62 Members of the Elite Have as Much Money as the Poorest 3.6 Billion People on the Entire Planet

Posted by UncommonSense 5 years, 2 months ago to Economics
73 comments | Share | Flag

"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.)
SOURCE URL: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/62-members-of-the-elite-have-as-much-money-as-the-poorest-3-6-billion-people-on-the-entire-planet_012016


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by $ MikeMarotta 5 years, 2 months ago
    I was going to vote this Down, but it deserves discussion. It is not that some are wealthy. The problem is why the others are poor. See Hernando deSoto on The Mystery of Capitalism. Most of the rest of the world lacks the property rights that make wealth possible.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 2 months ago
      Absolutely right. And those rich people (most of them anyway) started as little babies with no knowledge and money. They used their minds and bodies to serve other people and get money in return. Whats wrong with that....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
      Good points Mike. However, those who have more money & power over other people (e.g., gov't) that is beyond our comprehension are are making the laws so as to skew the advantages for them even more. The founder of Home Depot would agree: "“For the first time in my life, I have real concerns about this country. That’s why I came here today: we are in trouble,” Marcus said. “What has happened to my America? Where did it go? I’ll tell you what happened: regulations. Today government figures out every way to stop entrepreneurs. And, I’ll tell you what, a country that is not supportive of entrepreneurs is not going to succeed.” ~ https://www.jobcreatorsnetwork.com/pr...

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -2
        Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
        They have the Supreme Court on their side with the conservative heavy court voting in favor of their wealth as free speech but not giving a value on our speech. The genesis of that movement is from the far left however and the current goal is freedom of direct access to candidates and all government officials using money as free speech.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 5 years, 2 months ago
          OK, that was as clear as mud. Do you mean to say that money is not speech?

          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...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
          I see the secular progressives have spoken judging by the minus one. they don't like their program telegraphed until it's safely within a bought and paid for jursidiction with a bought and paid for Judge. Just like Same Sex. thank you for the points of honor. Now eat stuff and bark at the moon. If you face south it will be off to your left around midnight do an about face to 'change the frame' and it will continue to be to your left.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Suzanne43 5 years, 2 months ago
      Spot on! The overwhelming number of the countries in the world are run by dictators or suffer from socialism. If capitalism were given a chance, they could reap the rewards. Rich people employ people. I'm not into class envy. It always makes me smile when the people who say that the rich are evil rush out to buy lottery tickets for the chance of becoming rich.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 2 months ago
      Mike M:
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Suzanne43 5 years, 2 months ago
        Well said, Herb! We have let the looters take over.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 2 months ago
          Don't forget the moochers. I understand that they are almost 50% of the population. The amazing thing is how the small amount of money-makers, mostly the Middle Class, who create the real wealth, support all the giveaways and spending from our beloved representatives and executives. Just imagine how wealthy the USA could be if everyone getting undeserved "entitlements" and money by manipulation were to be productive instead.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Suzanne43 5 years, 2 months ago
            My bad, Herb. I forgot to include the moochers in my comment. How to steal money is what the moochers consider their job. A moocher family of four can take in over $40,000 a year from the American tax payer. The Liberal Santa Claus is alive and well.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 2 months ago
    This light of another's candle diminishes ones own not at all.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 2 months ago
      I totally agree with your bottom sentence. Want to see real poverty? Go to the middle east, and NOT in the touristy areas. Often, for them it's no plumbing, no electricity and no cars either. Cell phones and internet? lol, nope. I saw it myself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChestyPuller 5 years, 2 months ago
    I must disagree with the supposed two (2) party system as stated; I put forth the reason for this wealth expanse is exactly because the two (2) party system is in fact a one (1) party system.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
      Amen, Hallelujah and Katy Bar The Door!!!!

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ChestyPuller 5 years, 2 months ago
        I like your style, but sadly your history is a little off; the 16th Amendment gave no new taxing authority; "We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it,..." (Brushaber v. Union Pacfic Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916))

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 5 years, 2 months ago
    I don't resent the 62, I resent the 3.6 billion who allow themselves to be manipulated. The UN wants to level the playing field, between them and the middle class, not including rich politicians. Hillary would retain her 4 multi-million $ compounds, Obama would live in the million $ house in Fla. he bought. The middle class would have their property *UN Agenda 21/2030) taken from them, savings would be used for the pooerst, while the big cats called the shots as in any dictatorship. I do not mind those who earn their big salaries keeping it, but when someone like Bill Gates wants to decide who lives and dies and ruin the schools, I resent that.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 2 months ago
    My only regret... that (for now) I am not one of 62... but am working to somehow reverse that temporary misfortune.. If I can be that single person Oxfam wants to make the target evil one - - so much the better. :-)

    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?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 5 years, 2 months ago
    Money? 62? Those are not 62 isolated individuals. Each is the nexus of an uncountable number of associates, families, co-owners, collaborators. Their possessions are diversified among many sources of value, and theoretical. It’s not like they have one heap of stuff all to themselves.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 5 years, 2 months ago
    Poorest 3.6 Billion People on the Entire Planet...Many of them likely live in command economies or 3rd world hell holes where there is no free market.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 5 years, 2 months ago
    Imagine a movie in which an astronaut lands on a planet of dirt eating cave dwellers. Seeing that he has wealth and technology, their proper response, according to many, would be to kill him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Animal 5 years, 2 months ago
    "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."

    So what? In what way is this a bad thing?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 5 years, 2 months ago
      its not like the rich just wallow in a money bin. That money gets spread around many many ways- invested in other enterprises which hire people and pay them, eetc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Animal 5 years, 2 months ago
        Exactly so. The people who whine about this always - without fail - have some screwy, mystical idea that some of that wealth should somehow be theirs, and that it would be if those greedy fatcats weren't somehow magically vacuuming it all up.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 5 years, 2 months ago
          I think that the rich people wouldnt even bother to work so hard if all they could do was observe bars of gold and silver in their basement vault, but could never spend it or use it
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 5 years, 2 months ago
            Well, actually, that is what the Dark Ages were. As the Western Roman Empire slowly contracted, people put more and more coinage into the form of "plate" i.e., household goods. When the barbarians finally took over, those warlords had hoards of silver and gold objects in their dungeons. They gave each other "gifts" of goblets and plates and jewelry. But they never invested in roads or baths or much else. As you say, that is the view that the so-called "progressives" have of wealth as a static hoard.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Animal 5 years, 2 months ago
            Of course they wouldn't, but that doesn't stop the screwy mental image so many lefties have of rich people as fatcats in some giant Scrooge McDuckian vault, rolling around naked in giant piles of gold coins.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 5 years, 2 months ago
              When I was a kid, I actually liked Scrooge McDuck and his money bin. As I grew up I learned that money really gives you freedom to do what you want, which in my case is to start companies around inventions that I come up with and make them grow and then sell them to larger companies and move on. I used to be in medical device development in two companies that I started, but I got out of medical when the FDA moved in with their onerous regulations.
              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 2 months ago
    That is the good news. Even better news is that the global middle class is expanding (culture/region relative) and the number of poorest of poor is dropping precipitously.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 2 months ago
    So what? 99% of Americans have more money personally than the majority of human beings do. Wealth is not static but created. Some people and especially some cultures are better at creating it than others. There is nothing in reality that says all humans should be equal or approximately equal in wealth.

    In reality unequal causes produce differing results.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
      It's also relative to the base economy of any one group or nation. A way to take demonstrate or take advantage is move the massive but insufficient wealth of a US retiree who just took a one third hit or cut in buying power to the other side of the southern border where that buying power will be instantly restored. As long as you remember your are a guest in a different culture.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 5 years, 2 months ago
    In a free market, the rich can only influence our lives by offering to trade something that they have for something they want from us. With a monster-sized government that can do any damn thing it wants to us, all the rich need to do is buy 100 senators, 435 representatives and 1 puny president. Without the later, the former is a greater force for good. Someone has to have an excess of funds after expenditures for there to be capital for investment, the more the better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 5 years, 2 months ago
    Hello UncommonSense,
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Genez 5 years, 2 months ago
    Point that I think many are missing is the change in so called 'wealth'. The points already stated about wealth itself not being bad and these "62" not being evil are valid. They have it because they or someone before them, built it or earned it. The far more interesting point, and critical for our understanding of the current economic climate, is the fact that the #/% has changed so dramatically in a few years. This points to the system being rigged. The massive printing of money, and inflation of stock markets around the globe is indicative of a financial bubble of historic proportion. That is the real story.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 5 years, 2 months ago
    As pure, amoral strategy, that quoted paragraph makes perfect sense. It's the "hot dog vendor problem" of economics.

    The trick is to wean the stupid majority off their TV habit, which keeps telling them that the two parties = the "normal" political spectrum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 2 months ago
    I wish a list of the names of these sixty-two had been added. Are they laissez-faire capitalists? Crony capitalists? Politicians? Lawyers? Oil potentates? Socialists? Did they earn their wealth? Or steal it? Does anyone in GGO know who they are?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 2 months ago
    For starters...they are not elite...most have rendered themselves as the great unwashed. What ever the balance, those not obvious, must be looked at: How did they get there, did they create or produce beneficial values that stand the test of time, have they competed honestly? These and many other question must be asked before determining
    whether they be found wanting or wanted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
      I just go by how many billions they have. Less headaches. Guaranteed most are not all that altruistic and the range is from pure evil to something a bit less leftish.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 5 years, 2 months ago
    under the current system set up back in 1913 with the creation of the Fed (read "Creature from Jekyll Island"), and the fact that 95%+ of elected officals are re-elected...nothing will change after 2016...we are past the point of reversing 100+ years of abuse by the Fed and politicians worldwide...the amount of debt created is beyond pale...in the trillions of dollars...

    prepare and be ready WHEN...not IF the collapse comes...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 5 years, 2 months ago
    This is a pseudo-myth hidden behind misleading statistics. Luckily, I just read an article on this that laid it bare.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
      If the debt wasn't going to be collected, i.e., its all bad debt, then maybe it makes sense to ignore it. I don't recall the banks agreeing to cancel the debt when the taxpayers bailed them out and if it was ever going to happen that was the most opportune moment. Bet you the bankster cartel won't be giving up their security (property of the debtors that the article includes as the assets of the poor) on the debt though, and that means you can't ignore the debt.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jsw225 5 years, 2 months ago
        You missed the point, and went off on a hell of a tangent. The point wasn't that the debt wasn't valid, but that the thought of "68 people in the world are worth the same as the bottom half..." isn't valid by the way a normal person would think about it.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago
          You are saying that the banking establishment is still issuing liars loans to anyone who takes out a loan to buy a home.. I'd like to see your source for that. I do not believe that all home buyers today are able to buy a home without significant equilty. Unless the property appraisals are massively inflated by all appraisers this can't be so. Appraisers are not looters; they must do a fair valuation or they will not be retained by others..Buyers have as much equity after the purchase as they had savings before the purchase (less closing costs if they have to pay them.)
          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 5 years, 2 months ago
    I'm not one of the 62. I'm very common, very average in all aspects of life. But I don't care. I like the example the 62 set for me. I do have compassion for those in real need, but not at the expense of myself, family and friends. Certainly, not at the expense of our country for the sake of some refugees halfway around the world. I can't help anyone if I don't care for myself. So when I hear derogatory remarks about the 62...I say "thank you for the inspiration" instead.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ FredTheViking 5 years, 2 months ago
    Most of the wealth that exists refers to some kind of physical asset. Be it a railroad, house, or stock in a profit making company. It matter little who controls this kind of wealth, be it by a 1 person or 100,000 people. Most people need to have at least some form of money that can be use to buy consumable goods. We have a total of 600 billion dollars in cash (M0 supply), the rest of money is tied up in assets for the most part. IF we divide this by 300 million, we have about $2,000 to go around to every person. The best anyone could get with that is live for about a month or two month at best without having to work.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 2 months ago
      Wealth - Money in excess of current need. Maybe used to store personal accumulated value against retirement or other future needs.

      Money - an agreed upon and acceptable medium of representing the value of work and may be traded for current needs or stored as wealth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo