62 Members of the Elite Have as Much Money as the Poorest 3.6 Billion People on the Entire Planet
Posted by UncommonSense 8 years, 11 months ago to Economics
"Back in 2010, 388 members of the elite had as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity. But since then that number has been steadily falling and now it is down to just 62. At this pace, Oxfam is projecting that in just a few years a single person will have as much money as the poorest half of the global population combined."
Yep, change we can all believe in. Will all this change in 2016 with the General Election? Well, here's this:
"“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)
Yep, change we can all believe in. Will all this change in 2016 with the General Election? Well, here's this:
"“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)
Moreover, those 600 or 60 or 6 wealthy people do not porpoise around in bills and coins like Scrooge McDuck. Their money is at work... for all of us... And I am glad - heck grateful that it is. Everything we have above subsistence is because of capital-ism: No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
We have people here in the Gulch who are proud to be hunter-gatherers. Of course, they actually use guns made in factories with ammunition made in factories... They wear clothes made in factories... and live in homes build from production materials, like nails and screws, and lumber all trued up and cured, and perfect bricks by the truckload (brought to them by trucks built in factories).
And let them live in animal hide tents if they want: six billion of us could not. The hunter-gather lifestyle might support a million people globally. And they would not have telescopes or microscopes... or televisions... or computers... or even band-aids by the box for under a dollar anytime you want.
I have no complaint about the richest people in the world. Some might be "nice" and others might be "nasty" but all of them, as a class, pretty much make it possible for the rest of us to survive.
There's a reason why things we USED to make here are made in China: the laws our leaders (via their masters) passed thus making it undesirable to stay in the U.S. Who gets the shaft? Not them, but the 'little guy'. Sure profit margins increase, (for the Chinese too) but how do the laws benefit the U.S.? http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy...
I have no issues with the "rich" being rich. However, when they are start buying off politicians and make laws that are ironically counter-productive to those who want to increase competition by starting their own business, that's when I call a spade a spade. I shouldn't have to move to China in order for me to have a business in America. Such idiocy reeks of elitism.
There is no significant opposition. ACLU now looking for a good court case and a bought and paid for judge to get that into the mill.
We have a common culture that condemns the "buying of politicians" and the "buying of officials." Why? What is the "common good"? Who defines it? Maybe it would be better to let people bid openly for what they want from the government. Heinlein once suggested paying Congress a million each (back when a million was real money) but making them pay for everything from that themselves.
Money is speech.
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Money is speech and press:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Your 2nd and 3rd sentences actually says everything that needs to be said. The USA created the paradigm, and some followed to a limited extent and others not at all. The followers did much better than the others. Now, the USA has decided for irrational reasons to become like those who never followed the American example. Crazy, right? The question is not really income disparity for the impoverished. It is; how do you get to put food on the table, clothes on your body, and a roof overhead. The world was shown how in the 19th century, but perhaps it was thought to be some sort of a miracle. It was no miracle, it was the result of having the freedom to sweat. And by that I mean the freedom to work at what you are capable of and ambitious enough to achieve it.
I totally agree with you.
All the best.
Maritimus
In this case, far from it. Does anyone think their standard of living is worse than it was 20, 50, 100, 500 years ago? No? I thought so. Wealth is being created for all, and although jealousy is a problem rich people are not.
A real issue is that the ability to provide relevant value is getting harder and harder. People, actual people, need to be more competent to provide value, and there are a LOT of people, more every year.
Forget about the top 62 individuals. The top 25% earners of all individuals are far more capable to earn the money they do, than the bottom 25%. Far more, and there are more and more of the fays guys at the bottom complaining that they don't earn enough, while talking on iPhones, watching TV and surfing porn on the internet.
What I mean by this is as follows; In 1913 the Democrats tricked the public into believing the Senate needed to be elected by the people as the Congress was/is. With this slight of hand they passed and ratified the 17th Amendment forever destroying the two (2) party system. This destruction is done because the Senators no longer were appointed by the States, [which was done to protect the whole over the majority], and now they had to win over the majority vote; meaning they had to make people happy [ie: buy their vote]. When this happened the Conservative knowing the same thing a parent knows, [your children are not happy when you say no], had to give in to keep their position in Federal government. So the Conservative slowly [in the beginning] moved left and the Progressive [by definition COMMUNIST] had to move further left meaning someone had to make out from all 'the chickens in every pot' philosophy needed to buy votes.
The ONLY good way to stop this madness is to repeal the 17th Amendment go back to the Senate being appointed by the State's governor which will stop the spend, spend, spend screwing We the People are getting now.
Add to that the passage of Income tax so the fascists could ensure control. Those two, same time same year same socialist Woodrow Wilson. Tax was 7% and eleven years later was 77 % Who created the establishment? Your Great Grandfather did. Great Grand mother didn't have the vote yet. Who created the present system. Your Grandfather and Grand mother who supposedly fought against totalitarianism in WWII then voted it into power here. Who rigged the voting system. Your parents did. Whose keeping left wing socialism fascism in power...Look in the f'n mirror...you are.
You see, the issue is that your Grandfather, Grandmother, Father, Mother and now You and I have allowed this false belief of IRS direct taxation to be allowed to live on.
It started with FDR and his "pay taxes to defeat the axis" which got close to 90% of those that never needed to pay income taxes on their money to pay taxes...then came the industrial boom in America, then Korea, then a wording change in the IRS booklets from 'Foreign' to 'Taxpayer', then Vietnam and the second generation of children growing up NOT KNOWING OR UNDERSTANDING THE LAW just signed the W4 & S.S. paperwork as though they had too...and here we are today.
The 16th Amendment actually fixed the mistake of the Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust Comapny 157 U.S 429 (April 8, 1895) that created the greatest assualt on the lower and middle class in the history of the U.S.; It created the Great Gatsby's of America and created the Wealth divide.
The 16th Amendment fixed that mistake...
We need to keep the 16th, but educate "We the People..." in order to stop the theft that our Gov't has been doing since 1939.
If Brad and Angie want multiple million dollar houses and fly a jet there, or fly in nothing but caviar, okay - just shut up about how other people should live. Don't think that questionably earned money gives you the right to take rights from those without the bucks. Stop making poor people think their only option is to stand in line for entitlements. Allow them the right to be free and earn their living, or figure it out. Don't make people slaves.
It sounds like one of those "shame and guilt the evil rich and vile prosperous" articles the left is so fond of. Instead of a pity-pot article enabling the "woe is me, I deserve..." hogwash the moocher is drowning in, they should be working to make these 3.6 billion "impoverished humans" productive and, in so doing, wealthy.
I don't buy into that guilt. Because it's a tool used to keep people from becoming producers and capitalists and, yes, wealthy. Not just by their own standards, but the lefty elite who determine who are the "haves" and who are the "have nots". That... and the brainwashing of (a) "the rich are evil, why would you want to be one?" and (b) "Why work when you can scam and loot and wheedle it out of others?"
Viva Liberty,
iSank
If the poorest half of world population own so little, how do they continue to exist? In the most backward countries (excuse me, "emerging economies"), people nevertheless live their daily accustomed lives, even if they have to haul water in buckets and clean their rice pots with sand. Until foreigners come and tell them to be discontented, they live as their evolution taught them.
Do-gooder busybodies profess to try to raise those populations' lifestyles to their own modern, say 1950s American middle class. Anything less than that is deemed inadequate. On the side they also hope to exploit the natural resources those primitive societies have under their feet, unaware of its value.
Many people, seeing others prosper, pursue get-rich-quick scams, believing money brings happiness. Actually, what a surplus of money represents is the safety margin, the survival cushion, between imminent starvation and a carefree life of guaranteed long-term plenty. It is natural, built-in human nature, to want the most for the least effort. And that includes harvesting others' efforts. Enter force and fraud.
Assuming that there are, in fact, only 62 richest groups that control and direct a considerable amount of the productive activities of mankind, that makes both their own and others’ survival possible. If there were just one person left standing, owning everything, with 7 billion nearly dead terminally poor bodies writhing in the dirt, what would that avail the one rich person? He (I assume it's a male) still needs others to provide all the necessities and comforts of his life, maintaining the entire infrastructure of the planet and its ecological balance, with a productive workforce and wisely husbanded resources. One person alone cannot manage that.
Come to think of it, religious people believe there is such a one supreme individual whom they worship, for whom they are willing to live and die, and whose oneness is prime. They even profess to believe that everything that happens is this supreme ruler's will and intent. That would include a spectrum of poor to rich.
Seriously, though, humanity is on an evolutionary track, and we are still working out the logistics of a system of coexistence that does not turn some individuals into prey for others. Gauging from present company, that may take a few more thousand years.
So what? In what way is this a bad thing?
My current one is tribalwhips.com Nothing earth shaking, but it gives me a chance to use my engineering training (and what I can learn from youtube these days) to come up with new stuff.
Denigration of the wealthy is a symptom of something quite evil. Denigration of the more wealthy and more successful generally should not need much exposition to be seen as evil by anyone that understands objectivism.
Reality makes no promises all will succeeed or succeed equally or even be in a fixed range of succcess in any endeavors whatsover. Reality mandates that not all causes will produce the same effects.
In a time of accelerating technological change I would expect the spreads to get much wider as technology is a force multiplier. I don't think this is remotely a bad thing. I think it is good and too be expected.
It is funny that "diversity" is held as a free floating good as long as it is not diversity of economic results.
In reality unequal causes produce differing results.
Cronies know laws and regulations can benefit the few at the expense of the many and how to ensure they are on the winning side. Politicians make the rules in order to enrich themselves. This has become the nature of their profession. If one is buying a politician, then there is a politician willing to be bought. Who should be held to a higher standard? Who has accepted the mantle/pledge of doing right by their constituency? The rich play the hand the politicians provide. Undoubtedly this contributes to this disparity, but when the economy tanks the rich are also more capable of insulating themselves from loss. Of course the numbers skew in this direction. In a poor economy the poor and middle class lose ground while the rich continue if not amassing more wealth, at least holding their own. The ratio can only move in this direction when wages are stagnant or worse and household incomes are down. In a good economy the sheer numbers of the less than rich, making more money, can quickly change this ratio. The key is to provide economic conditions conducive for those 62 and others to invest in the future and to put their money to work increasing wealth and opportunity for all. Money held by an individual, no matter how much, is capital and feeds the economy as long as it is spent, is in a bank, or invested in some form. Capital is seed money for the economy unless it is stashed in a mattress. The worse the economy, the less likely the rich are to be bullish with their money. Little risk... little reward.
Multiple factors contribute...
Respectfully,
O.A.
The trick is to wean the stupid majority off their TV habit, which keeps telling them that the two parties = the "normal" political spectrum.
whether they be found wanting or wanted.
prepare and be ready WHEN...not IF the collapse comes...
Basically, this takes into account "Net Wealth," which includes debts like mortgages, student loans, and direct loans. And there are many people in the world that are worth a net negative amount (including myself, currently). Taking that into account that the poorest of the poor are worth something like -$1.7 trillion (negative), and the next subset up is worth +$2.2 trillion.
So ignoring debt, the poor have a lot of wealth, and there are a lot of rich people (way more than claimed) that have the equivalent value.
The Reuters Felix Salmon article is rubbish. (He no longer works at Reuters.)
(Granted that the debt was created from nothing by the banksters and they ought to be forced to surrender every bit of property they have looted in the past 103 years. But that would change the assets of the elite looters possibly by hundreds of billions.)
I am all for producers keeping the wealth they create and articles that blame producers for "uneven wealth distribution" should be refuted with facts. However, looters should be punished so severely that others are deterred from making any such attempt in the future.
For example, a person who just bought a house using a mortgage likely now owes more on the mortgage than they are worth (even taking into account the value of the home). Would you consider them poor? I wouldn't, but they get added into the list as someone poor, and because their net value is negative, it makes this oft-cited statistic seem worse.
The fact is that the numbers in the article comparing wealth are true. There is a massive difference in wealth and it has been growing even while the US economy has gone from producing valuable goods to producing depreciating fiat. I can't say what the author wanted to prove, but the argument by Felix Salmon doesn't refute the article's facts
.
Your point, I think, is that millions of US residents who are effectively bankrupt if they lose their jobs because of the debt they owe, are better off than millions of residents of India who also live from payday to payday. Clearly that is true today and lumping them all together is no more rational than ignoring the overwhelming debt that threatens to make the comparison more rational when the banking cartel finally crashes. It's unlikely that the banking executives will be the ones made "poor" by their piracy and looting.
Is the best one....explains where the numbeers 62 etc. came from .
Most of us have to work to have material possession that make life possible. Afterall, it is productive effort that is root of money and gives money its value. The rich hold a lot of value, but they also have to protect it. It is not easy to do, consider most jackpot lottery winners lose all their money within 5 years.
Using money to build wealth is a definite skill and everyone benefits from wealth creation.. Unfortunately, money is being made by rent seeking, which is made possible by the government we got. We must change our government if we want the virtue to lead to riches as oppose to corruption.
Money - an agreed upon and acceptable medium of representing the value of work and may be traded for current needs or stored as wealth.
Load more comments...