Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

First Russian billionaire to give away half of his fortune

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

19 Feb 2013, 7:27 pm

May others follow his example. If the global bourgeoisie were anywhere near like this the world wouldn't be such a bad place.

http://rt.com/business/news/russian-bil ... ledge-585/

RT wrote:
Russian nickel and media mogul Vladimir Potanin has joined the Giving Pledge charity organized by the richest men in the US, as it goes global.
Twelve billionaires from outside of America who have joined the cause include not only the founder of the Interros company and the CEO of Norilsk Nickel from Russia, but also a founder and main owner of EastOne Group Victor Pinchuk.

[Mod. edit: truncated for copyright reasons]


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

19 Feb 2013, 8:19 pm

If only the rich considered it to be fashionable to give money away.
Instead of carrying around small yapping dogs they should be chuckin' out the big bills to the poor,no chump change.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Christopherwillson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

26 Feb 2013, 4:09 am

The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


_________________
Who's to say I can't live forever? Jack Sparrow

Aspie score: 182-200

Don't know what to say.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Feb 2013, 7:36 am

Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


For many of the enterprisers and innovators money is a way of keeping score, rather than an end in itself. These people like to use the money they make to innovate even more or make a lot of their dreams and goals a realty. For them, money is a tool, no the goal of their lives. Elon Musk, in his heart apparently wants to fund a manned expedition to Mars. I say, more power to him.

ruveyn



Christopherwillson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

26 Feb 2013, 7:45 am

ruveyn wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


For many of the enterprisers and innovators money is a way of keeping score, rather than an end in itself. These people like to use the money they make to innovate even more or make a lot of their dreams and goals a realty. For them, money is a tool, no the goal of their lives. Elon Musk, in his heart apparently wants to fund a manned expedition to Mars. I say, more power to him.

ruveyn


I would say that money is a tool for everyone, not just the rich. And yes, Elon musk is one of my role models. He's amazing.


_________________
Who's to say I can't live forever? Jack Sparrow

Aspie score: 182-200

Don't know what to say.


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Feb 2013, 12:54 pm

Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


4 words

labour theory of value.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Christopherwillson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

26 Feb 2013, 1:14 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


4 words

labour theory of value.

What does the value of a product or resource have to do with what I said?


_________________
Who's to say I can't live forever? Jack Sparrow

Aspie score: 182-200

Don't know what to say.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

26 Feb 2013, 3:54 pm

Half of a fortune is a pittance.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Feb 2013, 4:22 pm

Christopherwillson wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


4 words

labour theory of value.

What does the value of a product or resource have to do with what I said?


Ok, I will save you the effort of googling it.

In a nutshell, the labour theory of value was a economic theory devised by the Scottish economist Adam Smith that partly inspired Karl Marx. It proposes that all value of a good or service is attributed to the worker at the point it was created or provided, not to the capitalist who is purchasing the labour from a worker. Therefore all capital obtained from selling the good or service is rightfully the property of the worker who provided the good or or service in the first place.

In other words, the tycoon who is the subject of this thread is merely reappropriating half of the money which he stole from his employees.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Feb 2013, 4:34 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


4 words

labour theory of value.

What does the value of a product or resource have to do with what I said?


Ok, I will save you the effort of googling it.

In a nutshell, the labour theory of value was a economic theory devised by the Scottish economist Adam Smith that partly inspired Karl Marx. It proposes that all value of a good or service is attributed to the worker at the point it was created or provided, not to the capitalist who is purchasing the labour from a worker. Therefore all capital obtained from selling the good or service is rightfully the property of the worker who provided the good or or service in the first place.

In other words, the tycoon who is the subject of this thread is merely reappropriating half of the money which he stole from his employees.


There is the workers labor value MINUS the cost of the tools the the employer provided for the worker to use., MINUS the cost of the raw materials that the worker performed his labor on MINUS the cost of distributing the goods the worker produced to the end customer. The owner did provide some of the value and the worker some of the value. The only question is what could the worker get the empoyer to pay him for the labor performed.

If the value of the goods produced were purely due to the efforts of the worker, then why was the worker working for someone else who was merely "collecting rent"? Why didn't the workers organize a vertical productive structure in which the would realize the total price that the goods produce could fetch in the market place? If the capitalists were so unnecessary why did the workers bother working for them?

ruveyn



Christopherwillson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 539

26 Feb 2013, 4:43 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


4 words

labour theory of value.

What does the value of a product or resource have to do with what I said?


Ok, I will save you the effort of googling it.

In a nutshell, the labour theory of value was a economic theory devised by the Scottish economist Adam Smith that partly inspired Karl Marx. It proposes that all value of a good or service is attributed to the worker at the point it was created or provided, not to the capitalist who is purchasing the labour from a worker. Therefore all capital obtained from selling the good or service is rightfully the property of the worker who provided the good or or service in the first place.

In other words, the tycoon who is the subject of this thread is merely reappropriating half of the money which he stole from his employees.
I know what it means, it means that the value of something is determined by the labor it required to produce it. That's all it is. The meaning you gave and the faulty conclusion you made are something entirely different. I think you don't know what it means. No offense.


_________________
Who's to say I can't live forever? Jack Sparrow

Aspie score: 182-200

Don't know what to say.


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Christopherwillson wrote:
The idea that these people owe us that money is absolutely ridiculous. They received that money through a mutually beneficial transaction so they did their part. They are only so rich because they give you something you want. Would it be great if they invested it somewhere where everyone else could benefit from it? Absolutely, and most of them are already doing that.


4 words

labour theory of value.

What does the value of a product or resource have to do with what I said?


Ok, I will save you the effort of googling it.

In a nutshell, the labour theory of value was a economic theory devised by the Scottish economist Adam Smith that partly inspired Karl Marx. It proposes that all value of a good or service is attributed to the worker at the point it was created or provided, not to the capitalist who is purchasing the labour from a worker. Therefore all capital obtained from selling the good or service is rightfully the property of the worker who provided the good or or service in the first place.

In other words, the tycoon who is the subject of this thread is merely reappropriating half of the money which he stole from his employees.


There is the workers labor value MINUS the cost of the tools the the employer provided for the worker to use., MINUS the cost of the raw materials that the worker performed his labor on MINUS the cost of distributing the goods the worker produced to the end customer. The owner did provide some of the value and the worker some of the value. The only question is what could the worker get the empoyer to pay him for the labor performed.

If the value of the goods produced were purely due to the efforts of the worker, then why was the worker working for someone else who was merely "collecting rent"? Why didn't the workers organize a vertical productive structure in which the would realize the total price that the goods produce could fetch in the market place? If the capitalists were so unnecessary why did the workers bother working for them?

ruveyn


HOW did he get the capital to purchase the tools, the raw materials etc? He either employed workers to get the capital or he borrowed it from a bank, who IN TURN had workers who produced the capital. Who is to say that the workers could not have arranged the distribution themselves? Essentially the role of the capitalist, employer or financeer started and ended with writing the paychecks.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

27 Feb 2013, 10:09 am

thomas81 wrote:
Who is to say that the workers could not have arranged the distribution themselves?


The fact that they didn't.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

27 Feb 2013, 1:24 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Who is to say that the workers could not have arranged the distribution themselves?


The fact that they didn't.


Irrelevant to the point.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Feb 2013, 1:27 pm

thomas81 wrote:

HOW did he get the capital to purchase the tools, the raw materials etc? He either employed workers to get the capital or he borrowed it from a bank, who IN TURN had workers who produced the capital. Who is to say that the workers could not have arranged the distribution themselves? Essentially the role of the capitalist, employer or financeer started and ended with writing the paychecks.


Or Joe Capitalist invented and produced the tools himself. Why do you always leave out that possibility.

Look at the example of Ed Land. He -invented- instant photography, and until digital photography came along, it was a big, profitable booming business that employed many thousands of people at good wages. Land was not some money-bags plutocrat. He was a scientist, an inventor and he saw to it that the people working for him were payed top dollar. There where ten people applying for jobs with Polaroid for each job opening.

Before Apple became a major corporation the the Two Steves invented the product in their garage.

ruveyn



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

27 Feb 2013, 1:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
thomas81 wrote:

HOW did he get the capital to purchase the tools, the raw materials etc? He either employed workers to get the capital or he borrowed it from a bank, who IN TURN had workers who produced the capital. Who is to say that the workers could not have arranged the distribution themselves? Essentially the role of the capitalist, employer or financeer started and ended with writing the paychecks.


Or Joe Capitalist invented and produced the tools himself. Why do you always leave out that possibility.


How do you think these things are manufactured? By magical elves on the North Pole?


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile