Global Wealth Distribution
- Heracleum Persicum
- Posts: 11638
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm
Global Wealth Distribution
.
It’s pretty disconcerting to see over two-thirds of the world’s adults have wealth of less than $10,000, while the wealthiest 0.7% hold 41% of the world’s wealth
Well, guys,
Notion, only 0.7% of world population smart .. and .. the rest 99.3% (with less than $ 10,000 net worth) idiots .. does not rime with law of nature, genetics
something wrong here
Endo, you the mike
.
It’s pretty disconcerting to see over two-thirds of the world’s adults have wealth of less than $10,000, while the wealthiest 0.7% hold 41% of the world’s wealth
Well, guys,
Notion, only 0.7% of world population smart .. and .. the rest 99.3% (with less than $ 10,000 net worth) idiots .. does not rime with law of nature, genetics
something wrong here
Endo, you the mike
.
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
this is meaningless because it uses western money and western systems as the metric to judge wealth.
of course the people in slums around the world are poor and desperate and this is an unwanted outcome but it ignores the reasonably large population of people in the asia pacific, south america and even africa which still do have reasonably coherant and stable village lives.
by my standards many of those folks are very rich indeed - land, food and no taxes, thats the retirement dream of a lifetimes work for many.
they dont have free healthcare, i forgot thats the be-all and end-all amen.
of course the people in slums around the world are poor and desperate and this is an unwanted outcome but it ignores the reasonably large population of people in the asia pacific, south america and even africa which still do have reasonably coherant and stable village lives.
by my standards many of those folks are very rich indeed - land, food and no taxes, thats the retirement dream of a lifetimes work for many.
they dont have free healthcare, i forgot thats the be-all and end-all amen.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
Boy. Does it ever.Heracleum Persicum wrote:.
Notion, only 0.7% of world population smart .. and .. the rest 99.3% (with less than $ 10,000 net worth) idiots .. does not rime with law of nature, genetics .
Censorship isn't necessary
- Heracleum Persicum
- Posts: 11638
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
noddy wrote:.
this is meaningless because it uses western money and western systems as the metric to judge wealth.
of course the people in slums around the world are poor and desperate and this is an unwanted outcome but it ignores the reasonably large population of people in the asia pacific, south america and even africa which still do have reasonably coherant and stable village lives.
by my standards many of those folks are very rich indeed - land, food and no taxes, thats the retirement dream of a lifetimes work for many.
they dont have free healthcare, i forgot thats the be-all and end-all amen.
.
True
you have a valid point
$ 10,000 in Manhattan not same as $ 10,000 in Indian village
Agree, the chart, the statistics, the numbers, should be ADJUSTED to where on lives
and
don't forget
material wealth not at all same as "Happiness Wealth" .. folks in Manhattan with millions (usually) feel miserable and folks in Indian village might feel content, happy and wealthy
Yes, that chart distorts
In fact, my experience is, most of the time, the wealthier one gets, the unhappy one gets, as the expectation rises faster than the reality
Interested would be to see a similar chart but with "people who feel happy with what they have", maybe compensated for location (maybe for different age)
WELLNESS chart
.
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
Conspicuous consumption to signal status, what Hirsch calls positional goods, is as old as civilisation. Once upon a time it was sumptuary laws as to what clothes various classes could wear, now it's fat cats driving an Aston Martin who would not be seen dead in a Ford Focus, and who live in Mayfair or the Upper East Side rather than the 'burbs with the hoi polloi. Each of these choices will cost ten times or more what the lower class alternative does, yet they are not ten times better - it is nearly all status signalling.
You can argue that this is fairly harmless, indeed beneficial. Fred Hirsch thought that as everyone acquired mass consumption goods, status games would disappear - dream on, it's in our genes. Power driven bastards are needed to get things done; in particular as managers, because management is inherently stressful and boring, thus status driven types are best at it (sociopaths survive in the gene pool for a reason). And if you think that management is unnecessary and hierarchical-elitist, see how anarchist collectives worked out...Capitalism is the most morally acceptable way of using the status driven, showering them with positional goods is far less harmful than the other things they are good at, making war or being a party apparatchik who tells the rest of us how to behave/think, or else
The trouble is when enough people realise it's a con.... also there are different status games. As I drive my downmarket car, I look with contempt at the w*nkers in Astons or Ferraris, because my status games and goals are different.
And yes, capitalism itself does not set the social behaviour which is needed to make capitalism work. Economic man who maximises his utility is such a selfish sh*t that no society composed solely of such a fictitious entity could survive. Francis Fukuyama in"Trust" makes a persuasive case that it is the legacy of feudal societies, with a tradition of mutual rights and obligations and the rule of law to embody it, that constitute nearly all developed societies - NW Europe and their colonial offshoots, and by a different route, Japan. It seems that we should now add Confucian societies. Others struggle.
You can argue that this is fairly harmless, indeed beneficial. Fred Hirsch thought that as everyone acquired mass consumption goods, status games would disappear - dream on, it's in our genes. Power driven bastards are needed to get things done; in particular as managers, because management is inherently stressful and boring, thus status driven types are best at it (sociopaths survive in the gene pool for a reason). And if you think that management is unnecessary and hierarchical-elitist, see how anarchist collectives worked out...Capitalism is the most morally acceptable way of using the status driven, showering them with positional goods is far less harmful than the other things they are good at, making war or being a party apparatchik who tells the rest of us how to behave/think, or else
The trouble is when enough people realise it's a con.... also there are different status games. As I drive my downmarket car, I look with contempt at the w*nkers in Astons or Ferraris, because my status games and goals are different.
And yes, capitalism itself does not set the social behaviour which is needed to make capitalism work. Economic man who maximises his utility is such a selfish sh*t that no society composed solely of such a fictitious entity could survive. Francis Fukuyama in"Trust" makes a persuasive case that it is the legacy of feudal societies, with a tradition of mutual rights and obligations and the rule of law to embody it, that constitute nearly all developed societies - NW Europe and their colonial offshoots, and by a different route, Japan. It seems that we should now add Confucian societies. Others struggle.
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
yeh i have no problems with this side of it - any grumbling i would do on the subject relates to the FIRE economy and the shear numbers of middle class who invested in nothing but making their house more expensive.Torchwood wrote:Conspicuous consumption to signal status, what Hirsch calls positional goods, is as old as civilisation. Once upon a time it was sumptuary laws as to what clothes various classes could wear, now it's fat cats driving an Aston Martin who would not be seen dead in a Ford Focus, and who live in Mayfair or the Upper East Side rather than the 'burbs with the hoi polloi. Each of these choices will cost ten times or more what the lower class alternative does, yet they are not ten times better - it is nearly all status signalling.
You can argue that this is fairly harmless, indeed beneficial. Fred Hirsch thought that as everyone acquired mass consumption goods, status games would disappear - dream on, it's in our genes. Power driven bastards are needed to get things done; in particular as managers, because management is inherently stressful and boring, thus status driven types are best at it (sociopaths survive in the gene pool for a reason). And if you think that management is unnecessary and hierarchical-elitist, see how anarchist collectives worked out...Capitalism is the most morally acceptable way of using the status driven, showering them with positional goods is far less harmful than the other things they are good at, making war or being a party apparatchik who tells the rest of us how to behave/think, or else
the 1% splashing around money on positional goods is harmless and only a problem for the bitter but when the magority wastes their lifetimes work on it then it may have problematic outcomes..
i dont think their is anything the government should do about that per se, all i think is that they shouldnt shield the idiots from their durian outcomes and that goes for bankers aswell as investors.
yes, we have all discussed the various aspects of that once or twiceTorchwood wrote: The trouble is when enough people realise it's a con.... also there are different status games. As I drive my downmarket car, I look with contempt at the w*nkers in Astons or Ferraris, because my status games and goals are different.
And yes, capitalism itself does not set the social behaviour which is needed to make capitalism work. Economic man who maximises his utility is such a selfish sh*t that no society composed solely of such a fictitious entity could survive. Francis Fukuyama in"Trust" makes a persuasive case that it is the legacy of feudal societies, with a tradition of mutual rights and obligations and the rule of law to embody it, that constitute nearly all developed societies - NW Europe and their colonial offshoots, and by a different route, Japan. It seems that we should now add Confucian societies. Others struggle.
ultracrepidarian
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
Great post Torchwood.Torchwood wrote:Conspicuous consumption to signal status, what Hirsch calls positional goods, is as old as civilisation. Once upon a time it was sumptuary laws as to what clothes various classes could wear, now it's fat cats driving an Aston Martin who would not be seen dead in a Ford Focus, and who live in Mayfair or the Upper East Side rather than the 'burbs with the hoi polloi. Each of these choices will cost ten times or more what the lower class alternative does, yet they are not ten times better - it is nearly all status signalling.
You can argue that this is fairly harmless, indeed beneficial. Fred Hirsch thought that as everyone acquired mass consumption goods, status games would disappear - dream on, it's in our genes. Power driven bastards are needed to get things done; in particular as managers, because management is inherently stressful and boring, thus status driven types are best at it (sociopaths survive in the gene pool for a reason). And if you think that management is unnecessary and hierarchical-elitist, see how anarchist collectives worked out...Capitalism is the most morally acceptable way of using the status driven, showering them with positional goods is far less harmful than the other things they are good at, making war or being a party apparatchik who tells the rest of us how to behave/think, or else
The trouble is when enough people realise it's a con.... also there are different status games. As I drive my downmarket car, I look with contempt at the w*nkers in Astons or Ferraris, because my status games and goals are different.
And yes, capitalism itself does not set the social behaviour which is needed to make capitalism work. Economic man who maximises his utility is such a selfish sh*t that no society composed solely of such a fictitious entity could survive. Francis Fukuyama in"Trust" makes a persuasive case that it is the legacy of feudal societies, with a tradition of mutual rights and obligations and the rule of law to embody it, that constitute nearly all developed societies - NW Europe and their colonial offshoots, and by a different route, Japan. It seems that we should now add Confucian societies. Others struggle.
Good take on managers, everyone I have ever known has lived in a fancy house (living in your front windows).
Brings to mind a couple oldies (paraphrased no doubt):
"tis the eyes of other people that ruin us. If all but myself were blind, I would not care about my clothes, car, house, etc."
"You are what you are only when no one is looking."
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
I think status goods have more to do with sexual signaling than any economic system. Even the most economically simplistic cultures have them.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
Indeed, human sexuality sails over the heads of a lot of egghead economic book writer types.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
Indeed.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I think status goods have more to do with sexual signaling than any economic system. Even the most economically simplistic cultures have them.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
- Heracleum Persicum
- Posts: 11638
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm
Re: Global Wealth Distribution
.
TED Talk on Income Inequality
iIhOXCgSunc
Billionaire Nick Hanauer .. says conventional theory of perfectly efficient markets & trickle down economics is RUBBISH.
The rich create profits but very often few jobs.
Middle-class consumers create jobs !!!
aOsZSIcU9OM
.
TED Talk on Income Inequality
iIhOXCgSunc
Billionaire Nick Hanauer .. says conventional theory of perfectly efficient markets & trickle down economics is RUBBISH.
The rich create profits but very often few jobs.
Middle-class consumers create jobs !!!
aOsZSIcU9OM
.