Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!?

Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider...

If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!?

I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes.

So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!?

I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us!




PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184

I'd say that far too many got 19 pieces of cake as kids, and now consider it a God-given right.

And if they can steal or extort the 20th piece, so much the better.

If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please.

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 8:50pm:

If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please.

That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it.

Kat wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:05pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it.

Would you sell it for $8?

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:15pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:05pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it. Would you sell it for $8?

:)   I'm open to negotiation... :)

Nice to see you guys getting into the spirit!

::)

They'll bake you 20 whole cakes in China for the price of that single slice.

Equitist wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 8:44pm:

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184

your scenario is stupid because you arent really talking about equality at all - only equality of reward, not equality of effort or equality of sacrifice. And all the time you crap on about this, the people with the 19/20 of the cake that you contribute nothing towards happily give large amounts back to you for no reward only to have you spit in their face for the gesture. You constantly complain about everyone elses share and never ask the real question.

HOW BIG IS THE CAKE? yes its a question no one ever asks.

Let me help. Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well.

So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to.

The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort.

You are just greedy.

Kat wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:18pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:15pm: Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:05pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it. Would you sell it for $8? :)   I'm open to negotiation... :)

If I supplied the ingredients would you make it for $20?

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:43pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:18pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:15pm: Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:05pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it. Would you sell it for $8? :)   I'm open to negotiation... :) If I supplied the ingredients would you make it for $20?

How would Gillard bake the cake?

1) get consensus on the need for a cake.
2) make it anyhow, regardless of outcome of 1)
3) get a committee to design the cake. requirement of member ship is belief in cake
4) spend $50M advertising the cake
5) get Henry to find 150 recipes for a cake
6) cook it her own way anyhow
7) cut the cake into 20 peices and give it to 22 people.
8) wonder why 7) didnt work properly
9) taste the cake and find it tastes bad and no one wants it
10) tell everyone in 2015 the cake will have flour this time
11) Turn around and find she has been replaced as head chef

then...

Go back to 1)

As Arthur said to Terry, that cake is not for eating, Terry, it's for investin'.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:57pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:43pm: Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:18pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:15pm: Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:05pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it. Would you sell it for $8? :)   I'm open to negotiation... :) If I supplied the ingredients would you make it for $20? How would Gillard bake the cake? 1) get consensus on the need for a cake. 2) make it anyhow, regardless of outcome of 1) 3) get a committee to design the cake. requirement of member ship is belief in cake 4) spend $50M advertising the cake 5) get Henry to find 150 recipes for a cake 6) cook it her own way anyhow 7) cut the cake into 20 peices and give it to 22 people. 8) wonder why 7) didnt work properly 9) taste the cake and find it tastes bad and no one wants it 10) tell everyone in 2015 the cake will have flour this time 11) Turn around and find she has been replaced as head chef then... Go back to 1)

I so wish we had a clapping hand emoticon,  :)

The point is that we are fast running out of ingredients to make the cake. It won't be long until there will be no more cake. This planet's resources are finite and we have wasted our valuable resources for too long.

It is now that people are starting to wake up and realise that we have extremely limited time left to live any type of reasonable or bearable lifestyle if we keep up the same practices. It is already too late to maintain this current lifestyle so we will be forced to change our greedy ways.

The trouble is that we are now addicted to endless spending and governments realise that if they suddenly withdraw the supply we will revolt or at least they will lose elections.

The system we have is designed for growth, that's what keeps us employed, supplies taxes to government and gives the poor hope that they can one day join in the fun.

The problem is that the world has grown too fast and there is no further room to grow. We must adapt to life where economic growth doesn't exist. We have no choice. We can either plan for the transition or or let it unfold for itself.

The exponential growth fairy is dead. I'm hoping that this great depression that we are coming into will go a long way in changing the habits that we have gotten used to. It could well be our saviour. A few years without growth could set the pattern for sustainability.

I highly recommend either one of these books, easy to understand and straight to the point. Both published 2011.

The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World by Paul Gilding

Great Disruption by Paul Gilding  

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_20?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+great+disruption+-+paul+gilding&sprefix=the+great+disruption

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:57pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:43pm: Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:18pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:15pm: Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:05pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it. Would you sell it for $8? :)   I'm open to negotiation... :) If I supplied the ingredients would you make it for $20? How would Gillard bake the cake? 1) get consensus on the need for a cake. 2) make it anyhow, regardless of outcome of 1) 3) get a committee to design the cake. requirement of member ship is belief in cake 4) spend $50M advertising the cake 5) get Henry to find 150 recipes for a cake 6) cook it her own way anyhow 7) cut the cake into 20 peices and give it to 22 people. 8) wonder why 7) didnt work properly 9) taste the cake and find it tastes bad and no one wants it 10) tell everyone in 2015 the cake will have flour this time 11) Turn around and find she has been replaced as head chef then... Go back to 1)

Ah yes the very longboring moron has turned the discussion political. The point here is the way we treat our social and wealth equity. But you are clearly not mature enough to get over being angry that your mummy would not let you have all the cake.

Soren wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:26pm:

They'll bake you 20 whole cakes in China for the price of that single slice.

But if i decorate them can i charge more for mine.

I like a bit of cake, now and again.   [smiley=birthdays.gif]   :)  

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

I like a bit of cake, now and again.   [smiley=birthdays.gif]   :)

as long as you dont have to pay for it!

qikvtec wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:15pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:05pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:50pm: If it's my cake I'll share it with whomever I please. That's fine, as long as you aren't stealing or extorting mine while you're at it. Would you sell it for $8?

This is totally unfair, we should float the cake on the share market so that everybody gets a chance to buy a share.

Then, when the sharemarket crashes, we should grab the cake anyway and eat it.

Clearly, the finite size of the resource pie is crucial to this discussion - at all levels (i.e., family, community, society, state, nation and globe) - and growing the pie with an artificial monetary tool doesn't count when it comes to real world sustainability.

For those who didn't get the gist (or chose to ignore it), I'll reiterate one of my central questions:-

At what point does a parent teach their child, that the morals of sharing, caring, co-operation and fairness no longer apply to them - and that the 5% are entitled to covet and control 95% of the metaphorical cake at any and all costs!?

Equitist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 9:28am:

Clearly, the finite size of the resource pie is crucial to this discussion - at all levels (i.e., family, community, society, state, nation and globe) - and growing the pie with an artificial monetary tool doesn't count when it comes to real world sustainability. For those who didn't get the gist (or chose to ignore it), I'll reiterate one of my central questions:- At what point does a parent teach their child, that the morals of sharing, caring, co-operation and fairness no longer apply to them - and that the 5% are entitled to covet and control 95% of the metaphorical cake at any and all costs!?

You are free to go into the wilderness and dig for 'cake'.

Soren wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 10:39am:

Equitist wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 9:28am: Clearly, the finite size of the resource pie is crucial to this discussion - at all levels (i.e., family, community, society, state, nation and globe) - and growing the pie with an artificial monetary tool doesn't count when it comes to real world sustainability. For those who didn't get the gist (or chose to ignore it), I'll reiterate one of my central questions:- At what point does a parent teach their child, that the morals of sharing, caring, co-operation and fairness no longer apply to them - and that the 5% are entitled to covet and control 95% of the metaphorical cake at any and all costs!? You are free to go into the wilderness and dig for 'cake'.

God will provide to the righteous.  (manna)

Equitist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 9:28am:

For those who didn't get the gist (or chose to ignore it), I'll reiterate one of my central questions:- At what point does a parent teach their child, that the morals of sharing, caring, co-operation and fairness no longer apply to them - and that the 5% are entitled to covet and control 95% of the metaphorical cake at any and all costs!?

So are you looking for a household income trigger there, so that they can say, we are now officially members of the haves/have nots?

LOL...obviously, the thread was intended to provide a metaphor for human groups of various sizes...

That said, given some of the comments to date, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in certain households, come any instance that demands a semblance of sharing and co-operation amongst children...

I truly wonder how certain people teach their kids (and grandkids) about their place in the world - cos there has to come a time when they give their kids a licence to dispense with the whole sharing thing...

Quote:

At what point does a parent teach their child, that the morals of sharing, caring, co-operation and fairness no longer apply to them - and that the 5% are entitled to covet and control 95% of the metaphorical cake at any and all costs!?

Why would you burden your child with your unresolveable ideological demons?  

You're right Wesley.

Let's not burden them with numeracy or literacy skills either.

Equitist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 10:59am:

LOL...obviously, the thread was intended to provide a metaphor for human groups of various sizes... That said, given some of the comments to date, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in certain households, come any instance that demands a semblance of sharing and co-operation amongst children... I truly wonder how certain people teach their kids (and grandkids) about their place in the world - cos there has to come a time when they give their kids a licence to dispense with the whole sharing thing...

Unless I develop a sudden need for additional organs, the little pitter patter of feet in my house won't be the result of a combination of mine and my wife's genetics.

qikvtec wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

Equitist wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 10:59am: LOL...obviously, the thread was intended to provide a metaphor for human groups of various sizes... That said, given some of the comments to date, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in certain households, come any instance that demands a semblance of sharing and co-operation amongst children... I truly wonder how certain people teach their kids (and grandkids) about their place in the world - cos there has to come a time when they give their kids a licence to dispense with the whole sharing thing... Unless I develop a sudden need for additional organs, the little pitter patter of feet in my house won't be the result of a combination of mine and my wife's genetics.

That's an 'interesting' take on the subject, Qiky - but I am curious to understand the thinking of someone who volunteers for a Darwin Award, albeit by default!?

Actually, I am fascinated that humanity has reached the point where the trend is that about 1/3 of all Westerners will never (knowingly) reproduce...

It is no coincidence, that Westerners have become the most 'prosperous' people on the planet (on average) - and that we are also relatively-long-lived and the least likely to breed...

It is also ironic, that Westerners have opted to import people from other countries (often from vastly different cultural backgrounds) to provide labour and services - amongst other things...

Equitist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 10:59am:

LOL...obviously, the thread was intended to provide a metaphor for human groups of various sizes... That said, given some of the comments to date, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in certain households, come any instance that demands a semblance of sharing and co-operation amongst children... I truly wonder how certain people teach their kids (and grandkids) about their place in the world - cos there has to come a time when they give their kids a licence to dispense with the whole sharing thing...

your problem is that you want to 'share' other peoples belongings. your definition of 'sharing' doesnt seem to involve sharing the effort or the risk - just the reward. your kids must be learning how to expect others to provide for them and the complain about it at the same time.

great lessons there nem...

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

Equitist wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 10:59am: LOL...obviously, the thread was intended to provide a metaphor for human groups of various sizes... That said, given some of the comments to date, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in certain households, come any instance that demands a semblance of sharing and co-operation amongst children... I truly wonder how certain people teach their kids (and grandkids) about their place in the world - cos there has to come a time when they give their kids a licence to dispense with the whole sharing thing... your problem is that you want to 'share' other peoples belongings. your definition of 'sharing' doesnt seem to involve sharing the effort or the risk - just the reward. your kids must be learning how to expect others to provide for them and the complain about it at the same time. great lessons there nem...

Hey it's worked out famously for the Greeks has it not?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

You're right Wesley. Let's not burden them with numeracy or literacy skills either.

Thtas the stupidest "analogy" i've ever read, so i won't dignify it with clarifrication.  What i will do, however, is repeat - why would you teach your children that there are a shadowy 'elite" plotting and scheming to keep them down.  That just breeds the oppression mentality that leads to people wallowing in self-pity, claiming 'da man" is responsible for all their failings. Wallowing in your own self-pity is one thing, but consigning your children to the same fate is reprehensible.

I misread Thy's original post, so disregard my earlier comment.

(Forgive me. I'm studying for exams and I'm not as good at multitasking as I thought.)

Equitist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 11:19am: Equitist wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 10:59am: LOL...obviously, the thread was intended to provide a metaphor for human groups of various sizes... That said, given some of the comments to date, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in certain households, come any instance that demands a semblance of sharing and co-operation amongst children... I truly wonder how certain people teach their kids (and grandkids) about their place in the world - cos there has to come a time when they give their kids a licence to dispense with the whole sharing thing... Unless I develop a sudden need for additional organs, the little pitter patter of feet in my house won't be the result of a combination of mine and my wife's genetics. That's an 'interesting' take on the subject, Qiky - but I am curious to understand the thinking of someone who volunteers for a Darwin Award, albeit by default!? Actually, I am fascinated that humanity has reached the point where the trend is that about 1/3 of all Westerners will never (knowingly) reproduce... It is no coincidence, that Westerners have become the most 'prosperous' people on the planet (on average) - and that we are also relatively-long-lived and the least likely to breed... It is also ironic, that Westerners have opted to import people from other countries (often from vastly different cultural backgrounds) to provide labour and services - amongst other things...

Children irritate me Thy, I don't have the patience to deal with them and my wife is less committed to the cause. Almost everyone will tell you they wouldn't give them up for the world and it's different when you have your own but you're pretty committed to that position with little palatable option to change it; almost all of those will whine prior to, or after, that comment that they can't do this, that or the other due the kids.

Don't get me started on the cost of the little blighter's.

You shouldn't complain, I'm doing my bit to avoid over population of the world and further drain on those precious resources.

Equitist wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 8:44pm:

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184

There is a subtle, yet nevertheless important distinction between giving and earning.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 your scenario is stupid because you arent really talking about equality at all - only equality of reward, not equality of effort or equality of sacrifice. And all the time you crap on about this, the people with the 19/20 of the cake that you contribute nothing towards happily give large amounts back to you for no reward only to have you spit in their face for the gesture. You constantly complain about everyone elses share and never ask the real question. HOW BIG IS THE CAKE? yes its a question no one ever asks. Let me help. Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well. So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to. The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort. You are just greedy.

You state, that because of the efforts of the relatively few, the cake is now much bigger.
It is more like the efforts of the many, but most of the cake is taken by the relatively few.
Can 5% who hold most of the wealth produce a large cake? I doubt it.
The only way the 5% could grab such a big slice of the cake is, by getting between the producer of the cake and the consumer of the cake, and in the end, the few keep most of the cake.
As written in the book "Animal Farm, the hardest working horse, does not get get the most hay, and in the end it finishes in knackery; that is fairnes and equality for you.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 6:55pm:

Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 There is a subtle, yet nevertheless important distinction between giving and earning.

actually, it isnt all that subtle!

hawil wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 7:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:37pm: Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 your scenario is stupid because you arent really talking about equality at all - only equality of reward, not equality of effort or equality of sacrifice. And all the time you crap on about this, the people with the 19/20 of the cake that you contribute nothing towards happily give large amounts back to you for no reward only to have you spit in their face for the gesture. You constantly complain about everyone elses share and never ask the real question. HOW BIG IS THE CAKE? yes its a question no one ever asks. Let me help. Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well. So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to. The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort. You are just greedy. You state, that because of the efforts of the relatively few, the cake is now much bigger. It is more like the efforts of the many, but most of the cake is taken by the relatively few. Can 5% who hold most of the wealth produce a large cake? I doubt it. The only way the 5% could grab such a big slice of the cake is, by getting between the producer of the cake and the consumer of the cake, and in the end, the few keep most of the cake. As written in the book "Animal Farm, the hardest working horse, does not get get the most hay, and in the end it finishes in knackery; that is fairnes and equality for you.

And in today's lesson we learn that beleifs dont fashion reality. Beliveing it to be true does not MAke it true. the cake is massively bigger than it used to be and is so mainly by the efforts of the minority.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 6:55pm: Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 There is a subtle, yet nevertheless important distinction between giving and earning. actually, it isnt all that subtle!

I was being subtle. You should try it.


Quote:

You state, that because of the efforts of the relatively few, the cake is now much bigger. It is more like the efforts of the many, but most of the cake is taken by the relatively few.

Spin it whatever way you want, it is still communism, and we all know how big that cake is.

This is a very good explanation if you have 11 minutes to spare.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=relmfu

Great video, Pansi.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 10:05pm:

Spin it whatever way you want, it is still communism, and we all know how big that cake is.

Communism is more like developing a 5 year plan to bake as many cakes (forget about the quality) as possible for our glorious nation, and then you end up buying your cakes on the black market because the shops don't have any.

I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us!


by nem



can I ask why in particular??/ and how do you know who is a Xian??????.

and who is not may I ask?..

your bias and bigotry are showing loud and clear here I am afraid.

I was under the impresion the rulers of the BIG RICH CAKE>. were either Jews or Arabs..but you constantly point your finger.. as the labs are prone to do.. at Xians..


hey we have an atheist running this ship now been anychanges to the levels.. of the haves and have nots.???

I see where the pollies got almost double pay rises.. whilst at the same time cutting pay to AFP members...and security.. who are on call 24/7.

>:( >:(

muso wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 10:05pm: Spin it whatever way you want, it is still communism, and we all know how big that cake is. Communism is more like developing a 5 year plan to bake as many cakes (forget about the quality) as possible for our glorious nation, and then you end up buying your cakes on the black market because the shops don't have any.

dont know about you muso.. but I would never fly Russian airlines....

yet they are not allowed to buy foreign aircraft...

we all complain wouldnt matter what we had or think we should have.. lets be a bit more grateful for the piece of cake we do get and stop looking over the fence... we can all do better wish I had my time over again...

dont envy get off your butt and do it stop wanting it all to just land in your lap.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well. So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to. The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort. You are just greedy.

This is just the perpetuation of the myth that those who have more cake deserve it and are somehow nobler and harder working than those who get less of the cake.

Do you think property speculators, company CEOs and Paris Hilton are more deserving to be multi millionaires than scientists searching for the cure for cancer or aged care workers?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 7:39am:

This is a very good explanation if you have 11 minutes to spare. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=relmfu

~11 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:37pm: Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well. So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to. The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort. You are just greedy. This is just the perpetuation of the myth that those who have more cake deserve it and are somehow nobler and harder working than those who get less of the cake. Do you think property speculators, company CEOs and Paris Hilton are more deserving to be multi millionaires than scientists searching for the cure for cancer or aged care workers?

All are equally deserving some just make it happen.

Should a scientist that spends his life searching for the cure to cancer to no avail be richly rewarded for his efforts?

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

Should a scientist that spends his life searching for the cure to cancer to no avail be richly rewarded for his efforts?

Should he be rewarded less than:

- Paris Hilton?
- A property speculator?
- A CEO who hasn't paid divedends to shareholders for 2 years and is running his airline into the ground?
- a mining magnate who is digging Australian resouces out of the ground and flogging them off to China?

As the following graph shows, CEOs are earning 300x to 500x the average wage. What could they possibley be doing to justify these sorts of salaries?

---

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:10am: Should a scientist that spends his life searching for the cure to cancer to no avail be richly rewarded for his efforts? Should he be rewarded less than: - Paris Hilton? - A property speculator? - A CEO who hasn't paid divedends to shareholders for 2 years and is running his airline into the ground? - a mining magnate who is digging Australian resouces out of the ground and flogging them off to China? As the following graph shows, CEOs are earning 300x to 500x the average wage. What could they possibley be doing to justify these sorts of salaries?

Absolutely, he has no marketable product and nothing to show for his work if it doesn't succeed.

Paris Hilton - Worked out how to market being a complete skank - Good luck to her.
Property Speculator - Risks losing his shorts and reaps the reward of doing so
Alan Joyce - Double QANTAS profit in the last year and is continually growing.  Take your blinkers off.
Mining Magnate - Arranged and invested capital, generated logistics and supply networks to market a product to a buyer.

BTW Google "Run from the Cure"

Quote:

Paris Hilton - Worked out how to market being a complete skank - Good luck to her.

She is a product of the public's desires, not her own.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 10:38am:

Quote: Paris Hilton - Worked out how to market being a complete skank - Good luck to her. She is a product of the public's desires, not her own.

Nothing is particularly marketable without the desire to have or use it.

i'd do paris hilton

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 9:25am: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:37pm: Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well. So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to. The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort. You are just greedy. This is just the perpetuation of the myth that those who have more cake deserve it and are somehow nobler and harder working than those who get less of the cake. Do you think property speculators, company CEOs and Paris Hilton are more deserving to be multi millionaires than scientists searching for the cure for cancer or aged care workers? All are equally deserving some just make it happen. Should a scientist that spends his life searching for the cure to cancer to no avail be richly rewarded for his efforts?

Everyone has more cake under capitalism.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 6:55pm:

Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 There is a subtle, yet nevertheless important distinction between giving and earning.

True, but you seem to be avoiding the obvious ways in which most of those in the top 5% succeed in accumulating their wealth - through oppression, plundering and exploitation - neither of which is noble nor admirable! Neither of which is 'worthy'!

Moreover, some of you continue to focus on the notions of competition and arbitrary (and disproportionate) individual 'reward' (and its corollary, punishment) - rather than upon the notions of co-operation for quality of life and community!

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 12:30pm:

Everyone has more cake under capitalism.

In theory, but not in practice!

BTW, I am not suggesting that capitalism is an evil which should be totally destroyed - rather that it must be bridled and regulated!

Equitist wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 6:55pm: Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 There is a subtle, yet nevertheless important distinction between giving and earning. True, but you seem to be avoiding the obvious ways in which most of those in the top 5% succeed in accumulating their wealth - through oppression, plundering and exploitation - neither of which is noble nor admirable! Neither of which is 'worthy'! Moreover, some of you continue to focus on the notions of competition and arbitrary (and disproportionate) individual 'reward' (and its corollary, punishment) - rather than upon the notions of co-operation for quality of life and community!

Such a subjective statement Thy, to me your version of "quality" of life sounds utterly miserable.

Quote:

True, but you seem to be avoiding the obvious ways in which most of those in the top 5% succeed in accumulating their wealth - through oppression, plundering and exploitation - neither of which is noble nor admirable! Neither of which is 'worthy'!

Just because someone earns more than you does not mean they are cheating.


Quote:

Moreover, some of you continue to focus on the notions of competition and arbitrary (and disproportionate) individual 'reward' (and its corollary, punishment) - rather than upon the notions of co-operation for quality of life and community!

Individual reward under capitalism is not arbitrary. It is based entirely on how much money other people are freely willing to give to that individual.


Quote:

In theory, but not in practice!

Wrong. There is no theory that predicts it. It is based entirely on practice.


Quote:

BTW, I am not suggesting that capitalism is an evil which should be totally destroyed - rather that it must be bridled and regulated!

Perhaps you should be more specific rather than sticking to silly generalisations.

Quote:

True, but you seem to be avoiding the obvious ways in which most of those in the top 5% succeed in accumulating their wealth - through oppression, plundering and exploitation - neither of which is noble nor admirable! Neither of which is 'worthy'! Just because someone earns more than you does not mean they are cheating.

In the world of equitist, it certainly does. she is on record for saying that ALL rich people have done so by cheating stealing and oppressing the poor.

and she wonders why people call her a stalinist!!!

So it's back to the bad old days of superficial class warfare then...

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 4:35pm:

So it's back to the bad old days of superficial class warfare then...

for some people it never ended. one of the rather odd things about class-based thinking is that todays underclass is significantly wealthier and healthier than the upper class of just 50 years ago. The poverty level today is set well above average earnings of 40 years ago.

one of the most insidious forms of industrial action is one which is based on comparative salaries. EG if you earn a very good salary which is well above average but someone in another state earns more for the same job then you must go on strike to achieve parity. and then thatr other person says his city is more expensive and he should earn 10% more to compensate for the relative costs. and so it goes on. it is envy-based greed and nothing more.

Australia is one of the least class-conscious countries in the world. but all societies group themselves into tribes and strata. it is the nature of humanity and these will tend to be socio-economic in nature.

COmplaining that someone has more than you is going to make you a very bitter person - unless you are in fact the richest person on the planet. envy and greed make you sad bitter and alone. and ironically, usually also makes you poor.

Greed is the fuel of capitalism.

Turn to ABC24 now...

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2011 at 7:30pm:

hawil wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 7:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 9:37pm: Equitist wrote on Nov 3rd, 2011 at 8:44pm: Sounds preposterous, doesn't it - and yet most of us seem willing to tolerate this same type of situation in our day to day lives - at work, in the community and in the world!? Here's a scenario I would ask everyone to consider... If you held a birthday party for your 7 year old son or daughter and invited 19 guests: would you allow your child to take 19 out of 20 equal-sized pieces of that cake for themselves, thereby leaving a final 1/20th for the remaining 19 children to share!? I would hope that you would denounce such a scenario as totally unfair and unreasonable - not to mention that it would be teaching the child selfish and anti-social attitudes. So, I now ask you to answer this question honestly: at what age would you start teaching that same child that it is OK for the top 5% of individuals to control hoard 95% of the nation's (or world's) resources!? I am especially keen to hear from the Xtians amongst us! PS This thread was prompted by a thread discussing the Occupy 99% Protests elsewhere: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317806183/180#184 your scenario is stupid because you arent really talking about equality at all - only equality of reward, not equality of effort or equality of sacrifice. And all the time you crap on about this, the people with the 19/20 of the cake that you contribute nothing towards happily give large amounts back to you for no reward only to have you spit in their face for the gesture. You constantly complain about everyone elses share and never ask the real question. HOW BIG IS THE CAKE? yes its a question no one ever asks. Let me help. Because of the efforts of relatively few, the size of the 'cake' is around 100 times what it was a mere 50 years ago. And you get a larger proportion now than you used to as well. So not only do you get a larger PORTION of the cake the amount you get is vastly more than it used to. The only difference is that people didnt used to complain about it. Now they do. They want more... for less effort. You are just greedy. You state, that because of the efforts of the relatively few, the cake is now much bigger. It is more like the efforts of the many, but most of the cake is taken by the relatively few. Can 5% who hold most of the wealth produce a large cake? I doubt it. The only way the 5% could grab such a big slice of the cake is, by getting between the producer of the cake and the consumer of the cake, and in the end, the few keep most of the cake. As written in the book "Animal Farm, the hardest working horse, does not get get the most hay, and in the end it finishes in knackery; that is fairnes and equality for you. And in today's lesson we learn that beleifs dont fashion reality. Beliveing it to be true does not MAke it true. the cake is massively bigger than it used to be and is so mainly by the efforts of the minority.

How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few?
It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich.
You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them.

Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/

Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00.
It is not hard to see who will prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in.

hawil wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in.

Are you serious?


I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198.

Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache.

So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220

Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure.

My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c
and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake.

After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.  

The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 7:47pm:

Greed is the fuel of capitalism.

not true. It certainly is for some but for the majority it is the drive to succeed and to do better.

The majority of people are not driven, except by greed. They do the daily grind for the money. Even those who are driven by more would end up doing a lot less work if their salary was not linked to productivity or performance. That's why economics is called the dismal science.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 6:55am:

freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:47pm: Greed is the fuel of capitalism. not true. It certainly is for some but for the majority it is the drive to succeed and to do better.

LOL what planet do you live on Longy?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the majority arn't interested in money but are just trying to better themselves?

It does seem to be a common theme here though. That those with money see themselves as morally superior and to have a right of entitlement. It seems the class system is making a comeback.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 6:55am: freediver wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 7:47pm: Greed is the fuel of capitalism. not true. It certainly is for some but for the majority it is the drive to succeed and to do better. LOL what planet do you live on Longy? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the majority arn't interested in money but are just trying to better themselves? It does seem to be a common theme here though. That those with money see themselves as morally superior and to have a right of entitlement. It seems the class system is making a comeback.

"those with money" aren't the ones making a song and dance about how others should see themselves and what their motivation may be.
This nebulous "they' are also not the ones crying that they don't get as much as they think they deserve ie what they believe they are entitled to.  It seems to me that you project your own failings onto "those with money"

How do you know who even has money here?  How much money does one need to have before they display this moral superiority?  Does it go by income or accumulated assets?  Liquid assets only?  Do lotto winners suddenly start displaying this effect when they collect their winnings?  

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 8:56pm:

hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital.

Yes I,am serious; who are you trying to confuse with your gobbledegook?

hawil wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 1:57pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:56pm: hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital. Yes I,am serious; who are you trying to confuse with your gobbledegook?

Which part of it do you not understand?  I'm afraid I can't make it appear slowly for you on your screen so you might have to read it a couple of times.

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 8:56pm:

hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital.

Great post.

(But now I'm craving cake)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:56pm: hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital. Great post. (But now I'm craving cake)

You can have a cake and a coffee for $7 if you come dressed as your avatar.  ;D

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 8:56pm:

hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital.

Some people have no idea of communciations, how to run a business and deal with employees  ;)

Simultaneously and at the sametime.  :o

Uncle wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 8:16pm:

qikvtec wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:56pm: hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital. Some people have no idea of communciations, how to run a business and deal with employees  ;) Simultaneously and at the sametime.  :o

As opposed to simultaneously at a different time?

Exactly

cods wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

muso wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:38am: freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2011 at 10:05pm: Spin it whatever way you want, it is still communism, and we all know how big that cake is. Communism is more like developing a 5 year plan to bake as many cakes (forget about the quality) as possible for our glorious nation, and then you end up buying your cakes on the black market because the shops don't have any. dont know about you muso.. but I would never fly Russian airlines.... yet they are not allowed to buy foreign aircraft... we all complain wouldnt matter what we had or think we should have.. lets be a bit more grateful for the piece of cake we do get and stop looking over the fence... we can all do better wish I had my time over again... dont envy get off your butt and do it stop wanting it all to just land in your lap.

Long gone are those days. Aeroflot these days flies mainly Boeing aircraft.

- but I still would never fly Aeroflot  - or South African Airways for that matter - once was enough ;D

qikvtec wrote on Nov 6^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

hawil wrote on Nov 6th, 2011 at 1:57pm: qikvtec wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:56pm: hawil wrote on Nov 5th, 2011 at 8:08pm: How can you assert, that the cake is much bigger due to the efforts of relatively few? It is due to the efforts of Engineers and scientists who invented more efficient machinery, and other tools, and not many of them became very rich. You also state greed is the driver of capitalism; I would agree on that point, but as the greedy want more and more, there will be fewer greedy who will have assets that the more greedy can take away from them, because the other 99% will have nothing to take from them. Here is an example of how to get rich: A does a certain job for B and charges B $100.00 for the job, but B is only prepared to pay $80.00 for the job, and in the end does pay only $80.00/ Now reverse the situation, B does the same job for A, but charges A $120.00, and being tough, gets $120.00. It is not hard to see who willl prosper, yet he/she does do not put more effort in. Are you serious? I have a cake, you the cake supplier charge me $25 for it, we've established a market at $8 a slice.  We decide to test the market by adding a dollop of whipped cream and a few berries to the cake and discover the market is prepared to pay $9 a slice.  The cake has 22 slices and the cost of the additional berries and whipped cream is $1/slice.  So the product cost is $47 and income earned to me $198. Through hard work, great customer service, marketing, appropriate capital allocation and cash flow management I build the business to the point I'm selling 50 cakes a week.  Another local bakery wants a slice of the business (pun intended) and approaches me to purchase their cakes for $23, and to sweeten the deal (pun intended) adds a chocolate ganache and individually slices each cake prior to delivery.  As an upside, the customer is now prepared to pay $10 per slice since it has the lovely ganache. So now I've got reduced cost and increase profit, the cake costs me $45 and income earned to me $220 Out of loyalty to you, my original supplier, I offer you the opportunity to match the new suppliers offering, but in order to do so you need to update your ovens and buy a new mixer, so instead of biting the bullet and investing in your business you give me a cock and bull story explaining your position and decide to get "tough".  Unfortunately through your own complacency you've relied heavily on my business and haven't bothered to obtain any new business since you're comfortable with your lot in life.  Unfortunately you have no business as of next week and due to your tough stance decide that you will not compete against the new bakery in town and stay "tough" on your offering.  You go out of business and blame me for your failure. My customers suggest they would really enjoy a coffee to go with their cake, so I invest in the machinery and installation.  Cups of coffee cost me 30c and my customers are prepared to pay $3.00.  They're pretty popular coffees and 90% of my customers order a coffee and cake. After working hard I decide I'd like to have a couple of days off so give a couple of juniors a job on the weekend putting the cake in containers and making coffees.   The employees both join the union and demand, since they are putting in 2/7's of the labour, they are entitled 2/7's of the profit, yet take no risk or invest no capital. Yes I,am serious; who are you trying to confuse with your gobbledegook? Which part of it do you not understand?  I'm afraid I can't make it appear slowly for you on your screen so you might have to read it a couple of times.

You sound very smart and a little arrogant; but in the Capitalist system someone smarter comes along and outsmartens you, like Woolworth, who can for a time sell cakes at a loss, until all the small Capitalists go bust.
Then there are Businessman like John Elliot, who, when he took over IXL told the management of the company, why use all cherries in a cherry jam, when it is much cheaper to use pumpkins.
So the jam was made from some 80% pumpkin and 20% cherries, and the companies profits soared.
Was it legal, apparently yes, was it moral,I doubt it.
So please try to disprove my original post.