Something's not right

[WATFORD zero]

The 85 richest people in the world own more wealth than the 3 billion poorest people combined, according to an Oxfam report on global inequality.

That means that less than 100 individuals hold more wealth than the bottom half of the entire world population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10587362/Oxfam-richest-85-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-as-poorest-3.5-billion.html

 

[Gazwag]

I have £10 in my wallet so I'm probably richer than a few million today

 

[Biscuit]

Anyone not in debt is actually doing very well for themselves on that scale.

 

[vegster]

The 85 richest people in the world own more wealth than the 3 billion poorest people combined, according to an Oxfam report on global inequality.

That means that less than 100 individuals hold more wealth than the bottom half of the entire world population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10587362/Oxfam-richest-85-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-as-poorest-3.5-billion.html

Welcome to capitalism !

 

[Machiavelli]

The 85 richest people in the world own more wealth than the 3 billion poorest people combined, according to an Oxfam report on global inequality.

That means that less than 100 individuals hold more wealth than the bottom half of the entire world population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10587362/Oxfam-richest-85-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-as-poorest-3.5-billion.html

The World Bank (I think) did a similar survey at the start of the millennium which stated that the richest 225 had a similar wealth to the bottom 40%, or 2.5 billion. In other words, in little over a decade the divide has quadrupled. That's neoliberalism for you.
You're right something's not right. It will not only remain not right, but also get worse, until we do something about it. On a quite basic level, in that decade, we've also done naff all to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. The effects of this will be borne disproportionately by the poor and vulnerable. That's also something that's not right. It's also neoliberalism for you.

 

[Creaky]

Those figures sound very dramatic but look at them from another angle.

The wealth of the top 85 individuals in the world is going to be made up mainly by ownership of large international corporations employing millions if not billions of people not cash sat in a bank or under the bed.

Hand over ownership to the 3 billion poorest people in the world and how's that going to help them? - They would either have to liquidate the companies or sell the shares to release cash to spend. Liquidate the comapnies and that just makes more people poor - sell the shares and you are back to square one with those who can afford to buy the shares, (ie the rich), owning the shares. The end result is that the 3 billion poorest people would have double the meagre level of wealth they currently have whilst the core wealth would be back in the hands of wealthy individuals.

It really doesn't matter who owns the wealth - the important thing is what that wealth is being used for - far better to look at how large corporations can be regulated so that their output and employment potential helps the poorest people. Of course that raises real problems as well - you just have to look at the number of objections that are raised whenever jobs in the UK, or any of the other rich nations, are exported to one of the poorer nations.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

The 85 richest people in the world own more wealth than the 3 billion poorest people combined, according to an Oxfam report on global inequality.

That means that less than 100 individuals hold more wealth than the bottom half of the entire world population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/10587362/Oxfam-richest-85-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-as-poorest-3.5-billion.html

When you say less than 100 you mean 85?

 

[DTES]

It really doesn't matter who owns the wealth - the important thing is what that wealth is being used for - far better to look at how large corporations can be regulated so that their output and employment potential helps the poorest people. Of course that raises real problems as well - you just have to look at the number of objections that are raised whenever jobs in the UK, or any of the other rich nations, are exported to one of the poorer nations.

It matters which direction it's moving in; if that share of the top 85 (or however many) is getting bigger year by year (I'd guess it probably is, as quite that level of inequality hasn't always been there) then something is definitely wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

When you say less than 100 you mean 85?

Without wanting to step in for WATFORDzero, by some astounding piece of logic, this would follow.

 

[MattBackHome]

It matters which direction it's moving in; if that share of the top 85 (or however many) is getting bigger year by year (I'd guess it probably is, as quite that level of inequality hasn't always been there) then something is definitely wrong.

Yeah exactly. The Pareto principle is becoming more and more extreme.

What's interesting is that in general people don't seem particularly arsed about any of this.

 

[Creaky]

More people than ever are becoming aware of this massive economic and social inequality, and the reality that it will continue to increase unless we do something about it.

Capitalism is no longer an appropriate economic system. It favours a rich elite at the expense of everyone else. It corrupts our politics, destroys the planet, wastes our resources, creates dangerous international tensions and is socially counter productive - essentially there is no sense in a system where we all compete like rats anymore. It's time for it to end, to distribute the wealth more equally and live in a fairer, more coordinated society.

That's fine, and I don't disagree, as long as it is realised that even those defined as living in 'poverty' in the UK are in the top half of the 'economic pile' and that genuinely redistributing 'wealth' would mean reducing still further their living standards as well as everyone living above the poverty line.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

How many people do the rich 85 employ? Must provide a lot of jobs to a lot of people.

 

[WATFORD zero]

That's fine, and I don't disagree, as long as it is realised that even those defined as living in 'poverty' in the UK are in the top half of the 'economic pile' and that genuinely redistributing 'wealth' would mean reducing still further their living standards as well as everyone living above the poverty line.

I haven't said anything about the 'economic pile' or the almost half the population that are between the two groups highlighted. I'm more interested in the two extemes.

What effect would it have on the top 5,000 wealthiest if they had their assets halved. (Apart from ego and power)

 

[Creaky]

I haven't said anything about the 'economic pile' or the almost half the population that are between the two groups highlighted. I'm more interested in the two extemes.

What effect would it have on the top 5,000 wealthiest if they had their assets halved. (Apart from ego and power)

I've already explained my take on that at #6.

In summary very little would be achieved by doing as you suggest - it's not wealth, (i.e. the thing you own), that makes a difference to people's lives but what is done with that wealth. Giving shares in the world's corporations to the World's poorest won't feed them or provide better living standards.

 

[ant457]

 

[somerset]

I have £10 in my wallet so I'm probably richer than a few million today

A few billion no doubt....

 

[somerset]

What effect would it have on the top 5,000 wealthiest if they had their assets halved. (Apart from ego and power)

By whom?... that would be theft,......

 

[Albion Dan]

How many people do the rich 85 employ? Must provide a lot of jobs to a lot of people.

I'd say the point is why on earth do they need all that money, it's way way way beyond spendable, and woudl be much better for society if a large proportion was redistributed, which would still leave those 85 as probably stonkingly rich. It's disgustingly greedy.

 

[Creaky]

Wealth is of far less importance than income.

Their must be millions in the UK who are worse of in terms of wealth than even the poorest indivdual in a third world country - The really poor have wealth very close to zero - many in the UK owe far more than they own so have a negative wealth.

On that basis it's not really surprising that the wealth of a very few people is equivalent to half the population of the world who have little or none.

As I suggested earlier it would be far better if corporations were regulated in such a way that their resources were invested in the poorest part of the world providing employment and increasing production in those countries. Of course that will never happen because how many are going to vote for a party that advocates diverting those resources from their own country to one of the poorer nations?

 

[Creaky]

I'd say the point is why on earth do they need all that money, it's way way way beyond spendable, and woudl be much better for society if a large proportion was redistributed, which would still leave those 85 as probably stonkingly rich. It's disgustingly greedy.

The answer to that is that they don't need the money - that's why the vast majority of it is tied up as stock in large corporations. If they were to liquidate their wealth what would happen to those companies.

Look at BHAFC - what would happen to the club were TB to sell the shares he has to anyone who wanted them and at the same time demanded repayment of the loans he has made to the club so that he could give the money to Oxfam?

Now transfer that same policy to say Shell, BP, Microsoft, BMW, Verizon etc - the World economy would just crumble.