4 ms·

The whole of British society is structured this way. Constantly blaming poor people when a good proportion of rich people are rent seeking and/or not doing the

The whole of British society is structured this way. Constantly blaming poor people when a good proportion of rich people are rent seeking and/or not doing the most basic things to help their customers.

ttul 4y ago
Ahh yes, but by being careful stewards of their wealth, they ensure that the British economy is productive and healthy /s
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Because all their wealth trickes down eventually. Any moment now... /s
nus07 4y ago
It’s no different from Reagan Republicans. All the rules are for thee(the poor) but not for me(the wealthy).
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Funny, that's what all the Republicans kept saying about the Democratic politicians like Newsom who were seen flouting their own COVID lockdown policies. Maybe it's more than just one tiny group of people who are prone to such things as hypocrisy.
prepend 4y ago
Aren’t the royals literally rent seeking by renting out ancestral lands? Seems like a good thing to nationalize and use for better public good.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Most of it is administered by the government and the government manages the profits. It is ultimately His Majesty's government. The royal family gets some of it in their personal coffers, and it's a nontrivial sum, but it wouldn't fix the UK's financial problems all in one swoop to take it. And it would come at a cost of a significant amount of prestige and tourism dollars. It might be a net gain, but most people in the UK feel that it wouldn't be worth the cost to their nation identity. Many in the UK want the opposite of nationalization. They want to sell off major government properties to private owners, and let capitalism do the work. This isn't quite a majority opinion but it has strong support (and bitter opposition).
  - prepend 4y ago
    I watched a documentary that featured a hereditary lord who rented out his lands to hunting, events, tenents and takes about how his family had done this for hundreds of years. I think it’s not just the literal king, but also all the other remaining royalty. Perhaps privatization is a better path than nationalization. It just seems quite unjust to have literal hereditary land that cannot be transferred.
notinfuriated 4y ago
How is this bank blaming poor people by asking its rich customers not to upgrade to iOS 16? I'm struggling to understand where the logical jump is to, "The whole of British society is structured this way." Which way? I'm assuming you're replying specifically to the parent comments' "what rich people think about technology: make it sexy and powerful but I don't want to hear about ongoing maintenance costs," but not sure how this then implies poor people are being blamed. Just seems like a flamewar comment that doesn't actually explain itself. If the whole rich vs. poor thing resonates with me on some deep ideological level, I can go ahead and pretend I understand what this all means. Maybe I can even respond with a supportive comment about something something Reagan Republicans.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ttul 4y ago

Ahh yes, but by being careful stewards of their wealth, they ensure that the British economy is productive and healthy /s

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Because all their wealth trickes down eventually. Any moment now... /s

nus07 4y ago

It’s no different from Reagan Republicans. All the rules are for thee(the poor) but not for me(the wealthy).

zdragnar 4y ago
Funny, that's what all the Republicans kept saying about the Democratic politicians like Newsom who were seen flouting their own COVID lockdown policies. Maybe it's more than just one tiny group of people who are prone to such things as hypocrisy.

prepend 4y ago

Aren’t the royals literally rent seeking by renting out ancestral lands? Seems like a good thing to nationalize and use for better public good.

jfengel 4y ago
Most of it is administered by the government and the government manages the profits. It is ultimately His Majesty's government. The royal family gets some of it in their personal coffers, and it's a nontrivial sum, but it wouldn't fix the UK's financial problems all in one swoop to take it. And it would come at a cost of a significant amount of prestige and tourism dollars. It might be a net gain, but most people in the UK feel that it wouldn't be worth the cost to their nation identity. Many in the UK want the opposite of nationalization. They want to sell off major government properties to private owners, and let capitalism do the work. This isn't quite a majority opinion but it has strong support (and bitter opposition).
- prepend 4y ago
  I watched a documentary that featured a hereditary lord who rented out his lands to hunting, events, tenents and takes about how his family had done this for hundreds of years. I think it’s not just the literal king, but also all the other remaining royalty. Perhaps privatization is a better path than nationalization. It just seems quite unjust to have literal hereditary land that cannot be transferred.

notinfuriated 4y ago

How is this bank blaming poor people by asking its rich customers not to upgrade to iOS 16? I'm struggling to understand where the logical jump is to, "The whole of British society is structured this way." Which way? I'm assuming you're replying specifically to the parent comments' "what rich people think about technology: make it sexy and powerful but I don't want to hear about ongoing maintenance costs," but not sure how this then implies poor people are being blamed. Just seems like a flamewar comment that doesn't actually explain itself. If the whole rich vs. poor thing resonates with me on some deep ideological level, I can go ahead and pretend I understand what this all means. Maybe I can even respond with a supportive comment about something something Reagan Republicans.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]