Lots of interesting stats.

But there's a much simpler answer that doesn't require in-depth research.

To be "rich" in a world in which millions of people lack even basic needs, you are by definition unethical.

The ethical decision would be to give most of your money away to projects which either try to meet those basic needs, or try to change the underlying causes. But if you did that you'd no longer be "rich".

So by a very simple logical argument, being rich clearly implies being unethical.

> To be "rich" in a world in which millions of people lack even basic needs, you are by definition unethical. The ethical decision would be to give most of your money away to projects which either try to meet those basic needs, or try to change the underlying causes. But if you did that you'd no longer be "rich".


Interesting - given that everyone in the UK is "rich" compared to many countries.
We pretty much can all get 800 calories in our gobs a day.
Yet, your average indymedia reader isn't rushing to give all their money away to projects, but rather arguing that other people should give their money away.

Rich is a relative term. A man might go to a 3rd world country and be incredibly rich, whereas he would go to Covent Garden and be poor. Yet, in either case he might be the most miserable man in the world.

True riches lies in the heart not in the wallet.

If you had all the privileges of state monopolies bestowed on you, you'd be foolish not to accept them. If you didn't someone else would.

If you didn't have public sector protection, as soon as you started to become rich people would be competing for your market share, to give the people what they want.

Can anyone show me poverty in the world that isn't a direct result of public policy?

>> If you didn't have public sector protection, as soon as you started to become rich people would be competing for your market share, to give the people what they want.

But people stick with reputation. A proven product/service that has been out in the market for a while and has a good reputation is going to outwin a new-player in the market. An example would be an ebay seller with 10,000+ good feedbacks compared to someone with no feedback.

Unless the competition come up with something better/cheaper etc.... the established provider would continue to maintain market share. By the time the competition develop their own product to compete, the rich person will have continued to innovate thus staying ahead of the competition and continuing to get richer.

Anyone can currently compete with the rich people now if they want to. The question is do they actually have the capability. Eg. could i compete about Dyson...... probably not. I could make a new vacuum cleaner, but could i get market share as the comment suggest..... doubtful.


I fundamentally disagree with the statement anyway in regard to rich people. You could have 2 people with a pile of cash. One would invest it in a building up a business and use his talent/movitation/work-ethic to make more money. The other would spend it on beer and expensive cars and end up with nothing. There are plenty of examples that prove both points of people who have won windfalls eg. lottery winners.

Rich people have a sense of entitlement which comes with being rich. In our society, the rich beleive that they contribute more to society than the poor. They believe this because they believe that having the power to distribute money is the best measure known to control not just the behaviour of others, but how others see and conduct themselves around the rich. In the UK, money is not just the measure of your education and health, but also the measure of how much influence you have over others. By the simple act of being wealthy, your place and standing in society is fundamentally several magnitudes greater than if you are poor.

Money is power.

So the question of wealth in relation to ethics is a red herring. As an above poster states, being rich is by its nature unethical. For many who are wealthy, their wealth is simply a device which they can use to circumvent ordinary barriers to power and access. This means that our society is based on the ability to generate wealth and more importantly, the ability to distribute that wealth...in return for favour. If you are poor, you do not have that access or privilage. As a result, your place and standing in society is one of dependency. You are, whether you like it or not, dependent on the wealthy in every area of your life.

In many societies around the world, the greatest problem faced by the majority is the ability to secure food, water and fuel for day to day living. In developed nations, these provisions exist by default and so the poor aren't really considered to be poor because they have food, water and fuel in abundance. But this too is a red herring. Being able to eat, drink and stay warm is the very least you need to take part in society. It is not the measure of how inclusive, democratic or equitable your society is. These are the things that determine the success of any nation state. Being able to eat and drink regularly simply elavates you to a level above an animal. Once you have these things secured...only then can you start to talk about how successful a human you are!

In terms of access to power and the ease with which you can fully participate in your society, the developed world is one of the most backward places on earth. Even in the midst of starvation on the plains of Africa, the people have more political equity than we have here in the west.

In the west, your ability to place yourself politically is defined by your wealth. If you do not have wealth, the wealthy will do all they can to distance you from your natural right to effect your political will. This is the measure and quantity of political inequity in the developed world. A poster above this comment is (again!) trying to dishevel this discussion by guiding it toward a populist idea of what wealth is in relation to poverty. He/she will attempt to manufacture the idea that if you have food, water and fuel enough to stop you freezing to death in winter, then this alone is logic enough to determine that you are not poor, because you are as not as poor as it is possible to be.

This kind of moral equivalence is used to 'explain away' the violence of the state and the wars it has faught to consolidate its privilages, power and command of the people. It has no merit at all.

'Rich people have a sense of entitlement which comes with being rich.'
What and the "poor" don't?
"free education is a right! state benefits is a right! free healthcare is a right!" etc. etc. ????

'money is power'
CORECT and the money system is run by the state with the force of law and is backed not by gold but by GUNS.
We live in a society where the rich are not the honest tradesmen but those who use force, the gangsters with the guns or the merchanilists with the state.

"'Rich people have a sense of entitlement which comes with being rich.'
What and the "poor" don't?
"free education is a right! state benefits is a right! free healthcare is a right!" etc. etc. ????0

I would equate that with being of similar standard to the idea of the "right to protest". There is no such right. Protest is not something you do because you have a right to do it. Having the right to protest infers that somebody or something has fought and won that right...or given permission for it. Not so.

Free education, welfare and healthcare are not rights. They are legal requirements the state is required to provide by law. Whether you believe you have a right to any of these things does not effect your ability to get them. The state has a legal obligation to supply these things and that requirement is based on the law. You do not have a right to these things because somebody has given that right to you. It is there by default. Nobody can make it conditional. Observance of the law does not make you somebody who has a sense of entitlement...it makes you contrite before the law.

The rich on the other hand, have a sense of entitlement which is self regarding. The law does not give you money because it has an obligation to make you rich. The rich's sense of entitlement is not provisioned in law nor provided for by the law. And so wealth exists outside the law and it is this wealth that determines your access to the political system of favour and reward. You need wealth for both.

The rich have a sense of entitlement. That entitlement exists outside the law. The rich are not the same as the poor.

If a "poor" person got rich by suddenly winning the lottery, it is highly unlikely that they will want to be poor again by giving it away (fao trolls: statistically unlikely - there will always be the exception).

Therefore, rather than talking about how "rich" people and "poor" people behave around the law, it should be noted that people are people regardless of how much money they have.

There are dishonest poor people, honest poor people, dishonest rich people and honest rich people.

The problem is dishonest people, not rich people

What makes people the people they are is down to socialisation.

The rich socialise their offspring in a different way than the rest of us. The ruling class have a different outlook on the survival of their genome than the poor, the poor act collectively so that a diverse gene pool can survive to the next generation, living more like the way humanity evolved on the savannahs as a social primate.

The newly rich may adopt the ruling class' gene survival strategy by attempting to set up a dynasty. Their offspring will be socialised differently i.e. public school. The separation at an early age from the mother has severe psychological impact that can end in psychopathy,

See 'If', "Lord of the Flies" even 'Tom Brown's School Days" etc.

Being a psychopath has a certain advantage in survival particularly for a social group that constitute a tiny minority of the human population and that feel they are always in existential peril.

Most newly rich that attempt to set up a dynasty and adopt the gene survival strategy of the ruling class regress to the mean that is they fail to set up a dynasty and their genes get mixed back in to the pool.

"What makes people the people they are is down to socialisation."

That doesn't explain the building of wealth. In our society, you are encouraged to do an awful lot that never really materialises in the majority. Own your own business, put money into banks, divest your income into credit and debt, invest and so on. None of these things will make you rich.

What will make you rich is managing a moderate income but avoiding spending habits which the majority engage in.

Somebody once told me that the reason somebody becomes rich is not because they have more fiscal savvy than the rest of us...its because they are more successful than most at avoiding spending what income they have. The "miser" syndrome. If you can manage along in society without spending your income, then even a moderate income will add up into significant wealth. I've met a lot of these types along the way. Some professions are saturated with "misers" who spend inordinate amounts of energy avoiding paying their way. The rule of successful business practice is not how much your product costs to make offset against its selling price, but how much of your profit you can avoid paying out on bills.

There isn't a single business that doesn't spend its energy on cost cutting as a day-to-day strategy rather than cost cutting if trade falls off for instance, during austerity drives.

Socialisation plays its part sure...but the rich have a long history of avoiding the influence of socialisation in society. You cannot govern your privilage successfully if you are subject to the same rules as everybody else.

This is why the rich set so much importance on maintaining political elitism.

Elitism is a quiet and privilaged science to which only a very small select few know the rule.

The idea we are all the same and the differences between us are simply down to "wot peeple r like" masks a very insipid and malevolent truth.

It is relativiely simple to make money in the uk however the fact is that most people are not prepared to pay the price of doing it which is hard targeted work, focus on goals, persistence and application. Education and background have very little to do with it. The phallacy of some sort of privileged elite is laughable but it helps people make excuses for their failure

"Education and background have very little to do with it. The phallacy of some sort of privileged elite is laughable but it helps people make excuses for their failure"


Oh i doubt that. Your statement itself is laughable.

Your statement is laughable.
Plenty of evidence of unprivileged people making it good.
Plenty of evidence of privileged people failing and being poor.

If your are determined to stay poor, you will be poor. Chip on shoulder wont make you rich.

"Plenty of evidence of unprivileged people making it good."

The exception to the rule does not a point make.

"Plenty of evidence of privileged people failing and being poor."

Ditto.

"If your are determined to stay poor, you will be poor. Chip on shoulder wont make you rich."

I am not poor. Consequently, I know about the rich and their ways. The injustice of this is what you impolitely refer to as 'a chip on my shoulder'.