Why are rich people always so dull ?

Home Forum Chat Forum Why are rich people always so dull ?

Viewing 24 posts - 91 through 114 (of 114 total)
  • Why are rich people always so dull ?
  • Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    if the masses were encouraged to create more wealth instead of giving it to the upper classes

    Explain that?

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    I agree…. I need to think about this more then pester my missus about economics.

    I guess the simple answer would be to encourage people to stop spending using debt, crash the entire system and start again. Maybe ban mortgages on houses and force people to buy them outright? That would soon wipe out housing value and reduce a massive source of inequality.

    But hey, no one will ever try that for shits and giggles.

    if the masses were encouraged to create more wealth instead of giving it to the upper classes

    See Olddogs post – but errr, I don’t know, spend and invest their money with co-operative companies that they are a part of and make sure that their earnings don’t flow into the hands of the already ridiculously wealthy? Basically keep the money within their own class.

    At the end of the day, inequality has been shown to reduce growth – which I think is causing a bit of cognitive dissonance within the world of economics as it’s currently dominated by free market think tanks and academics.

    I know **** all about economics though, I’m just musing out loud.

    olddog
    Member

    What I think ….

    There needs to be a balance between investment and spending basically. Nothing wrong in borrowing for investment either – and arguably nothing wrong with affordable structural debt eg mortgages. It’s when the whole economy hinges on growing borrowing to finance growth that we have problems.

    The free-market model would say balance should happen naturally, but I think that the power asymmetries are too skewed in the favour of capital – so it needs more active management so labour and capital get a fair share of surplus so they both have incentives to work/spend and invest. But being able to manage the economy at all is difficult enough, doing this in a world of international competition seems impossible.

    Others will disagree with what I think, I am a bit Lefty McLeft

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    Ideology shouldn’t come into it at all Oldboy, we need evidence based economics not the left vs right paradigm that we have now.

    If reducing inequality increases growth and social stability, surely that is good for a capitalist society? Reducing inequality doesn’t have to be a left wing dogma, it can be evidence based.

    olddog
    Member

    true … unfortunately how to address inequality is ideologically divided!

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    Don’t see why more evidence can’t be injected into that debate as well…

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Ideology shouldn’t come into it at all Oldboy, we need evidence based economics not the left vs right paradigm that we have now.

    Don’t think so – because your ultimate goal varies depending on which side you sit, and as above – how to achieve it.

    inequality has been shown to reduce growth

    Hmm.. every time I see things like this claimed, I can’t help thinking it’s much more complex than that.

    Premier Icon jambalaya
    Subscriber

    That would soon wipe out housing value and reduce a massive source of inequality.

    @Tom – what this will actually achieve is 1) bankrupt the financial system – so people lose their cash savings, business cannot get any loans 2) All existing home owners (which is majority of people in the UK) will be bankrupted.

    So we have an economic Armageddon for the benefit of the small number of people who cannot currently buy a home. The Solution to the problem you believe exists is for the government to build more social housing so that there is a good stock of quality rental properties available to those who cannot afford to buy.

    At the end of the day, inequality has been shown to reduce growth

    I think the world is far more equal than it was 50,100 and 200 years also. The “poor” now have access to homes, health care and benefit payments – these things didn’t exist before. I think the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it was 100 years, look at say the top and bottom 10%.

    Well, this has gone off at a bit of a tangent, hasn’t it?

    There was an interesting point above about poor people being equally dull.
    Yes, I agree, that is the case.
    For every rich person who can think of nothing more imaginative to do in their ample spare time than ride a horse, because that’s what all their rich friends do, there are hundreds of poor people watching football because that’s what their peer group does and they can’t imagine a different life.

    It’s just that I guess there does tend to be a correlation between income and intelligence (with numerous exceptions, before the pedants jump in), so I would expect rich people to have proportionally more interesting lives.

    Premier Icon Rusty Spanner
    Subscriber

    Riding horses isn’t intrinsically dull.
    Neither is watching football.

    To say they are is judgemental and a little arrogant.
    The problem seems to be that you can’t accept that other’s harmless leisure choices are equally as valid as your own.

    mudshark
    Member

    I suppose always doing the same thing could be deemed to be dull – or at least make you a dull person to talk to. Poorer people may well be the dullest unfortunately as don’t have the opportunities to travel and enjoy as varied a life as the better off. I’m aware of council estate kids in West London who’ve never been to central London, not sure why but suppose they see little reason to go as happy sticking with what they know.

    twinw4ll
    Member

    Rich is relative, compared to most all on here are rich.
    You may have a point.

    LHS
    Member

    I suppose always doing the same thing could be deemed to be dull

    What, like going out on a Mountain Bike day-in day-out?

    How about playing the piano everyday?

    I guess wing-suits would become really dull if you just keep doing it 365 days a year.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Also, remember that the actual cost of building a house is quite high and would be hard to afford without a mortgage.

    Social housing is generally a good thing, but then if you live in one all your life you never get anything back from it. So then your grandkids never get a chunk of money they can use to invest in property or pay for university or whatever.

    Home ownership seems to be quite a powerful mechanism for enriching (in capital terms) society, because it turns dead money (ie rent) into an investment with a good rate of return.

    Some sort of variable shared equity social housing would perhaps work. So you can opt to pay extra on your rent to own a small percentage of your council house. Then if you own enough you can opt to have it sold.. Or maybe just take a dividend from the next tenant’s rent.. Hmm… Then this ownership share could be passed on to your kids when you die.

    mefty
    Member

    Home ownership seems to be quite a powerful mechanism for enriching (in capital terms) society, because it turns dead money (ie rent) into an investment with a good rate of return.

    Alternatively investment in existing housing stock is dead money as it could otherwise be invested in productive businesses that generate employment.

    I can’t imagine that being motivated in life simply by money and the status confered by monetary gain makes for an interesting persona.

    That said, as ever, the most visible examples are often the most vapid and attention-grabbing ones.

    Headline: ‘Why are poor people so boring?’

    I mean, all they do is smoke fags and play pool innit?

    bikebouy
    Member

    I’ve refrained form this thread in the main because I know 3 mates who are vastly wealthy and guess what, only 2 are boring.
    1 has all the stuff he finds interesting in this world of his, none include bikes, he has a few cars (McLaren thingy, Ferrari thingy and one of those funny electric jobbies) married a 23yr old ex dancer, works in Russia and has a place there too, jets to places for “fun”
    1 has a longstanding wife, 1 kid, 1 house in Surrey, 2 cars (an XC90 and Golf) and spends bugger all on anything, make me buy the curry and on occasion he’ll dip in his pocket and buy a round. To say he’s tight is an underestimate on a magnitude scale of 100, he’s a 90.
    1 has married twice, no kids, heli ski’s and snowboards in Zermatt and has a sting of girlfriends longer than I can do a fixie skid.

    When you are out with either they are so not boring, they are the most friendly happy and upbeat folks I know.

    Premier Icon jambalaya
    Subscriber

    @bikebouy – we are glad you awaited to craft that most excellent contribution

    Malvern Rider – Member

    I can’t imagine that being motivated in life simply by money and the status confered by monetary gain makes for an interesting persona.

    I would agree, however also understand that a lot of very successful people who have become rich are not motivated by money, nor status conferred by money. They are much more likely to be driven to be “the best”

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    Hmm.. every time I see things like this claimed, I can’t help thinking it’s much more complex than that.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth

    And that’s coming from the big bad IMF.

    As has been mentioned, cash flow drives growth, locking wealth up in a few individuals can stiffle cash flow.

    I think the world is far more equal than it was 50,100 and 200 years also. The “poor” now have access to homes, health care and benefit payments – these things didn’t exist before. I think the gap between rich and poor is smaller than it was 100 years, look at say the top and bottom 10%.

    It’s not in the United States, that bastion of free market policy.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/11/nation/la-na-nn-income-inequality-20130910

    Of course, most people will ignore the evidence and just carry on spouting their own passé ideology – much like with climate change.

    bikebouy
    Member

    jambalaya – Member
    @bikebouy – we are glad you awaited to craft that most excellent contribution

    Awe fanx 😀

    You are correct TOM, it is a lot like climate change!

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    Well, I guess Stiglitz doesn’t have the same consensus as climate scientists do. But that’s irrelevant right now as economics is stuck at the hard sciences equivilent of witch doctors and shamans and that’s mostly because people have a vested interest in making sure the discipline stays that way.

    IanW
    Member

    Does this mean that some people are wealthy and good fun?

    B******!!

    Does this mean that some people are wealthy and good fun?

    But are they REALLY happy?

Viewing 24 posts - 91 through 114 (of 114 total)

The topic ‘Why are rich people always so dull ?’ is closed to new replies.