, and perhaps I also missed a step which was obvious to me.
I make errors, but usually not for reasons of lack of inherent ability
We obviously do not 'buy the greater tyrannies of the politics of history', and surely you didn't think that I was suggesting that we did.
I had thought your criticism was invalid because I was merely stating, perhaps too abbreviatedly, that the human tendency to greed was now exploited by empire building capitalists who encouraged that trait for their own profit gain, and that the old days of pillage and plunder which facilitated its expression, are no longer a dominant feature of the globe.
Infinitely Baffled
17-03-2017, 20:31
All it takes is a full stop and a capital letter and the whole thing is changed. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being pedantic but I'm just asking to people consider the benefits of writing sentences that make sense. After all, we're on a forum and the written word is our only form of communication (apart from pictures and links to videos and diagrams etc., etc. :lol: )
Hallelujah!
Infinitely Baffled I think you have a portal leak;
"Sorry if it sounds like I'm being pedantic but I'm just asking to people consider the benefits of writing sentences that make sense"
"I'm just asking to people"?.
We can all make mistakes, and it takes care and effort to avoid them.
Have you noticed just how many are made on forums? I reckon it is pace of life and anxiety about the world situation, which are impacting our self possession.
Infinitely Baffled
18-03-2017, 08:09
Oh, don't mind me! I'm just a seething mass of niggles and phobias when it comes to the way folks write and speak. You would think I would have better things to do with my time, wouldn't you? Sadly not. Plurals made with apostrophes, rubbish punctuation and that favourite of modern times, the use of "myself" when what is meant is "me", get me going every time. Yes, you are right, it's very easy to make mistakes (embarrassingly, I see that I spelled "hallelujah" wrong in my earlier post!). But I'm not sure it's down to pressure of life - I think people simply don't value accurate written communication as they used to. Blame texts and Twitter maybe.
What is a "portal leak", by the way?
IB
Infinitely Baffled
18-03-2017, 08:27
Originally Posted by Macca:
They see themselves as underdogs, fighting against the uneven distribution of wealth and the tyranny of the rich when the fact is that without the existing system of tyranny and wealth distribution their lives would be massively worse.
Please explain why you consider that so. I'm referring specifically to the bit in bold. I'm intrigued to know why, according to you, my life would be worse for it.
I think the point he is making is that it is the same global system that keeps the poor down as keeps the likes of us up. We may not have designed or participated in the building of that global system, but we certainly benefit from it. Do we abhor it? Yes, most likely we do. But are we prepared to give up a big chunk of our comfort and relative affluence to improve things? Well, that's an altogether trickier question. Most of us salve our consciences with periodic charitable gifts, and inwardly I suspect we are grateful that as individuals there is not a lot more we can practically do.
IB
Well I.B., I am similarly afflicted, but much more so with the spoken word, and in particular with the 'middle class elite as exhibited on R4.
Often the enunciation is so poor as to render it unintelligible, this made worse by mic. technique which seems completely neglected, producing a lower mid upper bass masking peak. (proximity effect).
This irks me because they are often so smug and ingratiating with each other in talk shows, whilst being apparently indifferent to the audience. Egotism seems to predominate; self importance and self advertising. They miss whole syllables, sibilants, and other phonemes from words and 'gabble' at a high rate, often interrupting each other.
But given the mess things in general seem to be in, (IMO), we need clarity of thought and clarity of communication of those thoughts, the opposite being given to us pre the Brexit vote, which makes our decision flawed.
My 'portal leak' was a metaphorical allusion to a perhaps failure in your post, and to your title of I.B., a failure in that being a leak, which would constitute a reflex port.
Texting has had a major influence, and the volume of communication I suspect has increased massively, but the quality has declined. (1000 X 0 = 0).
I was approached outside Morrisons a few months ago by a lovely teenage girl doing a bit od questionnaire research, and she asked me a question. I was completely unable to understand her, or even identify starts and finishes of words.
The whole sound was one of the current trend in which females screech a loose vocal chord resonance through everything, like the rattling of springs on a snare drum. After asking her to repeat herself I had to admit that I could not understand anything she said.
Infinitely Baffled
18-03-2017, 10:48
"My 'portal leak' was a metaphorical allusion to a perhaps failure in your post, and to your title of I.B., a failure in that being a leak, which would constitute a reflex port."
Ah, I get it! That's rather good.
IB
Originally Posted by Macca:
They see themselves as underdogs, fighting against the uneven distribution of wealth and the tyranny of the rich when the fact is that without the existing system of tyranny and wealth distribution their lives would be massively worse.
I think the point he is making is that it is the same global system that keeps the poor down as keeps the likes of us up. We may not have designed or participated in the building of that global system, but we certainly benefit from it. Do we abhor it? Yes, most likely we do. But are we prepared to give up a big chunk of our comfort and relative affluence to improve things? Well, that's an altogether trickier question. Most of us salve our consciences with periodic charitable gifts, and inwardly I suspect we are grateful that as individuals there is not a lot more we can practically do.
IB
Yes, that was exactly the point I was making.
Like Joe, though, I'm a heartless bastard and don't give it any thought most of the time. Faux moralising does get on my tits, though.
Re the use of language: The 'myself' instead of me, and even worse, 'ourselves' instead of 'us'. It may be a first world problem but it drives me mad. Regrettably I hear, and see this in e-mails, all the time at work. I have pointed out to people that saying or writing something like 'Please send that to ourselves' makes them appear utterly moronic, however this was ignored, in fact in one case someone actually attempted to argue with me that it was the grammatically correct form.
You just can't tell some people.
The simple fact is there are just too many of us now living in areas that struggle to provide a life, and charitable aid just exaberates this. It sounds cruel, and i guess it is, but it wont get better by piecemeal aid to just survive the latest of many crises.
I'm not one of those people who holds that over-population is the main issue, but that is another debate I suppose.
Poor government, corruption, religious and tribal/ethnic conflicts IMV are the main reasons why people are living in shit in some areas of the world. If the solution was to throw money at it then the problem would be solved by now. That only leaves military intervention with a view to regime change and we have seen how well that works out a number of times in the past two decades.
I'm personally in favour of leaving them all to get on with it and expending our efforts on sorting out our own, admittedly less serious, issues instead. Which sounds callous, possibly because it is callous, but when there is clearly no solution how long do you keep trying to find one before you give up?
In the words of Terry Collier: 'God didn't make this country an island by accident.' ;)
Didnt say over population Martin per say. Just too many in wrong areas of world that cannot support them. Its pretty plain to see.
Didnt say over population Martin per say. Just too many in wrong areas of world that cannot support them. Its pretty plain to see.
Well that is a cultural issue, which I suppose I should have included in my list of causes. You can't change that either, or rather you can't force it to change.
Well, you probably could, but it wouldnt be palatable to the liberals . It would take a united world to do it successfully and we aint gonna get that due to the vested interests and greed of our contolling class and for that matter the base interests of the race in general. We may be pack animals but we are picky ones
Well, you probably could, but it wouldnt be palatable to the liberals . It would take a united world to do it successfully and we aint gonna get that due to the vested interests and greed of our contolling class and for that matter the base interests of the race in general. We may be pack animals but we are picky ones
Aye, I suppose it all depends on your outlook. We are just a species of tribal ape that has managed to semi-harness the power of electricity, causing almost as many problems as we solved in the process. I don't believe that as a species we will ever progress to anything more noble. I know some people take a different view. We may have moved on from slavery and homosexuals don't get beaten up as much as they used to but I don't think these things are indicative of any sort of general spiritual move forward even if it might appear that way prima face.
Firebottle
18-03-2017, 13:04
(1000 X 0 = 0).
I like that :)
As for the teenage questioner, was she speaking with any sort of accent or hadn't her voice broken :eyebrows:
Infinitely Baffled
18-03-2017, 14:07
I'm not one of those people who holds that over-population is the main issue, but that is another debate I suppose.
Poor government, corruption, religious and tribal/ethnic conflicts IMV are the main reasons why people are living in shit in some areas of the world. If the solution was to throw money at it then the problem would be solved by now. That only leaves military intervention with a view to regime change and we have seen how well that works out a number of times in the past two decades.
Yes, I think that is broadly right: the main, fundamental, underlying problem is that people are rubbish. That's all people, I'm afraid - in varying degrees, to be sure, but fundamentally self-interested. And I can't think what we could do to change that, so look for a minute at what other big factors there are in play. I'm of the view that over-population is a huge underlying cause of misery, and certainly for the future will be the cause of a lot more. Some of the most effective strategies for combating over-reproduction involve improved education for women. And that is something you CAN throw money at. So it's not enough really to say that nothing can be done.
Academic, though, if you don't think overpopulation is a big issue.
IB
RothwellAudio
18-03-2017, 15:31
I'm of the view that over-population is a huge underlying cause of misery, and certainly for the future will be the cause of a lot more.
I agree with you. Even if you take the view that we're nowhere near the limit yet of what the planet can sustain, it has to be acknowledged that infinite expansion is not an option and there must be a limit at some point.
And that brings up another issue that I can't get my head round: does the current economic model that the world operates on depend on an ever-expanding population to work? If so, doesn't that mean it can't work indefinitely?
Don't expect me to provide any answers - I haven't even worked out what money is yet :lol:
There isn't really a current economic model, it is just a lash-up which is why it fell over in 2008 and will fall over again at some point.
IMO Population growth won't continue for ever, see Malthus et al. In any case we are still a long way from a Soylent Green situation.
Well, you probably could, but it wouldnt be palatable to the liberals .
Those liberals in the Roman Catholic church?
Let's assume everyone agrees that illegal earnings should be confiscated (indeed they can be, and often are). What then constitutes 'immoral wealth'? Is it any unearned income? All income above a certain level, however earned?
Those liberals in the Roman Catholic church?
No i wasnt thinking them tbh, although i guess they has a burdon to bear
Let's assume everyone agrees that illegal earnings should be confiscated (indeed they can be, and often are). What then constitutes 'immoral wealth'? Is it any unearned income? All income above a certain level, however earned?
That's what I want to know.
No i wasnt thinking them tbh, although i guess they has a burdon to bear
The RC church could make a huge impact on population growth by changing its position on contraception.
The RC church could make a huge impact on population growth by changing its position on contraception.
It already did, few years ago now.
Every sperm is no longer sacred.
Let's assume everyone agrees that illegal earnings should be confiscated (indeed they can be, and often are). What then constitutes 'immoral wealth'? Is it any unearned income? All income above a certain level, however earned?
For me, there can be no "immoral wealth" for those who have fairly and legally earned it. In terms of "fairly", I hate the fuckers who backstab their way to the top, and will do anything to further their 'status', whilst making lots of enemies in the process - but that aside, good luck to anyone who finds themselves in the happy position of being 'super rich' :)
*However*, there still exists the question of greed.
Their fortune may not have been amassed unfairly or immorally, but there's only so much money any one person or family can spend, so once you've bought your big mansion (and/or multiple residences throughout the world), the cars, the 100ft yachts, etc, etc, and live the life of a king, yet STILL have tens of millions lying 'spare', and simply hoard it for the sake if it, *that*, IMO, is when GREED comes into it.
And there are plenty of people in the world who come into that category. What I'm saying is that those who qualify should be made to give their 'spare cash' to some form of charity, but only if they don't already contribute significantly in that way. If they did, then they would be exempt from making any such further contributions.
I can honestly say, hand on heart, that if I were in that position, I could not go to sleep at night knowing I had all that money spare, whilst millions are starving to death, with no roofs over their heads.
I just couldn't do it, so it would be given away tout suite - *but* very carefully distributed to the right places, so that I was 100% certain the money was going directly to those who need it, and not sunk into the pockets of the corrupt, as happens all too often with some so-called 'charity organisations'! :rolleyes:
In fact, I'd probably use the opportunity to take a holiday and visit some of the places in Africa, etc, most in need of help, and monitor how well my money was being spent... I'd see it as an interesting and challenging project to take on, and also extremely satisfying watching how I was making a difference and improving the lives of some of the world's most disadvantaged :cool:
Marco.
Balls to that, way too much effort. I'd have it all changed into gold coins so I could swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Any left overs would give to a cat charity. Cats deserve it more than people.
When my parents were alive, my father did the pools every week. My mother would spend Saturday working out who she'd give the money away to if he won the jackpot, much to my father's amusement (he never won a penny AFAIK). 'Paupers again!' my father would say after the footie results were read out, as he crumpled up the coupon and threw it into the bin. Hearts usually lost, as well.
I'm at the 'give it all away' stage myself, now. Most of it would go to my children, though.
Balls to that, way too much effort. I'd have it all changed into gold coins so I could swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.
Any left overs would give to a cat charity. Cats deserve it more than people.
ok, your on the list ;)
When my parents were alive, my father did the pools every week. My mother would spend Saturday working out who she'd give the money away to if he won the jackpot, much to my father's amusement (he never won a penny AFAIK). 'Paupers again!' my father would say after the footie results were read out, as he crumpled up the coupon and threw it into the bin. Hearts usually lost, as well.
I'm at the 'give it all away' stage myself, now. Most of it would go to my children, though.
Mine would do the pools too. And spot the ball. I used to fill out the coupons for them. Spot the ball was the biggest piss-take going. You'd have two players in the foreground of the photo and clearly one is tackling the other, so put all your 'X's around them. Next week they put up same the picture with the ball in it and it's on the roof of the stand. Rob dogs.
Balls to that, way too much effort.
I'd enjoy the challenge, and it would give me something to do. I'm deadly serious, btw. That's why I'm a Christian :)
Any left overs would give to a cat charity. Cats deserve it more than people.
Undoubtedly true in a lot of cases!!
Marco.
Mine would do the pools too. And spot the ball. I used to fill out the coupons for them. Spot the ball was the biggest piss-take going. You'd have two players in the foreground of the photo and clearly one is tackling the other, so put all your 'X's around them. Next week they put up same the picture with the ball in it and it's on the roof of the stand. Rob dogs.
My parents never did any of that. Fortunately, they didn't need to. They just sold LOTS of fish & chips! ;)
Marco.
Another thing I'd do, in order to, shall we say, facilitate a fairer and more humane 'redistribution of wealth' is get rid of all the hangers on, and chinless wonders on the civil list!
'Baroness Bouffant of Berkshire', 'Earl Empty-head of Ealing' and 'Baron Buggery of Bedfordshire', etc, who get paid millions of pounds by the government for planting a tree in park, once in a blue moon, or opening a school, whilst the rest of the time sponging off the system and living the high life, would have that money taken from them and given to charity, and made to work instead for a living!
Ditto with the House of Lords, which is full of dribbling, incontinent old men, doing next to nothing all day but soiling their pants and consuming sweet sherry, whilst getting paid handsomely for it. Weed out all the chinless spongers, I say!!
:exactly:
Marco.
They don't get any money from the Civil List. In fact the Civil List was abolished in 2011.
Ok, so how do they get money to exist, and who pays for it? They don't work for it, that's for sure!
Marco.
Well house of lords get up to £300 a day attendance allowance for going to work which means a short walk for all the ones who live in London. Go every day and youve got a nice income...thats just for starters.
There are only 100 hereditary peers in the HoL.
Queen is independently wealthy plus they get income from the Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall.
Upkeep of Royal palaces is paid for from taxes, but you could argue they belong to the nation.
Well house of lords get up to £300 a day attendance allowance for going to work which means a short walk for all the ones who live in London. Go every day and youve got a nice income...thats just for starters.
I think applying the term "going to work", in their context, is being more than a little generous! ;)
Marco.
Queen is independently wealthy plus they get income from the Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall.
What about all the Barons, Baronesses, Marquises, Earls, etc: chinless wonders no-one has ever heard of, who do hee-haw of any real significance... How do they exist financially, and who pays for it?
Marco.
What about all the Barons, Baronesses, Marquises, Earls, etc: chinless wonders no-one has ever heard of, who do hee-haw of any real significance... How do they exist financially, and who pays for it?
Marco.
The great wealth of the aristocracy was wiped out (along with many of its sons) by WWI and the huge death duties they had to pay. WWII finished off the job. Many of them are relatively poor; a lot of 'stately homes' belong to the National Trust, and the aristocrats are there only as tenants. Others opened their estates to the public, and have safari parks and other visitor attractions to help pay for the running of the estate. Some have made money by selling off land, or have become wealthy through their occupations, but very few of the aristocracy are anywhere near 'super-rich'.
If we're going to be all Marxist-Leninist, then why not go the whole hog? Confiscate all second homes, BTL properties, savings above a certain relatively modest level, expensive gizmos, raise the top rate of tax to 99%. and impose it on all income above £50,000 a year.
Nope, not necessary. The best/most successful solutions for anything generally exist in the middle of all extremes. Hi-fi's like that, too.
There are good and bad points about all political 'solutions'. Even communism has its place. The key, if it were possible, is to marry all the best bits and create the fairest and most equal division of wealth for all.
However, as I said before, that doesn't mean 'standardising' everything. There will always legitimately be some with rather more than others. The key, though, is to ensure that the current 'have nots', have something, and get a fairer share of the pie, worthy of them living a life fit for a human being :)
Marco.
Nah, confiscate the BTL homes I say!
Another 'doing well' sector of society is the local Government people in upper echelons, who with evident lack of ability rake in high pay and very luxurious pensions, just by 'being there'.
A very large Telecoms company which we all know, also has immense numbers of mediocre people in highly paid management positions, way above the salaries of many who have studied for years and who work hard.
We cannot say that much is justly apportioned, let alone meritocratic.
I'm sure that an agreement could be arrived at with regard to a new paradigm of politics, but we are all polarised into a position of self protection because of the predatory nature of society as it is.
BTW one Lord left his taxi engine running whilst he signed in for the day, and immediately after signing left in it.
All that may be true, but a) none of the people you describe come anywhere near super-rich and b) they are all within the PAYE system, so will not be able to evade/avoid paying tax. Unpaid tax is mostly a problem related to large multinational corporations who play the system so that they pay minimal tax in countries in which they have a major presence. Wrt to individuals, it is mostly about people in the banking/finance sector, who make huge amounts of money, and who are adept at shifting it about to ensure taxation is minimal. Getting all het up about the aristocracy, or local government officials, however highly paid, is swallowing a camel whilst straining at a gnat.
The trouble is, addressing these problems is complex. Force the tax-avoiding large companies to pay their 'fair share' of taxes risks them moving their operations elsewhere, with consequent job losses here. The super-rich can live anywhere in the world; they probably own properties in several countries. You could force them out of the UK by, for example, scrutinising their wealth ever more closely, but how would that benefit the UK economy?
walpurgis
20-03-2017, 10:24
local Government people in upper echelons, who with evident lack of ability rake in high pay
Where did you get that from? There may well be a few 'wastes of space' amongst them, but I worked in local authority for a great many years and although I didn't necessarily see eye to eye with those in senior posts. I met many very clever and capable people.
Another 'doing well' sector of society is the local Government people in upper echelons, who with evident lack of ability rake in high pay and very luxurious pensions, just by 'being there'.
Indeed!! We need to weed out these parasitical 'takers' and reward those who deserve it, either through hard work and ability, and/or poverty, due to circumstances out with of their control, such as the babies currently dying in Somalia, and their families.
A very large Telecoms company which we all know, also has immense numbers of mediocre people in highly paid management positions, way above the salaries of many who have studied for years and who work hard.
Yup, essentially 'Peter's Principle'... Does my head in and needs aggressively addressed and eradicated.
I'm sure that an agreement could be arrived at with regard to a new paradigm of politics, but we are all polarised into a position of self protection because of the predatory nature of society as it is.
That's why, if you can, it helps to be as self-sufficient as possible, by building your own 'little island', which largely cocoons you from the worst excesses of modern life and today's 'rat race'.
When you're largely divorced from being meaningfully affected by most political decisions, and virtually immune from the pressures of modern day life, mostly in control of your destiny [and essentially your head is in a happy place], it definitely helps one look at things more objectively :)
BTW one Lord left his taxi engine running whilst he signed in for the day, and immediately after signing left in it.
Waste-of-space fuckers like that need to be made to SIGN on the dole instead!! :guns:
There's way too much free-loading, shady dealings and 'creaming off the pie', carried out by members of 'the establishment', which is rotten to the core. Like I've said before, we're long overdue a revolt by the people, against the system, and I'd be up there as the ring leader of the new revolution!!! :trust:
Marco.
That's why, if you can, it helps to be as self-sufficient as possible, by building your own 'little island', which largely cocoons you from the worst excesses of modern life, and today's 'rat race'.
.
People are too selfish, so build your own 'little island'? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Getting all het up about the aristocracy, or local government officials, however highly paid, is swallowing a camel whilst straining at a gnat.
Not really "all het up", merely venting and letting off some steam. It feels good! ;)
However, if I were genuinely in a position to target and eradicate the existence of what I referred to earlier, I'd do it without blinking an eye - and in a way that would wipe it out forever, so we could all start again with a clean slate.
Fantasyland stuff, I know, but if I were given 'three wishes', right now by a genie, all guaranteed to come true, ridding the world of gross inequality and corruption would unquestionably be one of them.
Marco.
Not really "all het up", merely venting and letting off some steam. It feels good! ;)
However, if I were genuinely in a position to target and eradicate the existence of what I referred to in my last post, I'd do it without blinking an eye - and in a way that would wipe it out forever, so we could all start again with a clean slate.
Fantasy land stuff, I know, but if I were given 'three wishes', by a genie, ridding the world of gross inequality and corruption would unquestionably be one of them.
Marco.
I'm afraid that sort of talk is all too reminiscent of previous attempts to 'wipe the slate clean', all of which ended up with lots of dead people and an even worse set of bastards in charge once the dust had settled.
People are too selfish, so build your own 'little island'? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Nope, because being in that position of strength and stability allows you to be more generous to others, both with time and/or money. Think about it...
Free from having any real financial worries, stress or concerns about anything of real importance, and the ability to largely do what you like, means you can devote more attention to others who most need help.
That's fundamentally what a more equal and fairer world is about.
Marco.
I'm afraid that sort of talk is all too reminiscent of previous attempts to 'wipe the slate clean', all of which ended up with lots of dead people and an even worse set of bastards in charge once the dust had settled.
Well, of course nothing is ever 100% ideal, but it would, IMO, be a step in the right direction to creating a fairer and more equal world.
Marco.
Now I'm a retired and isolated old gitte, having thought to call my house 'Reclusion', I think I have subconsciously done that Marco - 'built my own island' that is.
I live on the sea front, have no mortgage, income not high but comfortable, and have my studio and Hi-Fi. (But of course I am bullied by the cat).
There is one psychological factor, which is not really retro-fittable, that of having been raised in relative privation, which confers a real appreciation of what one has.
However I am not isolated from proposed intentions to cut the triple link on the OAP., and the NHS needs to cut costs, (from what I am told by the top audiologist in the country, there too, are excessive suit wearing, clipboard carrying overpaid managers), and what potentially looms is alarming.
To me a bar of 80% dark chocolate is a real pleasure, not part of an everyday 'also eaten', and this means that any improvement in living standard is really felt.
I remember a guy at a HiFi dealership telling me that a guy came in, listened to some B&W 800s & Classé Delta pre / monoblocks & there and then went: "I'll take them, would it be worth bi-amping the B&W's?" The dealer managed to convince him that 2x amps were enough. Sometimes people buy "high-high end" stuff just because they can.
Infinitely Baffled
20-03-2017, 12:13
That's why, if you can, it helps to be as self-sufficient as possible, by building your own 'little island', which largely cocoons you from the worst excesses of modern life and today's 'rat race'.
And how does one do that? Why, with shedloads of money, of course! Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge anyone the money that's rightfully theirs. But offering this as "life advice" is like saying to someone suffering from a cold: "I recommend six months in the Caribbean".
When you're largely divorced from being meaningfully affected by most political decisions, and virtually immune from the pressures of modern day life, mostly in control of your destiny [and essentially your head is in a happy place], it definitely helps one look at things more objectively :)
I'll bet it does!
IB
.
The trouble is, addressing these problems is complex. Force the tax-avoiding large companies to pay their 'fair share' of taxes risks them moving their operations elsewhere, with consequent job losses here. The super-rich can live anywhere in the world; they probably own properties in several countries. You could force them out of the UK by, for example, scrutinising their wealth ever more closely, but how would that benefit the UK economy?
You could just front them down. You go to e.g Starbucks and say either you pay full tax on the profits of your UK operations or you close them all down and don't trade in the UK at all. I'd bet they would not call the bluff. Not that it would be a bluff.
Hi Gary,
And how does one do that? Why, with shedloads of money, of course!
Not necessarily. Dennis sounds like he's achieved it, and so have I and probably also countless others, without having "shedloads of money", but simply enough to be satisfied with, which allows us the freedom, within reason, to do what we want :)
I'll bet it does!
Absolutely, but it's more about having a certain mindset (one of being satisfied with leading a relatively simple/uncomplicated life), than shedloads of cash. Not having any kids, or a 'high maintenance' wife/partner to pay for, also helps!
I am happily married though - just not to a woman who seeks to advance her 'social status', via what I can provide her, or who thinks that having 200 handbags and pairs of shoes is a 'must have'.... ;)
Marco.
You could just front them down. You go to e.g Starbucks and say either you pay full tax on the profits of your UK operations or you close them all down and don't trade in the UK at all. I'd bet they would not call the bluff. Not that it would be a bluff.
I agree it's worth a shot (no pun intended). Starbucks' coffee is horrible stuff anyway, so they'd be no great loss even if they did bugger off.
I agree it's worth a shot (no pun intended). Starbucks' coffee is horrible stuff anyway, so they'd be no great loss even if they did bugger off.
Exactly.
Hi Dennis,
Now I'm a retired and isolated old gitte, having thought to call my house 'Reclusion', I think I have subconsciously done that Marco - 'built my own island' that is.
Same here. I'm far from being 'super rich', but through a mixture of hard work and good fortune have managed to 'manoeuvre myself' into a comfortable financial position, where by the age of 43, I was semi-retired (with my own art/picture-framing business) and had no mortgage or debts.
Now at 51, I could retire fully at any time, but continue to 'dabble' a little just because I enjoy it really, and am still young and healthy enough (as is my wife) to enjoy living life to the full :)
I live on the sea front, have no mortgage, income not high but comfortable, and have my studio and Hi-Fi. (But of course I am bullied by the cat).
Sounds great! Having pets, I find, is very good for the soul. We have three cats, and love them all dearly.
However I am not isolated from proposed intentions to cut the triple link on the OAP., and the NHS needs to cut costs, (from what I am told by the top audiologist in the country, there too, are excessive suit wearing, clipboard carrying overpaid managers), and what potentially looms is alarming.
Yup, absolutely.
Of course one is never isolated fully from the most insidious effects of modern day life, but as you've found, it's possible to shield oneself from the worst of them - and I believe that, with a little thought, especially in relation to exactly what we *actually* need [often rather different from want] out of life, many others could find themselves in a similarly happy position.
To me a bar of 80% dark chocolate is a real pleasure, not part of an everyday 'also eaten', and this means that any improvement in living standard is really felt.
I know what you mean. If you read my forum signature, you'll see what I consider as REAL 'wealth'...
What price can you put on waking up every morning with a smile on your face, feeling great and being almost 100% in control of your day, looking forward to what it brings? :cool:
Achieving genuine happiness and contentment with one's 'lot in life', can be a rather elusive reality for many. I consider it as a true blessing, and one not even enjoyed by some of the 'super rich'...
There are plenty of sad and lonely millionaires out there, who try (and fail) to use their money to buy themselves happiness! ;)
As they say: 'Your health is your wealth' - and so is having a fulfilled and contented state of mind. One could call it, a 'happy head', which in many ways is priceless...
Marco.
Rothchild
20-03-2017, 12:45
You could just front them down. You go to e.g Starbucks and say either you pay full tax on the profits of your UK operations or you close them all down and don't trade in the UK at all. I'd bet they would not call the bluff. Not that it would be a bluff.
I think they do, they're not evading they're avoiding.
Starbucks isn't the issue they are as close to a rational agent as you'll get, the incompetence of successive governments is the issue.
We know what the rules of business are, drive down cost, increase margins/markets and overcome the competition. Tax efficiency is the part of the first element and in the same way that global capital can move faster and be freer than global labour, global accountancy can eek out inconsistencies in national legislation to ensure that the capital moves even more freely. That's how you end up with contrivances such as the 'Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich'.
Same here. I'm far from being 'super rich', but through a mixture of hard work and good fortune have managed to 'manoeuvre myself' into a comfortable financial position, where by the age of 43, I was semi-retired (with my own art/picture-framing business) and had no mortgage or debts.
Without wishing to pry (and feel free to tell me to bugger off) was this 'all your own work', or did you get a helping hand from your parents, eg with buying your first house/flat?
I think they do, they're not evading they're avoiding.
Starbucks isn't the issue they are as close to a rational agent as you'll get, the incompetence of successive governments is the issue.
.
I'm aware that what they are doing is legal, although there are many international companies operating in the UK who do not make use of the legal methods available and pay full tax in each jurisdiction as a matter of policy.
IIRC Starbucks used the tactic of loaning money from the U.S operation to the UK operation and consequently the 'repayments' on the loan eradicate any UK profits. No profits = no tax to pay.
The strategy I proposed would circumvent the problem that it requires international cooperation to close these avenues of avoidance, and that as a consequence it will never happen.
Rothchild
20-03-2017, 13:19
The strategy I proposed would circumvent the problem that it requires international cooperation to close these avenues of avoidance, and that as a consequence it will never happen.
Yeah, with the world rowing back from globalisation (well the political spin at least) the odds of a unified global agreement on taxation seem further away than ever, indeed one of the features of current pulling up of the draw bridges is that it's essentially a 'soft war' through competitive devaluation and tax incentives.
And in the meantime those who want to 'generate efficiencies' will continue to do so.
Who's paying all their tax as if they were sole trading in each jurisdiction as a matter of policy? You'd think they'd be making more of it in their marketing!
Infinitely Baffled
20-03-2017, 13:20
http://theartofsound.net/images/misc/q.gif Originally Posted by Joe http://theartofsound.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=846707#post846707)
.
The trouble is, addressing these problems is complex. Force the tax-avoiding large companies to pay their 'fair share' of taxes risks them moving their operations elsewhere, with consequent job losses here. The super-rich can live anywhere in the world; they probably own properties in several countries. You could force them out of the UK by, for example, scrutinising their wealth ever more closely, but how would that benefit the UK economy?
You could just front them down. You go to e.g Starbucks and say either you pay full tax on the profits of your UK operations or you close them all down and don't trade in the UK at all. I'd bet they would not call the bluff. Not that it would be a bluff.
Unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions about taxation and multi-national companies. As a result, some nonsense gets talked. I apologise, fellows, I don't mean to be insulting but this is just plain wrong. I don't know much about much, but as it happens, the taxation of international companies was pretty much my life's work - both from inside HMRC and inside a big (very big) multinational corporation. What people don't realise is that - certainly in the case of the very big blue-chip companies, what they want is the same as what HMRC wants, namely simplicity, certainty, pay your tax and move on. The problem comes when a product supply-chain straddles three or more countries. Have you read any UK tax statutes? Tax law is a baroque edifice that has grown, nay mutated, over a couple of hundred years, spreading out in every direction, and getting more and more complicated with 500 more pages of Finance Act every year. It is horrendous! Then add in the US tax code (even worse), maybe the tax regime of a former Soviet bloc country (where quite often the rules are being made on-the-hoof and are ill-adapted to doing business with western corporations anyway), and chuck-in a Belgian co-ordination centre for good measure. Now, sort that lot out, paying due regard to the raft of international and supra-national treaties and protocols designed to regulate what happens when more than one country is trying to tax the same chunk of income. Believe you me, the resulting commercial and fiscal rat's nest is enough to keep armies of lawyers and accountants fully occupied for years. I know, from my own experience!
Now, I'm not saying there aren't companies who try and take advantage of this complexity. There are. But most big, responsible corporations just want to pay what is due, and get on with manufacturing and marketing - the stuff they are in business for. It's not that they don't want to pay. It's just that it takes year (and years, and more years) to actually come to a landing on how much profit they have to pay tax on in any given country. Do they have advisers who tell them how to minimise their tax? Yes, of course they do! If you were selling your house, and someone told you that if you use method 1 you will pay £50k tax, but if you use method 2 you will only pay £15k, what are you going to do? Is anybody on this forum going to put their hand up and say "me, Sir, I'll pay £50k tax!" Companies are just the same. It doesn't make them crooks. If the law is not charging them enough tax, or if it is too complicated to even get to the bottom of how much tax they owe, then change the law! That's what democracy and the rule of law is all about.
So, forgive me for this rant - you have all probably heard more about international taxation than you ever wanted - but it offends me to hear people proposing solutions like "force them to pay or kick them out". The world is very much more complicated than that, and we need to recognise it.
IB
Hi Joe,
Without wishing to pry (and feel free to tell me to bugger off) was this 'all your own work', or did you get a helping hand from your parents, eg with buying your first house/flat?
You're welcome to ask. Nope, since I left home at 25, and have been responsible for looking after myself, I've asked my parents for very little and largely supported myself. My wife was the same, and she left home in Wrexham (and went to work in London) long before I left home. Mind you, that was in the late 80s (we moved into our first house together in 1990), and property prices were very different then from now.
We were also fortunate that both of us had very caring and supportive parents, and fortunately ones who were in a position financially to help us out if we needed it (both of us were also only children), so I guess we drew some comfort from knowing that help was always there if we needed it, but we're both fiercely independent and driven people (what in some circles are referred to as 'achievers'), and so we were determined to stand on our own two feet!
Although there were other contributory factors, what helped massively in creating our situation now was being fortunate to sell our (fairly large) house, in a desirable area of Glasgow, which we'd bought at a knock-down price a few years earlier, done up, and then sold at a significant profit, when the market had picked up considerably.
That then allowed us to buy our current house, here in Wrexham (that Del's mum used to live in) outright, which she let us have at a good price, for obvious reasons, but also so we could look after her in her old age, without her having to be put into a home (as she was in ill health and had suffered from various forms of cancer throughout her life), and still have significant funds left over.
Then investing that money 'wisely'/fortuitously [delete as applicable] into some other property, paid dividends, which partially allowed me to go semi-retired, and Del to take a less demanding and stressful, albeit less well-paid job here in North Wales, but which would allow her to be near her mum, etc, etc, etc... Anyway, I'll stop now before boring you any further! ;)
Marco.
So, forgive me for this rant - you have all probably heard more about international taxation than you ever wanted - but it offends me to hear people proposing solutions like "force them to pay or kick them out". The world is very much more complicated than that, and we need to recognise it.
IB
You are forgiven :) and happy to be corrected except there is nothing in your post that actually explains what the problem is with the 'pay or f**k off' ultimatum. Unless you are saying that UK tax law is so complex no-one really knows what they 'should' be paying? I can appreciate that is an issue.
What I am suggesting is the UK closes these loopholes unilaterally by physically stopping business who exploit them from trading in the UK. I'm suggesting this as a principle btw, in practice I accept it would not be simple.
Who's paying all their tax as if they were sole trading in each jurisdiction as a matter of policy? You'd think they'd be making more of it in their marketing!
Company I work for does this. I asked one of the senior accountants about it since it seemed to me that they were being mugs, as well as potentially breaking the law that requires the company pursue the best outcome for its shareholders. His response was that the negative publicity resulting from being 'spotlit' as a tax avoiding multinational was considered to have more of an adverse impact on profits than just paying the full tax.
Spectral Morn
20-03-2017, 13:52
What type of people own high-high-end gear?
Me
So, forgive me for this rant - you have all probably heard more about international taxation than you ever wanted - but it offends me to hear people proposing solutions like "force them to pay or kick them out". The world is very much more complicated than that, and we need to recognise it.
Sorry to 'offend' you. However, No-one's saying that the world isn't much more complicated than that. I was simply outlining what I'd do, were it possible.
It's just a light-hearted discussion, where some of us have 'vented spleen' about that which (or whom) annoys us in life, and not meant to be taken seriously :)
Marco.
Spectral Morn
20-03-2017, 14:01
What type of people own high-high-end gear?
I do.
Hi Joe,
You're welcome to ask. Nope, since I left home at 25, and have been responsible for looking after myself, I've asked my parents for very little and largely supported myself. My wife was the same, and she left home in Wrexham (and went to work in London) long before I left home. Mind you, that was in the late 80s (we moved into our first house together in 1990), and property prices were very different then from now.
We were also fortunate that both of us had very caring and supportive parents, and fortunately ones who were in a position financially to help us out if we needed it (both of us were also only children), so I guess we drew some comfort from knowing that help was always there if we needed it, but we're both fiercely independent and driven people (what in some circles are referred to as 'achievers'), and so we were determined to stand on our own two feet!.
Thanks for that Marco. Sounds similar to us (well, apart from the 'fiercely independent and driven' bit). Buying property at the right time had a great deal to do with enabling us to make our way at about the same age, though I'd left home at 19 and moved down south. Both my sisters got some help from one of our aunts with the deposit on their first houses (and both of them still live in them), but by the time we got round to buying, my aunt had run out of money. (Itself a very thorny issue between my mother and her siblings, which led to an irreconcilable family split).
What type of people own high-high-end gear?
Me
What type of people own high-high-end gear?
I do.
Sound like we have an 'echo'. :lol:
hifi_dave
20-03-2017, 14:12
An attempt at getting the thread back on track.
Mine is high end too.... well to someone in poverty it is :eyebrows: And boy i,m in poverty.
Think thats the point..high end is dependant on your pocket size
Thanks for that Marco. Sounds similar to us (well, apart from the 'fiercely independent and driven' bit). Buying property at the right time had a great deal to do with enabling us to make our way at about the same age, though I'd left home at 19 and moved down south. Both my sisters got some help from one of our aunts with the deposit on their first houses (and both of them still live in them), but by the time we got round to buying, my aunt had run out of money. (Itself a very thorny issue between my mother and her siblings, which led to an irreconcilable family split).
No worries, Joe. I think it always helps understand people better and gauge 'what they're about', as it were, when you know something of their background :)
Marco.
An attempt at getting the thread back on track.
Aww... You can't beat some classic AoS thread drift, especially when the discussion becomes emotive, moves away from hi-fi, and into what *really* makes folks 'tick'!! ;)
Marco.
Well I was going to post the same a long time ago - but wasn't sure what constituted "high-end". A figure of £50K has been mentioned. Is that for a single source system? Are those current prices?
At the moment 100% of my system comprises used gear, some of which is 45 years old. To date I have probably spent around £10K, so do I qualify (not that I really care)?
How much have you spent on fine wine, since you were old enough to buy it, compared with hi-fi? ;)
As for myself, I dread to think!! :eek:
Marco.
Well I was going to post the same a long time ago - but wasn't sure what constituted "high-end". A figure of £50K has been mentioned. Is that for a single source system? Are those current prices?
At the moment 100% of my system comprises used gear, some of which is 45 years old. To date I have probably spent around £10K, so do I qualify (not that I really care)?
Relax, comrade. You will be safe from the tumbrils when Marco's Glorious Revolution begins.
:lolsign: :yesbruv:
Marco.
You could just front them down. You go to e.g Starbucks and say either you pay full tax on the profits of your UK operations or you close them all down and don't trade in the UK at all. I'd bet they would not call the bluff. Not that it would be a bluff.
See, I can sort of get Amazon or Google's tax-dodging, but what I can't get is tax dodging a-la Starbucks when you have significant bricks and mortar, with UK footfall! Shows how loose our laws really are, and more disturbingly props up this idea of "the City" - basically a tax haven thinly disguised.
A lot less than that! It is only within the last ten years or so, that I have happily spent £10 - £20 on a bottle of wine.
But then some might spend £50K or more on a classic sports car, or a painting or a piece of sculpture.
A lot less than that! It is only within the last ten years or so, that I have happily spent £10 - £20 on a bottle of wine.
Ah I see, I thought you'd been a 'wine-o' for rather longer... For me, it's more like the last 25 years... Could've had myself a lovely pair of TADs by now, instead of my ancient big 'ol wardrobes' - or maybe even a 'decent' CD player, in order to properly rubber-stamp my 'high-end audio' user credentials! :D
Marco.
walpurgis
20-03-2017, 14:57
The 'high end' of my system is on the shelf. The 'low end' sits on the floor! :D
Spectral Morn
20-03-2017, 15:01
Sound like we have an 'echo'. :lol:
Lol
Spectral Morn
20-03-2017, 15:01
An attempt at getting the thread back on track.
Sort of.
How much have you spent on fine wine, since you were old enough to buy it, compared with hi-fi? ;)
As for myself, I dread to think!! :eek:
Marco.
Have an idea how much ive spent of beer, far less fine whisky. Staggering but, hey its food yi ken
Have an idea how much ive spent of beer, far less fine whisky...
Not forgetting wine, women and song.... ;)
Marco.
The context of our income and overall equity is very valid as a background to the amount we have spent on Hi-Fi.
My Hi-Fi expenditure is excessive/obsessive to many in that context.
The context of our income and overall equity is very valid as a background to the amount we have spent on Hi-Fi.
My Hi-Fi expenditure is excessive/obsessive to many in that context.
In the context of income and overall equity, the amount I've spent on hifi is very small (less than 2% of the latter). It fades into insignificance (as it should do) compared to the amount spent on, say, our children's education.
Indeed. We don't have any kids, but the amount we've spent on our other hobbies and interests, such as music (live and recorded), holidays and travel, following my football team, eating out at nice restaurants, gardening, food and drink (fine wine) consumed at home, interior design, nice cars, etc, makes what's been spent on hi-fi pale into insignificance!
The problem with a lot of 'hi-fi nerds', for want of a better description [and I've never considered myself as one because hi-fi is only a small part of my life], is that almost their whole existence revolves around hi-fi; they have virtually no other interests (especially if they're male and single), and so the vast majority of their income is spent on buying/selling and swapping boxes of kit.
I remember visiting a guy once, who lived in what could only be described as little more than a hovel, lived on baked beans and almost never went out (bit of a recluse, as 'hi-fi nerds' often are), yet had a £50k hi-fi system!! :doh: It takes all sorts, I guess....
Marco.
Over the past 5 or 6 years, I've spent a full 10% or more on audio equipment. But, I am in an unusual situation to do so. And while that sound like a ton of money, it's only $2k to $2.5k a year. And hopefully by next year I may reach a plateau, once I buy a new preamp I will be close to finished with the expensive parts for a while? Or, who knows when the bug will bite and I'll just start over?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You may think that I am tending towards a Hi-Fi nerd Marco, I have no children, no wife, and never eat out or 'socialise' with the locality., my feeling in a relatively alien environment socially.
I do however have many interests and pursuits, a queue of books to read, two new rack mounts to learn to drive, a stereo Ernest Turner PPM to build, and new Performer software to learn to drive, and a newly built bike to ride.
I am approached by ladies even though I am obviously past my best, but am terrified that their intention is to use the legal system to take at least half of my equity which I have worked hard for.
What I am rally short of is intellectually stimulating people, and this is to me very isolating.
Remember the Band in M. from B. P.? "Now you understand a man, in this lonely crowd".
Well, please continue hanging around here, Dennis, as I'm enjoying your insightful and erudite contributions! :)
Marco.
You may think that I am tending towards a Hi-Fi nerd Marco, I have no children, no wife, and never eat out or 'socialise' with the locality., my feeling in a relatively alien environment socially.
I do however have many interests and pursuits, a queue of books to read, two new rack mounts to learn to drive, a stereo Ernest Turner PPM to build, and new Performer software to learn to drive, and a newly built bike to ride.
I am approached by ladies even though I am obviously past my best, but am terrified that their intention is to use the legal system to take at least half of my equity which I have worked hard for.
What I am rally short of is intellectually stimulating people, and this is to me very isolating.
Remember the Band in M. from B. P.? "Now you understand a man, in this lonely crowd".
Do not fear, grab what you can. You can always shower in morning :). Lucky old you ;)
Have we yet defined what is meant by "high end"?
Perhaps we should turn the question around and ask who spends more than 10% of their net income on audio equipment? Or more revealing who spends more on the hardware than the software?
Regarding the latter, I have probably spent as much on books as I have on music, and far more on travel (but I'm drifting off-thread with the last).
Have we yet defined what is meant by "high end"?
Perhaps we should turn the question around and ask who spends more than 10% of their net income on audio equipment? Or more revealing who spends more on the hardware than the software?
Regarding the latter, I have probably spent as much on books as I have on music, and far more on travel (but I'm drifting off-thread with the last).
Forteen and sixpence? Its a lot to spend on music;)
Forteen and sixpence? Its a lot to spend on music;)
Think I spent ten shillings and six pence on a Beatles EP in 1962. Had to save up my pocket money for that.
'High End' was a term coined to describe a level of quality, not of price IIRC. Although inevitably the two are connected as you can't really make very good audio equipment cheaply.
Think I spent ten shillings and six pence on a Beatles EP in 1962. Had to save up my pocket money for that.
Thats was quite a lot but guess it was an ep... singles used to be 6 shillings and 8 pence, and climbed to about 7/6 in early 70's . Cant remember what a album cost, but guessing it was nearer a couple of quid.
hifi_dave
21-03-2017, 13:43
Seventeen Shillings and six pence was the price of an LP for many years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.