85 people 50% wealth

Now, what news on the Rialto?

85 people 50% wealth

Postby manolo » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:23 am

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.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby noddy » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 am

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.
noddy
 
Posts: 5499
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby manolo » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:48 am

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.


noddy,

Good grief, I hadn't thought of that. Housing and food are spread around as well. :o 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.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby noddy » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:52 am

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.
noddy
 
Posts: 5499
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Simple Minded » Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:16 pm

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.


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?
to refrain from imitation is the best revenge
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:10 pm

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.


Squandered, just like Tim Tams.....<<.........
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby manolo » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:16 pm

noddy wrote:well unless you are a rascist nationalist xenophobe you should be happy .....


noddy,

That's one of the best description/prescription lines I've read lately. :)

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby manolo » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 pm

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?


SM,

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.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Simple Minded » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:41 pm

manolo wrote:
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?


SM,

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.


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..... ;)
to refrain from imitation is the best revenge
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby noddy » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:28 am

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.
.


i also spend alot of my time worrying about these things.
noddy
 
Posts: 5499
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Typhoon » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:05 pm

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
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.


Squandered, just like Tim Tams.....<<.........


Mmmmm. Tim Tams . . .
All the world's a stage.
User avatar
Typhoon
 
Posts: 14963
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby manolo » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:34 am

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..... ;)


SM,

I did that when younger (paying interest) but no more. Now it's the other way. Doesn't make me person 86 though.

Alex.
User avatar
manolo
 
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Endovelico » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:34 am

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.
User avatar
Endovelico
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Simple Minded » Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:46 pm

manolo wrote:
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..... ;)


SM,

I did that when younger (paying interest) but no more. Now it's the other way. Doesn't make me person 86 though.

Alex.


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.

But if you are a 49%er, you are still evil by democratic vote! ;)
to refrain from imitation is the best revenge
Simple Minded
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby Doc » Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:41 pm

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.


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?
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7990
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: 85 people 50% wealth

Postby HAL 10000 » Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:57 am

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.


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 that

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
New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%


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.

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.
User avatar
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

Postby Doc » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:10 am

HAL 10000 wrote:
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.


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 that

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
New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%


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.

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.


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?
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7990
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm


Return to Finance and Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests