Richard Branson bloodied by cycling crash after hitting pothole and falling "hard"

Hirsute wrote:

Mods please close this thread.

Shh.  At least they're not talking about helmets! 

Exactly.
When are we finally gonna stop portraying ridiculously rich people like they are cool.
Thery are not. Rich people are scum, and they need to be shunned and ridiculed (and heavily taxed, of course).

I know some people who are so poor, the only thing they have is money...

Sredlums wrote:

Exactly.
When are we finally gonna stop portraying ridiculously rich people like they are cool.
Thery are not. Rich people are scum, and they need to be shunned and ridiculed (and heavily taxed, of course).

Billionaires must have a similar emotional disorder to other hoarders, except their hoarding of money is basically depriving other people of their fair share (e.g. they make a lot of money by under-paying their employees).

We shouldn't allow billionaires to exist as it's a ridiculous amount of money and is an obvious sign of greed and selfishness. Anyone with a social conscience is never going to every accrue that amount of money as they'll realise after a few million that they have no need for it, yet there are plenty of people who are dying for the want of money/food/water/medicine. For someone to continue getting richer shows that they have no compassion.

hawkinspeter wrote:

We shouldn't allow billionaires to exist as it's a ridiculous amount of money and is an obvious sign of greed and selfishness.

https://www.ehd.org/science_technology_largenumbers.php

Quote:

One way to better understand large numbers is to compare the heights of stacks of varying numbers of dollar bills. The thickness of a single one dollar bills measures .0043 inches or .0000000679 miles.

The height of a stack of 100 one dollar bills measures .43 inches.

The height of a stack of 1,000 one dollar bills measures 4.3 inches.

The height of a stack of 1,000,000 one dollar bills measures 4,300 inches or 358 feet – about the height of a 30 to 35 story building.

The height of a stack of 100,000,000 (one hundred million) one dollar bills measures 35,851 feet or 6.79 miles. This would reach from the earth’s surface to the approximate altitude at which commercial jetliners fly.

The height of a stack of 1,000,000,000 (one billion) one dollar bills measures 358,510 feet or 67.9 miles. This would reach from the earth’s surface into the lower portion of the troposphere – one of the major outer layers of earth’s atmosphere.

The height of a stack of 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) one dollar bills measures 6,786.6 miles. A column of bills this high would extend 28 times higher than the orbiting International Space Station.

Another way to understand large numbers is conversion to timescales:
- one million seconds is 11 days
- one billion seconds is 35 years
(from memory)

Almost every person in the UK is 'hoarding' an enormous amount of wealth relative to the global average.

Why not show the billionaires how it's done and given away your excess wealth to those who haven't got their "fair share"?

UK median wealth is £125000 whilst globally the figure is a bit shy of £7000 so if you aim to 'redistribute' about 95% of what you own you should be about right.

Rich_cb wrote:

Almost every person in the UK is 'hoarding' an enormous amount of wealth relative to the global average. Why not show the billionaires how it's done and given away your excess wealth to those who haven't got their "fair share"? UK median wealth is £125000 whilst globally the figure is a bit shy of £7000 so if you aim to 'redistribute' about 95% of what you own you should be about right.

Someone with £125k is 18 times wealthier than someone with £7k. Someone with £1Bn is 8000 times wealthier than someone with £125k. 

Are they really both 'enormous'? Kinda feels like stretching a definition there somewhere.

It's a subjective term but I'd argue they are both enormous.

If you consider what 18x UK averages looks like to get some perspective.

18x the median UK wealth is £2.25m. I'd say that was enormously wealthy.

18x the average UK house price is a house worth about £5m. I'd say that was enormously expensive.

From the perspective of someone with a wealth of £7k I imagine £125k is enormously wealthy.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's a subjective term but I'd argue they are both enormous. If you consider what 18x UK averages looks like to get some perspective. 18x the median UK wealth is £2.25m. I'd say that was enormously wealthy. 18x the average UK house price is a house worth about £5m. I'd say that was enormously expensive. From the perspective of someone with a wealth of £7k I imagine £125k is enormously wealthy.

If someone with £7k thinks £125k is enormous, what word would they use for some who has 143,000 times the wealth that they do? It's not the same.

Then consider what £125k actually means. Say you plan on retiring at 70 and living to 82... that's £10k a year. Does that sound enormous? Honestly?

Do you think it's reasonable or rational to claim that no amount of wealth can be criticised if a person isn't willing to give that up?

The wealthy are always defined as those with more money than the person answering the question...

It's fairly undeniable that the average UK resident is enormously wealthy on a global scale.

Of course virtually everyone besides Elon Musk can point to somebody who's richer than them and demand that they should be doing more but the simple fact is that most UK residents are the global 1%.

You might think that it should really be the 0.1% who do more but from the perspective of the bottom 50% of the planet both groups look very similar.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking with you final question. Could you clarify it?

Rich_cb wrote:

The wealthy are always defined as those with more money than the person answering the question... It's fairly undeniable that the average UK resident is enormously wealthy on a global scale. Of course virtually everyone besides Elon Musk can point to somebody who's richer than them and demand that they should be doing more but the simple fact is that most UK residents are the global 1%.

So what? When someone in the top 1% has 0.004% of what an entry level billionaire has it's really not the same thing.

And ok - everyone except Elon can say 'hey it's not my responsibility, I'm not that rich'... so what's your point? Is there no reasonable cause to call for them to do something, or to do something to them? After all, as you've pointed out they do have hundreds of thousands of times more than an enormous amount of wealth. 

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking with you final question. Could you clarify it?

No idea what confused you, but ok. Is it reasonable to claim that no-one can criticise the excess wealth of a billionaire unless they've given up all but £7000 of their own money?

I think it is reasonable to criticise those who continue to spend frivolously whilst criticising others for not doing enough to help those with less money.

An expensive takeaway coffee is equivalent to a month's wages in Zimbabwe.

The wealth the average UK person has is almost unfathomable to somebody earning that amount.

I don't think you have to give up everything above the global average to be beyond criticism but you certainly have to make a significant effort at 'redistribution'.

Rich_cb wrote:

I don't think you have to give up everything above the global average to be beyond criticism but you certainly have to make a significant effort at 'redistribution'.

Well you may not think that, but you did in fact say it. So if you didn't mean what you said then, what do you mean now?

And being beyond criticism is not the same thing as having the right to criticise. At the moment you making a 'don't criticise the rod in your neighbour's eye while ignoring the splinter in your own' kinda point - which I'm sure you can appreciate doesn't sound exactly right.

It also ignores any consideration of who is actually in control of the structure which imposes the gigantic wealth gap. Is the person buying the £4 coffee responsible for the Zimbabwean coffee farmer's tiny wage, or is it the billionaire who owns a global coffee broker?

Why is that coffee broker a billionaire?

Because millions of people pay for their coffee and don't care about the supply chain.

We all have a personal responsibility for the state of the world.

If you're not willing to take responsibility for your own actions then don't criticise others for acting in a similar fashion.

Let he who is without sin...

Rich_cb wrote:

Why is that coffee broker a billionaire? Because millions of people pay for their coffee and don't care about the supply chain. We all have a personal responsibility for the state of the world.

We have a responsibility for what we do. If you're claiming that not being informed about, or even not caring about the structure of the world is the same as deliberately creating and profiting from it, then I really don't know where your moral compass is pointing. I don't know what point you're trying to make. Ultimately we all have to consume something, and it's not easy to find out where absolutely everything you buy comes from... and that's by design!

And if you want to talk similarity, you are again looking in the wrong direction. If your bloke with £125k was having a face to face conversation with your bloke with £7k, and the 1 metre between them represented their wealth gap, Richard Branson would be standing in a different town. If they were having the conversation in London, Elon Musk would be in Marrakesh.

If I could throw that far, I would have no qualms whatsoever about casting that stone. I simply can't comprehend why you do.

As UK residents we're guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse Branson et al. of.

We enjoy our relative enormous wealth, using it for frivolity when it could be used to ameliorate harm in the world's poorest countries.

Identifying someone wealthier than you doesn't remove your own culpability.

Rich_cb wrote:

As UK residents we're guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse Branson et al. of. We enjoy our relative enormous wealth, using it for frivolity when it could be used to ameliorate harm in the world's poorest countries. Identifying someone wealthier than you doesn't remove your own culpability.

But we don't do it. We benefit from it, absolutely. But we (your standard £125k having people) don't control it. We don't design it. We don't go out there and purposefully make it happen. Identifying the average Joe who bought the £4 coffee doesn't remove the culpability of the shark who imposed the impossibly low price for a kilo of beans from the farmer. I really have no idea what point you think you're making. I'm not being facetious either, I really don't know where you're going with this.

And again - you're going to have to find another word to describe the wealth of billionaires if you're reserving 'enormous' for the average westerner.

You cannot remove responsibility from the customer.

Ultimately without the customer there is no market.

If you go to a shop and buy something you have responsibility for the production of that product. The carbon footprint of that product is your responsibility. The supply chain abuses are your responsibility.

If you're paying someone to do something then you are responsible for what they are doing.

Take responsibility for your own actions and your effects on global inequality before pointing the fingers at others. Especially if those 'others' have actually been empowered by your actions in the first place.

Rich_cb wrote:

You cannot remove responsibility from the customer. Ultimately without the customer there is no market.

So the existence of market demand justifies any action taken to fulfil that demand while generating absolute maximum profit, does it?

Quote:

If you go to a shop and buy something you have responsibility for the production of that product. The carbon footprint of that product is your responsibility. The supply chain abuses are your responsibility.

So it's my responsibility... but I can't ask for anything to be done about it because that's just privileged whinging?

Quote:

Take responsibility for your own actions and your effects on global inequality before pointing the fingers at others. Especially if those 'others' have actually been empowered by your actions in the first place.

Why 'before'? Does that actually make sense? Even if it does, how do I know when I've met your standards for being able to speak? You said the £125k person should give away 95% of their money first, but then you said that was silly and you obviously didn't mean it. So how much money should they give away? And what if I've already only got as much money as they're supposed to end up with? Am I then permitted to comment on the utter absurdity of demanding that normal people give up significant chunks of their wealth before asking for honest to god billionaires to do anything at all?

The market demands what the market demands.

If you want ludicrously cheap meat, don't be surprised if animal welfare isn't prioritised.

If you want cheap coffee don't be surprised if workers in the supply chain aren't treated well.

If you find that a company you use doesn't adhere to standards that are acceptable to you then choose a different company that does. Write to the first company and tell them why you're no longer their customer. That's not whinging that's using your power as a consumer.

If you make absolutely no effort to use your privileged global position to at least ameliorate some of the suffering in the rest of the (far less privileged) world then you don't get a pass by pointing the fingers at others.

How can this produce a billionaire owner?

Rich_cb wrote:

If you want cheap coffee don't be surprised if workers in the supply chain aren't treated well.

But we've already established that coffee isn't cheap. Remember? You said it was really expensive. You criticised people for being willing to pay a lot of money for a coffee... and yet coffee brokers are still billionaires and coffee farmers still don't make enough to buy a coffee. Bit of a disconnect in your argument that you need to work on.

Quote:

If you find that a company you use doesn't adhere to standards that are acceptable to you then choose a different company that does.

The word 'if' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. What if you want to find out the farm standards of the coffee you buy? What if the company you buy from tells you their farmers are really well treated? What if they point to an independent, certified NGO who visits their farms and certifies that the conditions there are great? What if that NGO is actually a joint venture between the billionaire coffee broker and a bunch of his billionaire coffee broker friends and it actually exists to deliberately not find any evidence of not great conditions? Is it still your fault for being fooled and you're still exactly as responsible and culpable as the people who did the fooling?

Quote:

If you make absolutely no effort to use your privileged global position to at least ameliorate some of the suffering in the rest of the (far less privileged) world then you don't get a pass by pointing the fingers at others.

Aha, finally we have a standard to work on! And that standard is not making absolutely no effort. Ok cool, I do get a pass for pointing the finger at others. So what on earth are you moaning about?

Wingguy wrote:

The word 'if' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. What if you want to find out the farm standards of the coffee you buy? What if the company you buy from tells you their farmers are really well treated? What if they point to an independent, certified NGO who visits their farms and certifies that the conditions there are great? What if that NGO is actually a joint venture between the billionaire coffee broker and a bunch of his billionaire coffee broker friends and it actually exists to deliberately not find any evidence of not great conditions? Is it still your fault for being fooled and you're still exactly as responsible and culpable as the people who did the fooling?

I can recommend buying beans from https://www.hasbean.co.uk/ for a more ethical experience as they try to deal with the coffee growers/processors themselves and give more information about the specific farm and coffee process.

I didn't say all coffee was expensive. I said some coffee was expensive. Please don't try and deliberately mislead.

If you choose to buy the cheapest coffee beans available then the onus is on you to check that that low price hasn't been achieved at the expense of workers in the supply chain.

If the coffee company engages in fraudulent practice to completely conceal their poor practice then you're not responsible. If the cover up is known about then you still are.

You've misrepresented my position in your last paragraph too. If you make no effort you can't point the finger, if you make a token effort then you can't expect any more from others etc.

Rich_cb wrote:

I didn't say all coffee was expensive. I said some coffee was expensive. Please don't try and deliberately mislead. If you choose to buy the cheapest coffee beans available then the onus is on you to check that that low price hasn't been achieved at the expense of workers in the supply chain.

I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. You've twice claimed that global injustice is caused by people buying coffee that's too expensive and you've also claimed it's caused by people buying coffee that's too cheap. How are we supposed to know what the right amount to pay for coffee is?

Now the kicker, do you honestly think that paying more for coffee means that growers are paid more. Apart from at the absolute bargain basement end of the scale, do you really think there's any direct connection between price of raw material and price of end product? 

Quote:

If the coffee company engages in fraudulent practice to completely conceal their poor practice then you're not responsible.

And do you honestly think this is a vanishingly rare occurence?

Quote:

You've misrepresented my position in your last paragraph too. If you make no effort you can't point the finger, if you make a token effort then you can't expect any more from others etc.

Ok, so you said we should give away 95% of our stuff, but you obviously didn't mean that because it's silly. Then you said we should just not do anything, but you obviously didn't mean that because it's silly.  So what do you mean? Give away just enough that it begins to make a noticeable impact on the lifestyle we can afford to lead? I'm more than happy to be allowed to ask billionaires to do that. I mean seriously, think just how much of a billion quid you have to give away before it makes any difference to you.

I haven't claimed that at all.

I've pointed out that instead of making frivolous discretionary purchases people in the UK could use some of their enormous wealth to ameliorate global suffering.

Please don't try and deliberately mislead.

If you want to know how much an ethical cup of coffee costs then do some research, find genuine ethical companies and look at what they charge. That should give you a ball park figure for how much ethical coffee should be costing. If a cup of coffee is a lot less than that then corners are being cut somewhere.

It takes time but it is part of your responsibility as a consumer.