Occupy Wall Street

[JellyDonut]

I think it's a massive problem. It would indicate that the poor are essentially barred from higher brackets. And if the rich are benefiting from this, well, you can see a large argument from an ethical standpoint to minimize unjust income inequality.

[Mao]

If you had read my post correctly you would see I do not have a problem with people making money, nor people growing their incomes. I have a problem however with rich getting richer whilst the poor are getting poorer. YES, we do have it pretty good right now, it would be insane to suggest otherwise. But with that being said, you cannot doubt either that inequality in Australia is increasing. Both in an income/wealth measure (growing GINI coefficient) and also in a political representation measure.

Of the many messages coming out of the Occupy movements, the message the resonates perhaps most with me is corporate influence in politics. Particularly the fact the a couple of mining execs can effectively remove a Prime Minister from office just because they do not want to pay more tax. 

In response to "quantify, explain or define" inequality in Australia, here it is:
"The share of household net worth owned by the richest 20 per cent of Australian households has risen from 58.6 per cent in 2003-04 to 62.2 per cent in 2009-10."
AND
"According to recently released Australian Bureau of Statistics data, the share of household disposable income accruing to the richest 20 per cent of Australians has increased from 37.8 per cent in 1994-95 to 40.2 per cent in 2009-10, while that of each of the four lowest ''quintiles'' (fifths) has fallen over the same period."

In just the past 6 years income has increased by almost 3% for the top 20%,  and more worringly, wealth in the top 20% has increased by almost 4%. Doesn't this worry you? What if the trend continues like this and in 30 years time the richest 20% own 80% of the wealth? It is certainly something to be worried about.

Like I said, I don't know how to fix it. But I do know that it's something to worry about.

Is it something to worry about, or is it just the way capitalism works?

Let's stay on the wealth distribution here. Let's consider the %total_wealth of the top 'tier', this value can:

1. increase over time, in which case the wealthy uses their wealth to gain more wealth. This gives segregation (we're worried about this right now)
2. remain steady, in which case some wealthy people must lose money, and other wealthy people gain that wealth. There are several problems with this. Consider an ideal world where this is the case. This means the wealthy people are essentially 'capped'. It also means trading is only really possible between people in the same 'tier' (otherwise there will be a net shift of wealth from one tier to another, resulting in unbalance). One of the biggest problem would be the wealth levels are predefined, there is a strong notion of 'castes' based on wealth, and it will result in the wealthiest preventing any newcomers from entering a higher caste.
3. decrease over time, in which case the wealth distribution will tend towards equality, hello communism.

The least scary of all is the first option, where we allow the system to evolve by itself. As we place more controls on the market, we are getting closer and closer to option 2. Whilst some control is necessary, ultimately we must let free market run its course to allocate wealth by merit. The problems we're seeing now is caused by governments, who in good faith allocate wealth to people without merit, and thus brings on corporate corruption and the likes.

Through welfare and other systems, the government has also effectively defined the levels of wealth, and tried to restrict the wealth distribution to their ideal curve. Essentially, the government has created the notion of equality, then enforced the way of life of the wealthy on everyone. They then let the wealthy make money off the poor because the poor must maintain this extravagant lifestyle imposed upon them. Then the government take back some of the money (in tax) to give back to the poor in name of maintaining a 'standard' which they defined in the first place. I say the source of the problem lies in the notion of equality.

So these Occupy Everywhere protests, are essentially the left wing protesting against the political left, for the mistakes political left have made.

(Free market is like natural selection, which is very harsh, very elitist, and I doubt many people can agree with it. From a purely analytical and rational point of view though, it is also the only one that makes sense.)

[the sean]

Granted there are small shifts in terms of income concentration, but again, this is just natural in any economy, if we started demanding massive changes everytime we saw a trend supported with a 'whole 5 years' worth of data that would just be ridiculous. We have phases on growth in certain areas, resources moves around the economy and some people get richer, some get poorer, that's completely normal....

Yes, i think we can all agree that the top 20% having 80% of the wealth is a bad thing, but that's one exceptionally large jump from where we are right now, you're extrapolating what's happening in the past 5 years and assuming the trend will continue for the next 30. What-iffing about every single possibility and bad thing that could happen is just being alarmist and not achieving anything.

I don't think that it is likely anyway, and not much of a problem regardless, again, there are plenty of checks in place to ensure that people have a certain minimum standard of living if they are working, and we don't exactly have an excessive unemployment rate. So what if some people are getting rich, as long as masses of people aren't starving on the streets and people aren't getting exploited, and i don't think there's particularly much chance of that. (having just read the new posts since i started typing this it seems you seem to agree with half the stuff in this paragraph anyway)

Also, where are you quoting from? (not doubting credibility, just interested to read more)

Can't reply anything meaningful right now, have study to do. But here is the link:  http://www.theage.com.au/business/why-some-incomes-are-just-gross-20111028-1mo9g.html?page=2

Other interesting stats from the article:
-the share of gross household income accruing to the top 10 per cent of Australian households rose by ''only'' 6.1 percentage points, from 25.4 per cent to 31.5 per cent, between 1980 and 2007;
- while the share accruing to the top 1 per cent of Australian households rose by 5 percentage points, from 4.8 per cent to 9.8 per cent.

and in America

-from 1980 to 2008 the average gross income of the richest 1 per cent of American households rose by 172 per cent in real terms.
-Over the same period the average real incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of American households rose by just 2 per cent.
-the top 0.01 per cent of US households ranked by income increased almost fourfold, from 1.3 per cent to 5 per cent

[JellyDonut]

Through welfare and other systems, the government has also effectively defined the levels of wealth, and tried to restrict the wealth distribution to their ideal curve. Essentially, the government has created the notion of equality, then enforced the way of life of the wealthy on everyone. They then let the wealthy make money off the poor because the poor must maintain this extravagant lifestyle imposed upon them. Then the government take back some of the money (in tax) to give back to the poor in name of maintaining a 'standard' which they defined in the first place. I say the source of the problem lies in the notion of equality.

I'd agree along these lines, namely that a culture of living beyond one's means (therefore a lack of prudence) has been the main cause of the recent financial collapse. There is certainly a whole heap of (usually ignored) empirical data to support this. It happened in the Greek crisis where the Greek government lied their way into the Eurozone in order to tap into lower borrowing premiums, which they later spent extravagantly on social programs instead of paying off their insurmountable debt. It also happened in the subprime crisis though blame cannot be placed solely on subprime homeowners.

The link between this and the welfare state is harder to prove, though I would agree that a culture has developed. For example, Japan's welfare system (from birth to death) is run at a considerably lower cost compared to Western welfare funds. Some people have speculated that Japan lacks the 'Western individualisation' which sets the system up for a 'free rider' problem.

Finally, I disagree that the notion of equality is completely to blame. Without equality, we would still be stuck in some archaic, theocratic state based on the right of kings where some dude with a crown would routinely execute others cause lol. Equality needs to be properly defined into two categories: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is the basis of current society and should be primarily considered when dealing with any governmental policy. The second is commie tripe and should be avoided at all costs, which I think is what you were getting at anyway.

[Mao]

Finally, I disagree that the notion of equality is completely to blame. Without equality, we would still be stuck in some archaic, theocratic state based on the right of kings where some dude with a crown would routinely execute others cause lol. Equality needs to be properly defined into two categories: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is the basis of current society and should be primarily considered when dealing with any governmental policy. The second is commie tripe and should be avoided at all costs, which I think is what you were getting at anyway.

I totally agree with this, in fact I cannot agree more. This is exactly what I was trying to say, but I have never read enough about it to differentiate the categories of equalities.

[Eriny]

Agree, as long as corporations keep donating to political parties and keep getting bailed out, people should really be protesting on Capitol Hill against the people they elected to best 'represent' them, not the rich's interests.

What shits me as well is people like 'Water' saying that protestors should be "working harder". The ONLY group whose incomes have grown over the past decade has been for the top 20% in Australia. And yes we are lucky to have Medicare etc. but trends are showing that in the coming years wealth and income will increasingly be concentrated for those in the 1%.

I don't have a solution (yet), some things I read suggest that it's Reserve banks and artificially low interest rates that cause inequality, others say it's income tax rate reduction. And 3 days away from the English exam I don't really have time to find a solution. But people shouldn't be dismissing the Occupy Australia movements simply because we are relatively better off than America, there are many injustices and problems in Australia that need urgent attention.

Mate do you wanna quantify, explain or define what exactly what you mean by the "inequality" in Australia, in terms of income spread we're going pretty damn well considering the size, nature and position of our economy, there are are a multitude of standards in place that ensure if you get off your ass and actually try you'll have a roof over your head and three square meals, in terms of income inequality if we look at gini coefficient rankings we're ranked 25th in the world. America is ranked 93rd, that's behind india, china and iran, thats' why THEY'RE protesting, in terms of income spread, Australia's doing pretty good. I mean sure, there are people that make a s***load of money at the top, but ummm that's cos they work 20 hours days for fortnights at a time (no, that is not an exaggeration-i know people that literally do that), and frankly that not a life i would wish onto my mortal enemy, but it's their prerogative to work as hard as they want, and yeah they're compensated well for it, but they damn well earn it, is there a reason why making a lot of money (and making the economy go round while they're at it) is inherently bad?

That doesn't account for inherited wealth, which is how the richest people usually become rich.

[Natters]

i thought i would post this in here, just to lighten the mood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCktM5v1zOQ

[LOVEPHYSICS]

Finally, I disagree that the notion of equality is completely to blame. Without equality, we would still be stuck in some archaic, theocratic state based on the right of kings where some dude with a crown would routinely execute others cause lol. Equality needs to be properly defined into two categories: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is the basis of current society and should be primarily considered when dealing with any governmental policy. The second is commie tripe and should be avoided at all costs, which I think is what you were getting at anyway.

Encapsulates the majority of people in ATAR Notes it seems. Most seem to be bourgeois capitalists, not a problem until people start putting down any views that oppose the former and start equating socialism/communism to trash and tripe with no apparent reason or justification. Talk about Western propaganda. It is an educational forum for god sake, grow up. What a joke.

The main problem is that you can't have true equality in opportunity if, like Eriny suggested, you are born in a privileged family and have your every little whims served. You go on to a private school and end up being part of the 70% of private schoolers that make up universities like Melbourne or Monash. You most likely end up with a good job/business and is able to provide the same thing to your children, and your children to your grandchildren, and so on.

And to Tram, way more people become rich doing hardly anything than those who work 20 hours a day. It is all about owning the means of production, that is, owning the business/corporation and having people work their crap out for you.  Its a fact within capitalism. Buy the chicken and get your servants to prepare and cook the chicken whilst you do nothing and then leave them with the bones (or slivers of meat if you have half a heart). Its all about surplus value and the rich exploit it. It is overwhelmingly naive to think that people get rich through being employees...

[tram]

And to Tram, way more people become rich doing hardly anything than those who work 20 hours a day. It is all about owning the means of production, that is, owning the business/corporation and having people work their crap out for you.  Its a fact within capitalism. Buy the chicken and get your servants to prepare and cook the chicken whilst you do nothing and then leave them with the bones (or slivers of meat if you have half a heart). Its all about surplus value and the rich exploit it. It is overwhelmingly naive to think that people get rich through being employees...

Ok.... see that's known as slavery kinda outlawed now, but even if you transfer the principle to modern times, it's a gross exaggeration, there are so many laws that prevent people being exploited to a degree where they are left with only 'slivers' to live off. We have a minimum wage, if you're working you won't be going hungry, there are jobs out there if you want. And yeah, not everyone can get rich, but again i don't see anything inherently wrong with that some people work harder, they make more money.

Also you talk about owning as business/corporation as though people just sit there all day and do nothing. If that's what you believe running a business is you are the one that is naive, it's not actually that easy, if you're taking about small/medium businesses, it's actually bloody hard to keep them turning around, if it was that easy, everyone would own one, it's damn stressful and it's always there, if you're talking about corporations you've constantly got your head on the line, you spend your days and nights controlled by the business, not swimming in a pool of money "whilst you do nothing" as you seem to think, that's just total crap.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

 Capitalism operates internationally. One person's gain equates to another loss. What do you mean by we, Australians? Sure we get it pretty good here, but you have to remember that this is at the expense of other less well-off countries such as the third world countries. Capitalism is a global force, you can't deem it to be a universal success story because you are a part of that success, being born in Australia. Sure, 'we' have a minimum wage, but does a lot of workers in China, South America, Vietnam or even the US  have decent minimum wages, let alone one? And also, you don't have to agree to exploitation to being exploited. Just because I sign a contract and that contract adheres to the rule of law doesn't mean I am not exploited. Essentially every single employee in the world is being exploited, it is only a question of proportion and extent. Think about it carefully before you rubbish my analogy. Lets say you work in McDonalds, you get paid what $13 per hour, and in that hour, think about the amount of people that you would have served, and the money that McDonald has made as a result of your service alone. Pretty disproportionate eh? Take it abroad as should, and yes, too many people are living off slivers. And yes, slavery is outlawed in Australia, but that doesn't mean that stops the world (including Australians) from being exploited or treated like slaves. It shows how narrow people are and how most will sorely base their perspectives upon personal experiences and conditions. It really does appeal to the theory of selfish gene in humans, which also helps explain the attractiveness of capitalism.

 Nor do I see anything wrong with working hard and getting rich, I mean, after all, there can only be a winner in each race, but the problem is, the minute capitalism comes into practice, the rules are no longer fair. Why? Two words. Inherited privilege. And Mao was talking about how we must let the free market  run its course as much as it can(classic liberalism) so that everything boils down to rewarding those with merit. Seriously? How many Australian students can you truly say that got into private schools are through merit? Letting it run its course will only self-perpetuate the inequalities and continue to greater privilege those with already, privileged backgrounds. Now, how is that merit?

(Free market is like natural selection, which is very harsh, very elitist, and I doubt many people can agree with it. From a purely analytical and rational point of view though, it is also the only one that makes sense.) Mao

Precisely. In theory it makes sense, but in practice, it fails. Like I have asserted, the minute capitalism comes into practice, the rules are no longer fair. That is unless we destroy the social fabric of communities and sever all manners of relationships and bonding and start making babies we don't know of and start living as true individuals (Man v Wild style).

I didn't say they do nothing. Read carefully. I wrote explicitly, that more people become rich doing hardly anything than those who work 20 hours day. There is two ways you can make legit money. 1) Sell your labour. 2) Use your money/asset  to earn more money for you. That is what we call passive income, or cashflow. And those very rich people get rich through 2), and not through selling their ass of working for someone as an employee. There is also a third way, and that is also the most popular, you inherit the wealth and use 2) to get more wealthy. Like I have said, the whole point of capitalism is to capitalise on, to take advantage of and ultimately, to exploit. In other words, get someone to work their ass for you. The world is full of desperate people as a result of the smooth running of capitalism.

[tram]

In terms of your first pargraph, what i said "we Australians" is exactly what i've been talk about, my comments have all been directed towards the occupy melbourne movement, i.e. my discussion with the sean and other. I don't think for a second you expect me to sit here and defend exploitation in other countries-that's a whole other discussion with far more problems- and i don't condone it for the record, but in the context of Australia, and definitely Melbourne there are a very select few being exploited. As for your MacDonalds example, no, i don't think is is particularly disproportional. Sure they're making a profit, that's the whole point, but it's not like you're exactly bringing in millions for them, i actually believe you would be getting a fair amount, the profit they make is for the massive branding they have to go through and the company that has been built up and managed which is no easy feat, you make the choice to be an employee, if you though you could run a business and make it work you can do so, but it's not easy, that's why the majority of people work for others and hence get don't get all the profits they bring into the company, if you want to term that as exploitation then it's your prerogative to think how you want.

As for this comment "It shows how narrow people are and how most will sorely base their perspectives upon personal experiences and conditions.' i could not agree more, this would be my whole problem with occupy Melbourne, they think they have it bad, but they actually have enough to live, as opposed to the people in other countries who truly are exploited and if they put their time to pushing for a change there they could actually have a real difference as opposed to squabbling over their comparative wealth compared to impoverished people living off less that $400 per year.

The rest of your comment seems to be concerned with the notion of inherited privilege. Yes going to a private school is a big step up in life, but it hardly hands you the rest of your life on a silver platter. Opportunities come a little easier and you're more likely to do well in VCE, but you still have to do well in uni, you still have to have a job, even if it's been given to you by your daddys friend, you still need to work hard if you want to actually make the mattress of $100 bills you seem to think every single private school kid goes to sleep on for the rest of their life.

Now that's the vast majority of private school kids covered. Now moving onto the absolute minority of people who take over their dad's business or inherit massive amounts of wealth. Two options, you do absolute nothing with your life, and just live off that money, cool well if that's what your dad wanted, you can spend your money any way you want and it's just going to disappear eventually anyway. No people being exploited here, just an arrogant douche that spend his days driving from country club to country club in his dad's ferari until the money runs out

The second (and much more likely scenario) is that the son actually takes over the business and runs it (i.e. packers) Again i see no problem here. they get the money they have and have to control a massive company which again consumes their life and the buck stops with them every time the shit hits the fan, think the court case the packers are being dragged though with the news of the world debacle. Sure they hire employees, sure their employees make a profit for them, but again in the context of Australia no-one, at least by my definition is being overly 'exploited', they have food on the table, they have it so much better than the majority of the world who are ACTUALLY getting exploited and have to live in inhumane conditions.

Also i have a rather big problem with your second 'option' where you say you get rich when you "Use your money/asset  to earn more money for you" ummmm you realise you still have to work and put that money to use if you want it to get bigger. You actually have to do something with it, it doesn't just sit there growing exponentially by itself and i would love if you can point out to me an example where someone literally sits at home in their mansion while their money magically multiplies itself with no work done but i think you're just criticizing something that just doesn't exist.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

You don't get it do you. Occupy Melbourne only exists because of occupy Wall Street, which is after all what this thread is all about. I thought I made it very clear, you can't talk about capitalism without taking the whole world into account, because capitalism= free trade. The actions/problems/situations of other countries affect our country's economy, vice-versa. The gain of one country equates to the loss of other nations. It is all good in Melbourne because there are other states and countries out there being exploited for us and  by us.  Hint- Why do you think researchers and academics spend extensive time analysing the world economy and terrorism against the West?

I think you are taking exploitation too much on a subjective standpoint. It seems like you are taking it as an image of a visible, brutal agent dictating terms, a slave master cracking its whips on a worker. Think about it more objectively, I don't think I can put it any clearer, but the fact is people are exploited, but hardly anyone recognizes it anymore because it has been equated to the norm, or sub-zero field, if you are into physics. "To make 13 bucks an hour is not bad, every young people is going through the same road as me, there are people out there making 10 cents an hour." This sort of thinking does not detract from the fact that you are being exploited, in the sense that you are not getting paid anywhere close to the surplus value you have provided as a result of your personal labour. Like I have reiterated quite a few times, you don't need to recognise, be aware of or agree to be exploited to be exploited. Don't take a term and make it into an issue of personal subjectivity. There is no such thing as thinking that you are exploited, or those that are 'truly' exploited. You are either exploited or you are not. In capitalism, in almost every single case, you are either exploiting someone or you are being exploited, or both. For most people, it is only a question of how badly exploited they are to the extent where they start recognizing it and start doing something about it.  It is as simple as it is. That is seriously, as objective as I can put it for you, but if you are interested, Marx should clear things up for you. And I have no idea why you are justifying how little they pay with massive branding and stuff, it is completely irrelevant...and  with those massive brandings (which are not forced upon them), they still manage to pay their CEOS millions a day. Food for thought.

You said, "you make a choice in being an employee." How much of a choice do we have, honestly? The majority of people work for others because most of them don't have a choice, you either work or starve, there is always a line of more desperate people out there looking for jobs. And you make it sound like people can go into business if they want to, not many can keep up with the mortgages of their home let alone rent a shop or afford to start a business. That's why capitalism is such a 'great' invention for the privileged.

"i could not agree more, this would be my whole problem with occupy Melbourne, they think they have it bad, but they actually have enough to live, as opposed to the people in other countries who truly are exploited and if they put their time to pushing for a change there they could actually have a real difference as opposed to squabbling over their comparative wealth compared to impoverished people living off less that $400 per year."

For occupy Melbourne, you do realise that the main point is to protest against the corporations' influence over the governments right?


As for the other stuff, I have to catch up with you later, got an assignment to hand in before 5.

[tram]

Ok so I finally understand what you mean by exploitation, but then like you say everyone is exploited. How exactly do you propose that we make it so that there IS not exploitation?

In fact, more generally how exactly do you think we can tackle the problem anyway? The ‘selfish’ gene is probably true, we all have the inherent want to make a profit. If that’s true then people will always be exploited. It’s great to be able to point out a bunch of problems; we all can list problems with the world, but what’s your solution?

Regarding : "you make a choice in being an employee." Absolutely. It’s not easy but it is a choice. My father came here with quite literally nothing but a singlet, shorts and thongs. He put his heart and soul into building up a business so that he could put me and my two brothers (no scholarships ) through scotch. He’s made a lot more out of a lot less that what most people have. If you don't want to put in the hard yards then you know you will be 'exploited' seeing as working for anyone that is paying you a cent less than they are making from your labor seems to be exploitation by your definition seeing as it's an absolute definition rather than a comparative one. So yes, I completely stand by my comment.

More broadly this is where my problem with the general “you are controlled by the wealth bracket you are born into” mentality, as though an invisible force is preventing you from breaking into higher wealth brackets. Sure statistically most people don’t move, but that doesn’t prevent individuals from breaking out if they want to. You are only influenced, not controlled by where you currently are.

Anyway, I too have far too many assessments I need to study for and am self banning myself from this forum, or at the very least, very slow replies. Cheers for the procrastination materiel

[LOVEPHYSICS]

The rest of your comment seems to be concerned with the notion of inherited privilege. Yes going to a private school is a big step up in life, but it hardly hands you the rest of your life on a silver platter. Opportunities come a little easier and you're more likely to do well in VCE, but you still have to do well in uni, you still have to have a job, even if it's been given to you by your daddys friend, you still need to work hard if you want to actually make the mattress of $100 bills you seem to think every single private school kid goes to sleep on for the rest of their life.

Now that's the vast majority of private school kids covered. Now moving onto the absolute minority of people who take over their dad's business or inherit massive amounts of wealth. Two options, you do absolute nothing with your life, and just live off that money, cool well if that's what your dad wanted, you can spend your money any way you want and it's just going to disappear eventually anyway. No people being exploited here, just an arrogant douche that spend his days driving from country club to country club in his dad's ferari until the money runs out

The second (and much more likely scenario) is that the son actually takes over the business and runs it (i.e. packers) Again i see no problem here. they get the money they have and have to control a massive company which again consumes their life and the buck stops with them every time the shit hits the fan, think the court case the packers are being dragged though with the news of the world debacle. Sure they hire employees, sure their employees make a profit for them, but again in the context of Australia no-one, at least by my definition is being overly 'exploited', they have food on the table, they have it so much better than the majority of the world who are ACTUALLY getting exploited and have to live in inhumane conditions.

You are rambling on with so much assumptions that you are not really responding specifically nor arguing for any point... I am not sure if you are playing straw man with me but whatever...

You can create as much as imaginary scenarios as you want but the fact remains, inherited privilege gives you a head start in life, it gives you an advantage over others. Whether you make use of that advantage or not has nothing to do with the fact that you have been given an unfair opportunity over others.

"Also i have a rather big problem with your second 'option' where you say you get rich when you "Use your money/asset  to earn more money for you" ummmm you realise you still have to work and put that money to use if you want it to get bigger. You actually have to do something with it, it doesn't just sit there growing exponentially by itself and i would love if you can point out to me an example where someone literally sits at home in their mansion while their money magically multiplies itself with no work done but i think you're just criticizing something that just doesn't exist."

Now I am quite sure you are playing strawman with me.  I meant what I said, you use money to earn money, such as investing. Technically, I am right. Because no personal labour is involved, you are not required to sell any of your labour in the process of creating money through investing. Don't give me those little nuances like I have to open an E-trade account, I have to drive/walk to the bank to deposit money so I can collect interest... because none of those involve a 'selling' of your personal labour like an employee would have to, his/her brain, body and time to another person, his/her employer. Never did I once said that you could sit there and money magically appears, nor did I imply to that. And yes, doing hardly anything includes taking a a few hours a day to survey, research and analyse the stock market. I reckon that is a pretty fair proposition. Besides, that whole sentence was a comparison, you can't simply neglect the fact that it is a comparison and not an individual statement pertaining towards a specific, view.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

I don't think it is possible to eradicate exploitation. But I guess we can reduce the extent of it, through more taxes on the super elite and more redistribution. Definitely not through Mao's ideal of let the market be, or laissez faire though...

Well then, your father is an exceptional man and a great role model. Just got to remember though, they are many bright and capable people out there, but you have draw the line between those exceptional and also realistically take into account, good/bad fortune. People can work their asses off their whole life and still die penniless. And your father putting you guys into Scotch shows how much education is valued, and how he realizes the fact that through Scotch, his children will be exposed to many more opportunities than let's say, he did in the past. Not taking away from you though, it is obvious through your marks that you have put significant amount of effort and is also very capable.

"If you don't want to put in the hard yards then you know you will be 'exploited' seeing as working for anyone that is paying you a cent less than they are making from your labor seems to be exploitation by your definition seeing as it's an absolute definition rather than a comparative one. "

Not a cent less. I think you can put it in this terms, if your labour earn $50 in an hour, you should get paid at the very least $25 or 50%.

I understand what you are going on about with the wealth bracket. It is certainly an unhealthy, and I guess, rather useless mentality if you hold it too close to your chest. But similarly, it is difficult for most of us (bourgeois) to spare a thought for this people because most of us  here have led a rather privileged life. The fact is, you can never truly appreciate the privilege you hold unless you have been severely disadvantaged, or walked in the shoes of those people before. For example, I may be a stern and passionate defender of woman's rights but I could never truly encapsulate the full propensity of female discrimination because I have never been a woman in my life...

yeah, this is pretty much it for me today as well lol, still got exams tommorow...