birdog1960

if 99% of wealth was held by 1% of the worlds population and supply of goods remained constant wouldn't that necassarily mean shortages for those sharing the 1%? wouldn't that be attributable to wealth inequality? if you think not, why not? show me the fallacy in my logic. alternatively, present a rational counter argument. rejecting mine out of hand isn't an argument. it's easy but not persuasive.

at what point in wealth concentration would you consider massively unequal wealth distribution to be a likely cause of poverty in those sharing the residual "wealth"? 50%? 70? 90% 99%? 99.9%? surely, you must admit there's a threshold where wealth concentration affects the well being of everyone else. if not 40%, what evidence do you have for a different percentage? might it be that unrest and barbaric acts are at least in part precipitated by poverty and lack of opportunity? might this also be the result, in some measure, from a wildly disproportionate allocation of resources?

i suppose if the author can misspell cretin, you're entitled to misspell moron.

wasn't showing prejudice towards west virginians i was disparaging the kind of person that uses the term "war of northern aggression". but if you want to continue to argue your chosen point, w virginia borders kentucky and virginia and is quite close to tennessee. there were people on both sides from all of those states in the civil war, regardless of the side their state legislators chose. so, yeah, there were confederate w virginians. and, btw, in regards to the op ed, the displaying of the stars and bars and the possible reasons for doing so are quite relevant.

doesn't matter whether it was union or rebel, historically. you'll see stars and bars flags in michigan if you look closely. there's plenty in west virginia.

great op ed...but why are you linking it? there's some pretty smart fellers in west virginia. that "war of northern aggression" stuff has largely faded in my experience but i like how he uses it as an example of misrepresenting the truth for ones own purposes. something the nra, sadly, does masterfully.

so i guess were back to insects...

not to defend those awful traverse city elitists (nice place btw) but wouldn't it make more sense to farm fish where the major food shortages are?

no the phenomenon is not a mystery. the solution is. or it may just be a lack of will to solve it. either way the solution wil likely require unconventional thought. something i don't think comes easily to most on this board.

hypothetical assumes it's possible. why hypothesize something that's impossible. oh, ok, so you can make some point that requires an impossible hypothetical...um, no.

and i'll answer it the same way again. it's not possible for every living human to have 100k purchasing power per year. there are not enough goods for that level demand (without rampant inflation). it's that simple. the concentrated wealth doesn't spur nearly as much demand. most of it's not being used on goods but on producing more wealth. that's why dollar for dollar, stimulus spent on the poor results in more economic stimulus than that spent on the rich. just the opposite of what we did in the bail out.

would you agree that there's a proble if 1 billion people are trying to survive while consuming less than $1.25 per day. do you think the current system (which results in 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1%) is working? not saying it's the only cause but it's relatively simple math and very simple, basic economics 101 - the allocation of finite resources.

ah, the devil is in the details. if you define poverty as consumption of $1.25 per day, then it's preet easy to cut the poverty rate in half. i would consider somebody consuminmg 10X that impoverished. but even at that arbitarary, low threshold, this writer states there are 1 billion people. what would be the effect on that $1.25 if even 10% of that top 1%'s 40% of the wealth was redistributed?

"we" equals humanity. probably the most active current collective action group for humanity is the UN (i can already hear the collective sighs). it's currently dysfunctional but does it have to be? in addition, there are stricly humanitarian and some not so strictly humanitarian groups (ie terrorist or political) attacking hunger for their own ends. i don't see a star trek type federation taking over anytime soon. there's 870 million of them per my link. do you ever get out of alaska?

i'm guessing you had a few drinks before you left for the bar. the loincloth was a major achievement? as far as italian renaissance figures, it doesn't surprise me that you're a machiavelli fan. i'm not. and i'm not buying the idea that robber barons (the prince) need rule for great thinkers and art to flourish. i'd bet their work would have been even more fantastic and imaginative in a more open and equitable society.

the problem was an ill timed agenda that the potential winners were never worried about losing from, but that was because they thought regular folks were the only ones in real jeopardy, they were wrong. most had impressive back up. much more worrisome was that same masterminds are more likely to be wrong again and again.. ... with little skin in the game . have i mentioned that i'm not optimistic. but fear not....the fed will step in again and save....wait for it... the wealthy and a few big winners will know the plan and the timing well before anyone else does.

could it be multifactorial as is the cause of most major blunders? perhaps we can invoke a few likely, nonpartisan usual suspects: greed, graft, avarice, short sightedness, greed (again) and hubris.

it is to me. to the others participating in the thread, not so much...

which fits in not so nicely with this: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/big-banks-still-write-rules-fmr-inspector-general-131105952.html. is the game rigged? to magox point, these banks actions have global implications.

i fully realized the article was discussing global wealth. my point was that there seems to be a fundamental problem globally with how we prioritize things. hence, the much maligned star trek reference. and from the article you'll see that the expected rate of wealth growth for those with wealth over 100 million is twice as much as that for nearly everyone else. i can understand that this has much to do with investable income but also with special provisions afforded the very wealthy from governments around the world (with a few exceptions). the more interesting thing to me is that those with wealth of 5 million can expect significantly less wealth growth than those with 100 million. 5 mil can get you into any of the funds you mentioned so what accounts for the difference? it is what it is. i'm certainly not going to change it. but what it is, is fundamentally flawed. while you folks are worrying about the badness of redistribution of wealth downwards the upward spiral advances exponentially. stop worrying. you're winning. yes, it has but not on the scale anticipated by the UN. is it impossible to grow food in somalia? well, no. there's hungry people right here with access to supermarkets. in both cases it does equate to the allocation of resources which in turn equates with money. one example is more directly related but they are both related. http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-42/somalias-growing-urban-food-security-crisis

people are looking at the feasibility of insects as a major protein source for the future and you're proposing steak for all. Are you related to Marie Antoinette? It's not possible. It doesn't mean that no one can ever acquire steak however.

i answered your question. You didn't Ike the answer. I've already stated that more food can be produced. But that will involve making it a larger percentage of the global economy at the expense of other goods. But why isn't food already produced at a percentage that sustains the population? Answer that and you'll understand the problem with the concentration of wealth. And food production capability is not infinite even with infinite will. Demand can outstrip maximal supply and may already. We don't know since we've not tried. everyone can't climb the ladder. Some have to make clothes in factories (but not ones in Pakistan that collapse).some need to pick crops. Etc. talents aren't equally distributed and compensation needn't be either. But shouldn't the Pakistani food worker with no ladder to climb have enough to eat. Isn't greed at least in part to blame? Is that human nature or are people prone to exploiting others also prone to financial success in our current system? The converse is also largely true. Your contention that nothing nefarious is going on in high finance is just silly in light of what we saw in 2008. The game is rigged and it's rigged by and for many of the same people that already hold 40 percent of the wealth.

well duh?..it's kinda like in a family where it's ok to criticize from within but not from outside. How many of the so hated media types have been saying this before rand and for how long? Yet we see the bizarre tickets in purple states like Colorado and Virginia

to which i don't have answers. certainly, different interventions have been tried throughout history with limited success and sometime outright failure. our own dog eat dog, every man for himself system has suffered a devastating depression, multiple recessions and a recent near collapse. i'm not convinced we're out of the deep water yet. the solution to hunger needs to happen through global efforts in my opinion. it's doubtful that will include changes in global economic systems. history tells us that those type of changes usually happen through coup, collapse or both. i'm certainly not wishing for those as the people likely to get hurt the most initially are the one already hurting. my question was about a fundamental systemic flaw. maybe it's the flaw of human nature. maybe it's that there hasn't been enough good examples of alternative thinking to inspire change. i don't know but it certainly seems fundamentally flawed to me. well, if limited supply is not the problem causing hunger, then what is? it's likely to be a critical problem with water in very short order. do you see the world as containing infinite resources?

pray tell, what are your definitions of the terms? what effects would you expect to see with a more even distribution of wealth? do you believe it impossible to devise a working, stable economic system that results in fewer starving and impoverished people? wouldn't that system necessarily require a more even distribution of wealth?