85 people 50% wealth
85 people 50% wealth
Folks,
A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people own 50% of the entire world's wealth. That's shocking!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
How come 50% of the world's wealth is owned by so many people? If trickle up economics were working properly, surely this amount of wealth should be in the safe hands of at most two or three people by now. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other 50% of the world's wealth is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
However, we are a long way from the ideal situation, and the clock is ticking. What to do?
Alex.
A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people own 50% of the entire world's wealth. That's shocking!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
How come 50% of the world's wealth is owned by so many people? If trickle up economics were working properly, surely this amount of wealth should be in the safe hands of at most two or three people by now. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other 50% of the world's wealth is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
However, we are a long way from the ideal situation, and the clock is ticking. What to do?
Alex.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
due to the miracles of consumer inflation its actually quite complicated when it comes to how the distribution of money actually changes the actual living standards of a people.
i wouldnt expect oxfam or the guardian to waste one second of their lives actually nutting out the boring economics and availability of resources, its far better to rile up the latte sippers with dramatic sounding numbers.
personally, i couldnt give a flying hoot if some of the mining magnates in australia got richer, most of it is not real money its imaginary numbers, stock shares and iou's and things that dissapear in seconds during a gfc like event.
whats real is the cost of housing, the cost of food, the levels of taxation, these arent actually affected by a rich person having more virtual money.
i wouldnt expect oxfam or the guardian to waste one second of their lives actually nutting out the boring economics and availability of resources, its far better to rile up the latte sippers with dramatic sounding numbers.
personally, i couldnt give a flying hoot if some of the mining magnates in australia got richer, most of it is not real money its imaginary numbers, stock shares and iou's and things that dissapear in seconds during a gfc like event.
whats real is the cost of housing, the cost of food, the levels of taxation, these arent actually affected by a rich person having more virtual money.
ultracrepidarian
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
noddy,noddy wrote:.... whats real is the cost of housing, the cost of food, the levels of taxation, these arent actually affected by a rich person having more virtual money.
Good grief, I hadn't thought of that. Housing and food are spread around as well. Fortunately, land, property and food resources can be put into a few responsible hands although it takes time. China's communist state has been buying up a good deal of land, property and businesses in the US and here in the UK. It will take a long time for them to get it all though.
Alex.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
well unless you are a rascist nationalist xenophobe you should be happy that chinese want to invest in your country and give your middle class retirement money by purchasing their houses.
who cares if the average pommie kid cant get a house, thats BNP talk.
who cares if the average pommie kid cant get a house, thats BNP talk.
ultracrepidarian
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
allow me to paraphrase of the two greatest opinions ever posted at OTNOT (and quite possibly anywhere else in human history- broad brush):manolo wrote:Folks,
A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people own 50% of the entire world's wealth. That's shocking!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
How come 50% of the world's wealth is owned by so many people? If trickle up economics were working properly, surely this amount of wealth should be in the safe hands of at most two or three people by now. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other 50% of the world's wealth is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
However, we are a long way from the ideal situation, and the clock is ticking. What to do?
Alex.
"What's not to like?"
"Someone else's definition of economic perfection or ideal situation!"
Rather than try to control wealth distribution, shouldn't we just focus on stifling the opinions of those people we disagree with?
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Squandered, just like Tim Tams.....<<.........Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
noddy,noddy wrote:well unless you are a rascist nationalist xenophobe you should be happy .....
That's one of the best description/prescription lines I've read lately.
Alex.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
SM,Simple Minded wrote:
allow me to paraphrase of the two greatest opinions ever posted at OTNOT (and quite possibly anywhere else in human history- broad brush):
"What's not to like?"
"Someone else's definition of economic perfection or ideal situation!"
Rather than try to control wealth distribution, shouldn't we just focus on stifling the opinions of those people we disagree with?
The problem with writing almost entirely in irony mode is that I often can't understand my own posts; fortunately I can't understand your post above either so it all seems to balance out nicely.
Anyway irony mode switched off now. As I understand it, trying "..to control wealth distribution." is the primary modus operandi of capital, commerce and the kitchen table.
Alex.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Alex,manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote:
allow me to paraphrase of the two greatest opinions ever posted at OTNOT (and quite possibly anywhere else in human history- broad brush):
"What's not to like?"
"Someone else's definition of economic perfection or ideal situation!"
Rather than try to control wealth distribution, shouldn't we just focus on stifling the opinions of those people we disagree with?
The problem with writing almost entirely in irony mode is that I often can't understand my own posts; fortunately I can't understand your post above either so it all seems to balance out nicely.
Anyway irony mode switched off now. As I understand it, trying "..to control wealth distribution." is the primary modus operandi of capital, commerce and the kitchen table.
Alex.
Not to worry mate. You & noddy posted the most brilliant, inspirational discourse I have ever read. It pretty much ends debate on just about any topic. As a result, you are both my heroes forever! Anglo brain power and humor kicks ass!!!!
translation, everyone wants a "better" world, but since no one can agree on the definition of "better," we should just ban the use of any synonyminous words. Assuming, of course synonyminous is a real word. You know, words we think might mean the same thing as better.
Before, when I thought you thought wealth inequality was excessive, I recommended you give your stuff to the poor. Now, when I think you think wealth inequality is insufficient, I recommend you give your stuff to the rich.
Pretty simple actually.....
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
i also spend alot of my time worrying about these things.manolo wrote: A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people trickle up in the safe hands of at most two or three people. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
.
ultracrepidarian
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Mmmmm. Tim Tams . . .Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:Squandered, just like Tim Tams.....<<.........Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
SM,Simple Minded wrote:
Before, when I thought you thought wealth inequality was excessive, I recommended you give your stuff to the poor. Now, when I think you think wealth inequality is insufficient, I recommend you give your stuff to the rich.
Pretty simple actually.....
I did that when younger (paying interest) but no more. Now it's the other way. Doesn't make me person 86 though.
Alex.
- Endovelico
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
If corporate decisions were jointly taken (50/50) by capital and labour, as they should, wealth would be more evenly distributed. For those who think workers can't make the right corporate decisions, I would remind them that neither do shareholders. If both sides hire competent managers the problem would be solved.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Interesting point. Most of us experience living on both sides of the fence if we live long enough, or if we have half a brain.manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote:
Before, when I thought you thought wealth inequality was excessive, I recommended you give your stuff to the poor. Now, when I think you think wealth inequality is insufficient, I recommend you give your stuff to the rich.
Pretty simple actually.....
I did that when younger (paying interest) but no more. Now it's the other way. Doesn't make me person 86 though.
Alex.
But if you are a 49%er, you are still evil by democratic vote!
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Indeed. Look at the fine example of division of wealth of socialist democratic peoples republic of North Korea. Their they have the workers paradise 100% own by one man/god. How can it get any better than that Alex?manolo wrote:Folks,
A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people own 50% of the entire world's wealth. That's shocking!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
How come 50% of the world's wealth is owned by so many people? If trickle up economics were working properly, surely this amount of wealth should be in the safe hands of at most two or three people by now. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other 50% of the world's wealth is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
However, we are a long way from the ideal situation, and the clock is ticking. What to do?
Alex.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
- HAL 10000
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:39 am
- Location: The Lagrange Point between Jupiter and Io
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Alex, you are on the right track but it seems that there is a small misunderstanding here: please note that the article above only states thatmanolo wrote:Folks,
A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people own 50% of the entire world's wealth. That's shocking!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
How come 50% of the world's wealth is owned by so many people? If trickle up economics were working properly, surely this amount of wealth should be in the safe hands of at most two or three people by now. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other 50% of the world's wealth is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
However, we are a long way from the ideal situation, and the clock is ticking. What to do?
Alex.
,Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world
which is not the same thing as saying that the richest 85 people own 50 % of the total wealth. This is because the poorest 50 % of the population already have a lot less than 50 % of the total wealth.
Specifically, another version of the same article clarifies that
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... witzerland
The latter statement refers to 50 % the total amount of wealth you were talking about, but it reports that half the wealth is owned by the richest 1 % of the population, not the richest 85 individuals.New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%
That being said, in 1929, a couple of years before the Great Depression (which was a prelude to WW II), the richest 1 % of the US population owned only 44 % of the wealth. The main complaint against the progressive concentration of wealth in the top 1 % is not that the rich people are too rich, but when a large chunk of the financial wealth is stuck in the accounts of a small minority, this actually chokes the economy because the majority would not have enough cash to continue purchasing from the rich in order to subsist. Cash is supposed to be a transmission mechanism for the exchange of goods and services, but its dark side is that it migrates to the stronger individuals, due to the Darwinian nature of the economy.
The name HAL is derived from "Heuristically Programmed ALgorithmic Computer." HAL 10000 is the new generation computer destined to become the successor to HAL 9000, as suggested in Arthur C. Clarke's book.
Re: 85 people 50% wealth
Also lending money in at least the US is now three times more profitable than investing in things that create jobs like factories. Now why is that?HAL 10000 wrote:Alex, you are on the right track but it seems that there is a small misunderstanding here: please note that the article above only states thatmanolo wrote:Folks,
A recent Oxfam report shows that 85 people own 50% of the entire world's wealth. That's shocking!
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -the-world
How come 50% of the world's wealth is owned by so many people? If trickle up economics were working properly, surely this amount of wealth should be in the safe hands of at most two or three people by now. Also, we have the disturbing fact that the other 50% of the world's wealth is knocking around all kinds of folks and only God knows what they are doing with it.
Wealth is an important good in our world and the notion that it is just spread around willy nilly doesn't bear thinking about. If the free market was working properly we should be much closer to economic perfection, in which happy case all global wealth is in the hands of one person and everyone else is freed from the worry of it. That way we would be safe in the knowledge that wealth was properly secured, everyone knows where it is and it's not going anywhere.
However, we are a long way from the ideal situation, and the clock is ticking. What to do?
Alex.
,Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world
which is not the same thing as saying that the richest 85 people own 50 % of the total wealth. This is because the poorest 50 % of the population already have a lot less than 50 % of the total wealth.
Specifically, another version of the same article clarifies that
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... witzerlandThe latter statement refers to 50 % the total amount of wealth you were talking about, but it reports that half the wealth is owned by the richest 1 % of the population, not the richest 85 individuals.New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%
That being said, in 1929, a couple of years before the Great Depression (which was a prelude to WW II), the richest 1 % of the US population owned only 44 % of the wealth. The main complaint against the progressive concentration of wealth in the top 1 % is not that the rich people are too rich, but when a large chunk of the financial wealth is stuck in the accounts of a small minority, this actually chokes the economy because the majority would not have enough cash to continue purchasing from the rich in order to subsist. Cash is supposed to be a transmission mechanism for the exchange of goods and services, but its dark side is that it migrates to the stronger individuals, due to the Darwinian nature of the economy.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros