Question Time last night

[russell]

The guy who started Wikipedia was on it and most of his replies were "I don't knwo enough about the issue to comment", fecking read wikipedia about it then.

Also head of Sainsburys was on it and was cajooled to reveal his salary which is 900k. Some of the audience then proceeded to ask him awkward questions like "Are you worth 40x more than the average person"

[filthy1980]

The guy who started Wikipedia was on it and most of his replies were "I don't knwo enough about the issue to comment", fecking read wikipedia about it then.

Also head of Sainsburys was on it and was cajooled to reveal his salary which is 900k. Some of the audience then proceeded to ask him awkward questions like "Are you worth 40x more than the average person"

the dopes in the audience asking about the sainsbury's CEO salary really did come across like a immature bunch of quasi socialists

thought the wiki man did ok though, esp on topics of free speech and freedom of the press

[DodgyAgent]

The guy who started Wikipedia was on it and most of his replies were "I don't knwo enough about the issue to comment", fecking read wikipedia about it then.

Also head of Sainsburys was on it and was cajooled to reveal his salary which is 900k. Some of the audience then proceeded to ask him awkward questions like "Are you worth 40x more than the average person"

To which he should ask the question are you worth 40 times more than a Somalian peasant?

[Doggy Styles]

To which he should ask the question are you worth 40 times more than a Somalian peasant?

Ha, good retort DA. I'll remember that.

[OwlHoot]

the dopes in the audience ... really did come across like a immature bunch of quasi socialists ...

The BBC are careful to weed out undesirables, i.e. everyone other than quasi socialists ..

A week or two ago they had some black poet in the panel, and the hysterical clapping and cheering at his every inane utterance was embarrassing to behold. Shame there weren't any questions about poetry, or he might have talked a bit more sense.

[Freamon]

the dopes in the audience asking about the sainsbury's CEO salary really did come across like a immature bunch of quasi socialists

thought the wiki man did ok though, esp on topics of free speech and freedom of the press

Jimbo Wales used to be a trader on CME. How he gathered up enough cash to get a seat on the floor is not known, but he has said in the past that classmates of his in college dealt drugs to get the cash together.

[Jeff Maginty]

..

[OwlHoot]

That's a clever & witty reply, but...

The point is, nobody is really worth what they get paid. A local authority chief exec on £150,000 per year is not worth 5 times as much to society as a senior nurse on £30,000 per year, and a banker on £1,500,000 per year is not worth 10 times as much to society as a local authority chief exec. The way that the market values people is badly out-of-synch with the actual value they create. This is because we've allowed the system to get badly distorted. What's needed is for a comprehensive review of our whole value-system as a society and a re-aligning of the rules of law/economy/policy to reinforce and encourage whatever we work out to be our values. Of course, this is extremely unlikely to happen because there are very powerful vested interests who will do all they can to ensure that nothing upsets their cosy position at the top of the pile where they keep grabbing all the wealth for themselves regardless of the negative effect that has on the majority of people.

It's amazing enough that people put up with bankers & chief-execs getting paid millions for their "work" in the so-called "boom years" (that were really just a false illusion), but I just can't understand how the general public appear to have rolled-over and accepted the continuing rewards-for-failure paid to bankers out of taxpayers money.

Jesus, you're boring when you start droning on about bankers, a one-man Question Time audience distilled into a single dreary individual.

It's absolutely natural, futile to try and change, and childishly naive even to think about it. The same wealth and/or power distribution holds, and always has, in every society, medieval barons, communist apparachiks, even drug dealers.

It even holds for the energy of gas molecules, in the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution. So you are practically railing against a fundamental law of physics!

[Doggy Styles]

Jesus, you're boring when you start droning on about bankers, a one-man Question Time audience distilled into a single dreary individual.

It's absolutely natural, futile to try and change, and childishly naive even to think about it. The same wealth and/or power distribution holds, and always has, in every society, medieval barons, communist apparachiks, even drug dealers.

It even holds for the energy of gas molecules, in the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution. So you are practically railing against a fundamental law of physics!

WHS

It's tedious. There should be a Godwin's Law about mentioning Bankers. Perhaps it should be called Owlhoot's Law.

[russell]

Jesus, you're boring when you start droning on about bankers, a one-man Question Time audience distilled into a single dreary individual.

It's absolutely natural, futile to try and change, and childishly naive even to think about it. The same wealth and/or power distribution holds, and always has, in every society, medieval barons, communist apparachiks, even drug dealers.

It even holds for the energy of gas molecules, in the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution. So you are practically railing against a fundamental law of physics!

I agree and believe in a free market, I don't mind entrepreneurs making millions whe produce something that is useful. However I can't understand why people like Fred Goodwin aren't in prison for almost causing financial collapse, his income was high because he was responsible for a large bank, so he should be made to take responsibility of the problems his bank has caused.

To say though income inequality is a fundamental law of physics is stretching it.