Capitalism, can it work?

We once lived off the sheeps back, now, it's the Mining boom.

The world wealthiest woman



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-7866609.html

Who does she think she is, Rupert Murdoch?

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

She's the wealthiest woman in the world, but, she doesn't like most of her kids..lol

DECADES of poisonous infighting within Australia's wealthiest family culminated in claims by Gina Rinehart that her three oldest children lacked the skill and work ethic to take charge of their multi-billion-dollar trust fund.

While her three eldest children - John Hancock, Bianca Rinehart and Hope Rinehart Welker - claim they were victims of "repeated attempts to place emotional, financial and legal pressure" on them to sign over control of the family trust set up for their benefit, documents released yesterday reveal that their mother thought them to be "manifestly unsuitable" for the task of managing the fund, and suggested it would be in the "best interests of the beneficiaries to force them to go to work".

The claims and counter-claims form part of a bitter legal dispute between Mrs Rinehart, Australia's wealthiest person, and her three eldest children, who are feuding over ownership of the Hope Margaret Hancock trust set up by their grandfather, Lang Hancock, for his grandchildren.



RECOMMENDED COVERAGE

Rinehart pushes on with $7bn project

Rinehart battle may unsettle investors

MPs 'pressured' Gina's kids

Mrs Rinehart's youngest child, Ginia, has sided with her mother in the dispute, which will determine control of 23.6 per cent of the family's giant Hancock Prospecting iron ore empire.

The Australian has gained access to a series of documents outlining the bitter divide within the family after Mrs Rinehart lost a long-running legal battle to suppress details of the dispute. They show Mrs Rinehart had always intended to leave her children her shares in Hancock Prospecting - as required under the company's joint venture deal with Rio Tinto to develop the Hope Downs iron ore mine in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

But her defence filed in the latest case reveals she now believes they lack the necessary business acumen and experience to administer the trust.

A settlement deed signed with John Hancock in 2007 reads: "GHR (Gina Rinehart) intends for her four children or the lineal descendants surviving in due course to inherit the whole of her shares in HPPL (Hancock Prospecting) . . . GHR intends to provide for the appointment in due course such of her lineal descendants as show an interest in affairs relating to the Hancock Group and who can be trusted . . ."

In her legal defence to her children's court action, Mrs Rinehart claims: "None of the plaintiffs (her children) has the requisite capacity or skill, nor the knowledge, experience, judgment or responsible work ethic to administer a trust in the nature of the trust in particular as part of the growing HPPL Group."

Emails between Mrs Rinehart's children, their mother and high-level executives of Hancock Prospecting reveal details of her 11th-hour attempt to wrest control of the trust fund, which owns 23.6 per cent of her mining company, Hancock Prospecting.

They also demonstrate attempts by two federal Coalition MPs, Barnaby Joyce and Alby Schultz, to interfere in the dispute by trying to talk Hope Welker out of taking her mother to court.

In her defence filed with the NSW Supreme Court, Ginia Rinehart said she objected to her siblings taking control of the trust "on the grounds they are not fit and proper persons to be trustees and . . . none of the plaintiffs, individually or collectively, are suitable to be appointed as trustees". Mrs Rinehart's defence says none of her three oldest children have ever "occupied any long-term position of professional or occupational responsibility, either in the resources industry or elsewhere" except short-term positions given to them by her.

In an email on September 3, which sparked the three children's decision to go to court, Mrs Rinehart demands her children allow her to remain trustee and says they could benefit from working.

Her defence papers say the children are "manifestly unsuitable" for the role.

The three children allege their mother made "repeated attempts to place emotional, financial and legal pressure" on them to hand over control of the trust.

After an offer to give control of the trust over to Mrs Rinehart, Mrs Welker replied on September 3: "I can't sign that. You're going to cut me off until I move to Perth or Singapore. Or you will make more 'loans' to yourself or the company and we'll be forever in debt. I'm never going to be able to provide for my children."

Mrs Rinehart replied on September 5: "If you choose not to extend the trust you will face the consequences so doing, yes you will then not 'be able to provide for my (your) children' for many years and will have to go to work."

On September 4, Hancock Prospecting's chief financial officer, Jay Newby, wrote to Mrs Welker offering "to terminate the arrangements in the Hope Downs deed and instead provide a fixed quarterly dividend (plus CPI) to the trust to be distributed to the beneficiaries".

Hours later, Mrs Welker replies: "I need 6 months extension on divestment to work this **** out and Mem (sic) to step down as trustee September 6th. Please do this, I don't want this to tear my family apart and I don't want to get a lawyer."

Bianca Rinehart alleges that Mr Newby then told her that Mrs Rinehart was willing to give her a "quarterly distribution" if she would "immediately withdraw from involvement in the proceedings, to offer her a quarterly distribution in an amount to be agreed".

The three children allege their mother changed the vesting date of the trust to 2068, only days before the trust's former vesting date, September 6, 2011, the 25th birthday of the youngest child, Ginia.

In a letter to the children on September 3, Mrs Rinehart warns her children they will be bankrupted by a huge capital gains tax liability of up to $100 million each, suggesting that they cede control of the fund to her.

"Bankruptcy is not in the financial interests of the beneficiaries. It may however be reasonably arguable that personal development-wise it would be in the best interests of the beneficiaries to force them to go to work and reconsider their holidaying lifestyles and attitudes," Mrs Rinehart wrote.

In court documents, Mr Newby says the trust is worth $2.4 billion based on a valuation of Hancock Prospecting at $10.3bn, but accepts the valuation is "a modest figure". Forbes Rich List recently valued Mrs Rinehart at $17.2bn.

Mr Schultz and Senator Joyce also wrote to Mrs Welker imploring her to stop her legal action.

"Dear Hope. We read with so much sadness of the litigation that you have instigated against your mother. Whilst we do not know all the problems that give rise to this horrific step, because we love and care about you we felt we had to share our experience with you. It is already making you look like a member of the Rose Porteous family, not your mother's wonderful and beautiful daughter," Mr Schultz wrote on September 19.

Documents filed as part of the matter also reveal details of legal skirmishes between Mrs Rinehart and some of her children stretching back a decade. These include a deal struck by Mrs Rinehart and John Hancock in 2005 that involved him relinquishing rights to income from the trust for six years in return for cash payments and promises to help find him work as a stockbroker if Hancock Prospecting listed on the stockmarket.

The agreement cites the "potential for (Mr Hancock) to negatively seek exposure with the public or with the media, particularly during periods of negotiation of large commercial projects such as a Hope Downs Project".

In 2006, Hancock Prospecting signed a joint venture with Rio to develop the Hope Downs iron ore operation. Under the 2007 deed, Mr Hancock's payments from Hancock Prospecting were increased provided he worked for the company or Rio and paid back loans to the family company.

The documents also reveal that if any of Mrs Rinehart's children marry, they must sign a prenuptial agreement ensuring Hancock remains in the family.

So do the costs of living. Unfortunately, in a downturn, the costs of living don't seem to deflate as quickly as the standards of living do.

What are you talking about? The 19th century saw tons of growth, and it also laid the groundwork for the industrial age, all despite the ravages of the Civil War.

The argument is pretty confused either way, though, because MM16 was talking about capitalism in general, and he presumably thinks that what we've been doing since the 19th century ended is "capitalism," too.

The "standard of living" takes cost into account. It has gone up dramatically by any standard over any significant time period. I honestly have no clue what people who claim otherwise are thinking. It's not even close.

I didn't say the standard of living hasn't gone up. I'm saying the standard of living is kind of a hollow measurement because it's an average, and often misleading. The mean income in America might be pretty high, but the standard of living is still pretty low for a whole lot of people (46 million people, at last count by the U.S. Census Bureau). Obviously, capitalism doesn't really work for them.

So income inequality - and the factors that lead to it, which are an inherent part of the capitalist system - should be weighed in kind, too.

It created growth, it didn't improve the standard of living for working people, who still lived in poverty and were working 14 hour days and in often dangerous conditions.

But you didn't say that; you said nothing about the average, you just mentioned the costs, even though those are part of the equation.

Also, it's not an average when you say "the standard of living has gone up in all income brackets." We're not talking about an average that can be skewed by the uber-wealthy; you can use median real wages, too, and the result is the same. This is why I said "standard of living" and not, say, Gross Domestic Product.

Ah, but standard of living by what measure? They certainly have a lower standard of living than some other people today, but they have a much higher standard of living than the poor half a century ago. Which means you must be talking about...

...income inequality! I was wondering when it would make an appearance.

If someone wants to make the case that capitalism is bad because of income inequality, I don't envy them the task, but they can try. But that's a completely separate claim from the one about standard of living, which has risen across the board in objective terms. Everyone is richer, dramatically so. If someone wants to make the case that everyone being way richer is less important than the fact that a small group of people are way, way richer, have at it. But that's a pretty tall order.

Compared to what? That's a lot worse than the standard of living for working people now, but that's not what we're comparing. The comparison is the start of the 19th century compared to the end of it. When you say their standards didn't improve, what are you basing that on?

From wikipedia:

In terms of social structure, the Industrial Revolution witnessed the triumph of a middle class of industrialists and businessmen over a landed class of nobility and gentry. Ordinary working people found increased opportunities for employment in the new mills and factories, but these were often under strict working conditions with long hours of labour dominated by a pace set by machines. As late as the year 1900, most industrial workers in the United States still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life.[29] However, harsh working conditions were prevalent long before the Industrial Revolution took place. Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel—child labour, dirty living conditions, and long working hours were just as prevalent before the Industrial Revolution

Are you seriously arguing that the standard of living in the United States and Europe and Japan and pretty much any capitalist country is not amazing right now, because that's bordering on sick. If you're talking about the standard of living of the world, then you have a bit more leeway, since the amount of departure from the average is truly dismal. But in the U.S. of all places? Capitalism has its successes, and standard of living for certain countries (note: a uniquely capitalist measure of the Good) is one of them.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

If you're talking to me, you have go back to the previous page to understand what is being discussed and it isn't the United States today.

Okay, but...which part of this is supposed to support what you said? Let's have a look:

So far, it's the exact opposite of your claim: the "triumph" of a "middle class."

No argument there. But this is sounds like a comparison to today. They worked under conditions that were strict by today's standards, but I doubt they were strict compared to 1800's.

The source (I checked it; it's just the same text, verbatim, with no source beyond that) doesn't describe what a "decent life" is, but I'll bet it's ultimately a modern reference, not an historical one. Which would be irrelevant: the question is whether the standard of living improved from 1800 to 1900, not whether or not that standard is way better today than it was then. Naturally, it is.

Sounds plausible to me, but again, none of it demonstrates what you were saying.

There's something I don't think a lot of people "get" about working conditions: every single one of them is a trade-off. Worker safety, shorter hours, etc. The worker's real wages will be reduced, either with lower salaries, more work, higher prices, or fewer total jobs. Pointing out that people worked 10 or 12 hour days doesn't actually tell us much of anything about whether their standard of living had improved.

No, it wasn't the opposite of what I said. The middle class now includes the working class. People who worked in the mines, steeL mills, the factories, etc. were not part of the middle class. I specifically referenced the working class, not merchants, the professional class, and others that were part of the middle class in the 19th century. The working class were not middle and lived in conditions that even then were considered to be miserable. Did conditions for the working poor improve from 1800 to 1900? Well, they might have, but did they improve in a meaningful way? Doubtful. You said the standard of living under capitalism significantly improved the standard of living and for seventy years (the industrial revolution began around 1830) it didn't for workers. It didn't until government intervened, by passing laws interfering with the sacred market, including ones that protected unions, and by the courts. When did all that start? With the progressive movement, which began, oh, what a coincidence, in the early 1900s.

Based on what? Where is your evidence? First you say we didn't grow. I point out we did. Then you say we did grow, but ordinary people didn't benefit. I ask you to demonstrate this. You paste a single paragraph from Wikipedia that cites nothing and doesn't demonstrate your claim. I press you to produce evidence, and your only response is to say it's "Doubtful."

Heretofore you have presented basically nothing in defense of your position. Do you actually have any basis for believing this stuff, or not?

Based. On. WHAT? Why you think you can coast by in this discussions with generalizations and mere assertions is beyond me.

It also began, oh, what a coincidence, with the industrial revolution. Your cart is before your mechanical horse: wealth allows these standards, it isn't created by them.

But no, that's too simple and elegant an explanation. The growth must have come through a complicated economic paradox whereby we all got magically richer doing less work, but in a way that somehow still denies any causality with technological progress. Yeah, that's the ticket.

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/...hobsbawm8.html

Uh, according to that, even the "real wage" of the average worker more than doubled in the 19th century (at least, it appears so; the chart has no y-axis label).

It's also about England, not America, but hey, universal principles, right? So let's delve into it anyway: The only thing in this link that comes within a mile of your original statement is the idea that there was a period of stagnancy at the very beginning of the industrial revolution. But as the document also points out, for most of this period the laws were such that only landowners could vote and they didn't even have proportional representation in parliament. These are basic flaws in their system of representation; neither has anything to do with capitalism.

It also has nothing to do with capitalism, because that has to do with the role of government influencing the system. Democracy and capitalism are separate, but democracy is how reforms were introduced into the free market system that prevented the potential workers revolution Marx predicted. It was in autocratic societies like Russia, which did not allow reform, where revolutions happened.