Wow!

[Tiberius]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

 

 

As the World Economic Forum begins in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam International has released a new report called, “Working for the Few,” that contains some startling statistics on what it calls the “growing tide of inequality.”

The report states:

• Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
  
• The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
  
• The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
  
• Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
  
• The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
  
• In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
  

Asserting that some economic inequality is necessary to foster growth, it also warns that extreme levels of wealth concentration “threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.”

[Security]

We should attack the richest 85 people in the world immediately.

[Gary M]

http://www.forbes.co...illion-poorest/

 

Wealth is not FINITE!!!!!!

 

Just because they have doesn't mean you can't. Unless of course you sit in your parents basement in a onsie drinking hot coco.

[B-Man]

Up with the Poor, Down with the L.A. Times

 

The Los Angeles Times is one of the great scandals in American life — that the nation’s second-largest city should have such an inept newspaper is an indictment of American journalism.

 

A particularly good example of that is the newspaper’s just-retracted claim that 85 individuals own nearly half of the world’s wealth, suspicious even to those of us with only English-major math to work with. The claim is — or should have been — rejected out of hand:

 

One-half of the world’s wealth amounts to more than $100 trillion, which would mean that we would have to have 85 trillionaires walking the Earth, when in reality there are none. In fact, there is no one who is even one-tenth of the way there: Neither Bill Gates nor Carlos Slim has crossed the $100 billion mark, though it seems likely that somebody will, someday.

 

{snip}

 

The only way to help the world’s poor to a position of relative prosperity and economic independence is to help them to participate in the global economy, and here our progressive friends take a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t approach. They’re scandalized by the scanty assets of the world’s poor, and they’re even more scandalized when rich countries open their markets to the global poor, or when companies from rich countries invest in poor countries and employ the poor people residing therein. The Democrats refer to Americans who do business with the global poor as “economic traitors,” and their most recent national convention was an energetic pageant of xenophobia, replete with ritualistic denunciations of the Yellow Peril come to steal our jobs.

 

You can have one or the other. If you’re opposed to free trade, overseas investment, and global supply chains, fine — but don’t pretend like you give a rodential hind-eighth about the world’s poor when you’re blocking their only avenue toward relative prosperity and economic independence.

 

And don’t pretend like you care about the American poor, either: The same system that scandalizes Democrats by allowing poor Chinese and Indians to eat also provides low-income Americans with lower prices on essential goods, one important reason why our poor people are no longer shoeless, which was the case within living memory.

 

It is unhappily the case that a fictitious newspaper statistic can sprint halfway ’round the world while the correction is still lacing up its sneakers, so expect that Los Angeles Times account to live a long and active life.

[TakeYouToTasker]

People who make this argument should consider several things:

 

1) Undeveloped nations have a wealth of under-utilized resources; this is because their own corrupt leadership works as cartels, exploiting their own people by taking payments (which enriches those nations elite) from developed nations to not build their own infrastructure, but rather allow the developed nations to harvest the resources themselves for pennies on the dollar. These nations create their own wealth inequality.

 

2) What does global wealth redistribution look like for America?

[Dante]

I think cronie capitalism is responsible for a lot of this. True capitalism itself is not to blame. It's our government leaders who corrupt the system by letting themselves be bought. Abusing the trust they were given.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I think cronie capitalism is responsible for a lot of this. True capitalism itself is not to blame. It's our government leaders who corrupt the system by letting themselves be bought. Abusing the trust they were given.

Government influence is a valuable commodity, and commodities will always be sold.

 

The only solution is to remove the ability to influence that is being sold.

[Dante]

Government influence is a valuable commodity, and commodities will always be sold.

 

The only solution is to remove the ability to influence that is being sold.

Yup. Prosecute those who are corrupted and maybe term limits would be a start.

[birdog1960]

Up with the Poor, Down with the L.A. Times

 

The Los Angeles Times is one of the great scandals in American life — that the nation’s second-largest city should have such an inept newspaper is an indictment of American journalism.

 

A particularly good example of that is the newspaper’s just-retracted claim that 85 individuals own nearly half of the world’s wealth, suspicious even to those of us with only English-major math to work with. The claim is — or should have been — rejected out of hand:

 

One-half of the world’s wealth amounts to more than $100 trillion, which would mean that we would have to have 85 trillionaires walking the Earth, when in reality there are none. In fact, there is no one who is even one-tenth of the way there: Neither Bill Gates nor Carlos Slim has crossed the $100 billion mark, though it seems likely that somebody will, someday.

 

{snip}

 

The only way to help the world’s poor to a position of relative prosperity and economic independence is to help them to participate in the global economy, and here our progressive friends take a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t approach. They’re scandalized by the scanty assets of the world’s poor, and they’re even more scandalized when rich countries open their markets to the global poor, or when companies from rich countries invest in poor countries and employ the poor people residing therein. The Democrats refer to Americans who do business with the global poor as “economic traitors,” and their most recent national convention was an energetic pageant of xenophobia, replete with ritualistic denunciations of the Yellow Peril come to steal our jobs.

 

You can have one or the other. If you’re opposed to free trade, overseas investment, and global supply chains, fine — but don’t pretend like you give a rodential hind-eighth about the world’s poor when you’re blocking their only avenue toward relative prosperity and economic independence.

 

And don’t pretend like you care about the American poor, either: The same system that scandalizes Democrats by allowing poor Chinese and Indians to eat also provides low-income Americans with lower prices on essential goods, one important reason why our poor people are no longer shoeless, which was the case within living memory.

 

It is unhappily the case that a fictitious newspaper statistic can sprint halfway ’round the world while the correction is still lacing up its sneakers, so expect that Los Angeles Times account to live a long and active life.

the data came from the linked oxfam paper which in turn cites credit suisse, (reference 4). perhaps you need to call them and complain. there's probably a credit suisse office near davos. you could just stop by.

[meazza]

the data came from the linked oxfam paper which in turn cites credit suisse, (reference 4). perhaps you need to call them and complain. there's probably a credit suisse office near davos. you could just stop by.

 

Always nice how the "elite" gather at a luxurious destination to talk about those beneath them while they sip wine and eat expensive meals.

[birdog1960]

Always nice how the "elite" gather at a luxurious destination to talk about those beneath them while they sip wine and eat expensive meals.

agreed. i'm not a big fan of the results obtained through the masters of the universe efforts.

[Tiberius]

How do people that argue the wealthy are being unfairly taxed square that with the facts presented here? Seems like the wealthy are badly noticing this "oppressive" level of taxation. Poor dears

[meazza]

How do people that argue the wealthy are being unfairly taxed square that with the facts presented here? Seems like the wealthy are badly noticing this "oppressive" level of taxation. Poor dears

 

For the millionth time, the wealthy are not being oppressed, the wealthy are simply able to go where they want. The increased efforts and not being able to collect the amount of taxes needed puts the burden on the middle class. You want an example, look at Quebec. Claims to be the most progressive of societies and yet it's the middle class (like me) that are getting sucked dry by fees/taxes because all the wealthy left.

[birdog1960]

For the millionth time, the wealthy are not being oppressed, the wealthy are simply able to go where they want. The increased efforts and not being able to collect the amount of taxes needed puts the burden on the middle class. You want an example, look at Quebec. Claims to be the most progressive of societies and yet it's the middle class (like me) that are getting sucked dry by fees/taxes because all the wealthy left.

yet, here america, we have plenty of middle class foks that still support the idea of trickle down economics and yawn when a decision like "citizen's united" occurs.

[meazza]

yet, here america, we have plenty of middle class foks that still support the idea of trickle down economics and yawn when a decision like "citizen's united" occurs.

 

Way to miss the point.

[....lybob]

For the millionth time, the wealthy are not being oppressed, the wealthy are simply able to go where they want. The increased efforts and not being able to collect the amount of taxes needed puts the burden on the middle class. You want an example, look at Quebec. Claims to be the most progressive of societies and yet it's the middle class (like me) that are getting sucked dry by fees/taxes because all the wealthy left.

sure until Obama THE ANTICHRIST builds my his global socialist dictatorship (soon to be interstellar, intergalactic and omniplanar ).

[meazza]

sure until Obama THE ANTICHRIST builds my his global socialist dictatorship (soon to be interstellar, intergalactic and omniplanar ).

 

Care to say something relevant?

[3rdnlng]

Care to say something relevant?

 

Has he ever?

[birdog1960]

not surprisingly, i fully agree with the pope's comments presented at davos. quite surprisingly, it appears matt drudge might even sympathize with them http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/196399-drudge-banners-pope-bumming-out-davos

[dayman]

We're really just talking about the financial class/institutions v. the non-financial class/institutions are we not? I mean, is this less about success than it is about modern banking?