8 Men Now Own Half The World's Wealth

[Makani]

 

[Brazilian HKD]

The term "leftist" connotes extremism as does the suggestion that simply being rich is not "practicing what they preach."

Leftist means that the person is on the left. Simple as that. You keep distorting the meanins of my messages and all you needed to do was to ask if in doubt. No need to be an asshole.
But , hey , what else can I expect from "honest" jack?

BTW I also didn't suggest that they "didn't practice what they preach" because they were rich. At this point I don't know if you are a sophisticated idiot or just dishonest. Any War Roomers could help me with that?

 

[panamaican]

Read this earlier.

The real takeaway, for me, is that they realized the poverty levels in China and India are far, far worse than expected.

So, while this is superficially about income inequality, the real problem is that the 3.6 billion people living in abject poverty are actually poorer than we thought. Not that the rich people suddenly got richer.

 

[SammyPops]

I will give you the floor to speak your own veiws as opposed to making an assumption on what you believe. i dont recall having a conversation with you on this subject. you claim that my stance is easy to debunk so can you provide me the courtesy of debunking me here so i dont have to go on a ghost hunt to make an assumption on what you believe?

i will reiterate my stance so you dont have to dig through the previous page:


why is it zuckerbergs fault he is rich when billions of people agree to make an accountwith him, and willingly give their money to their money managers, that willingly buy his stock, that he willingly offered to the public and has a minor ownership of.

Your last paragraph is spot one, and clearly demonstrates a broken system, which essentially has us trapped.

also, not sure why you (and others) state such as "fault". It is none persons fault at this point.

 

[cooks1]

Gross income and wealth inequality is by far the greatest abomination and most pressing crisis facing the human race today. It makes climate change pale - PALE - in comparison.

The eight include six Americans, one Spaniard and one Mexican. Three of the numbered Americans are Gates, Zuckerberg and Bezos.

And the US just elected a new Upward Redistributer in Chief. So four years from now it's likely that just the six Americans alone will be able to lay claim to possessing half the world's wealth.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-wealth-oxfam-001214017.html

Edit: For those who have a problem with the article's headline (which I used as the thread title).

If I wrote, "Half of the world is female," every literate person would understand that I meant that half of the people in the world are female. It doesn't need to be spelled out.

Likewise, if one writes, "Eight men own half of the world's wealth," the implication should be that "half of the world's" means "half of the people in the world". Thus, eight men possess as much wealth as half of the world.

It's an entirely accurate statement and would be characterized as "misleading" only by someone trying to pick a fight in order to deflect from the implications of the claim.

A more accurate statement would be 8 men have the same wealth as the poorest half of the world. But 8 men do not in fact have half of the wealth of the entire planet. In that sense it is very misleading.

It's interesting that the article you referenced made that distinction and you did not.

Shock value perhaps?? Bit of trolling perhaps??? Not sure what your agenda was. But I do know you are exaggerating an issue that needs no exaggeration, and that is an excellent way to make sure people do not tune into you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Leftist means that the person is on the left. Simple as that. You keep distorting the meanins of my messages and all you needed to do was to ask if in doubt. No need to be an asshole.
But , hey , what else can I expect from "honest" jack?

BTW I also didn't suggest that they "didn't practice what they preach" because they were rich. At this point I don't know if you are a sophisticated idiot or just dishonest. Any War Roomers could help me with that?

Holy moly. You sound unhinged. Maybe English isn't your first language? But then it's probably not a good idea to flip out over miscommunication. And, what, exactly was your point if it wasn't what it appeared to be?

 

[JDragon]

I am sure it has been mentioned but the study is bullshit

 

[uncommon]

I think the goal should be to produce as much wealth as possible and to distribute it in a way that optimizes happiness in society

Thank you for the well thought out response, im not going to be able to counter this right off the bat, but i think i might try to form an argument involving the goal of "happiness" and "rightousness" without getting too theistic. Reason being that 1.) happiness may not even be an appropriate goal because there are things that exist worth suffering for, and 2.) the act of distribution is too simple of a solution for complex individuals

He didn't do anything morally blameworthy that I know of. It's just that one can argue that that's not an optimal distribution policy from the perspective of society. And "willingly" doesn't really make sense in the context of a society that enforces property.

What if society is the problem instead of the distribution policy? example: what if apathy on part of the populus is skewing far too much wealth in the hands of mark zuckerberg relative to his output? was individual personal responsibility a factor in the housing market crash? or was it entirely the distribution process.

Im not sure exactly what your concern with property laws are either.

Your last paragraph is spot one, and clearly demonstrates a broken system, which essentially has us trapped.

also, not sure why you (and others) state such as "fault". It is none persons fault at this point.

Your last paragraph is spot one, and clearly demonstrates a broken system, which essentially has us trapped.

also, not sure why you (and others) state such as "fault". It is none persons fault at this point.

Are you saying society is trapped because they willingly give their cash to the stock market?

I think the "trap" lies closer to laws preventing self sufficiency. (and its not easy for me to identify these laws)

The stock market may be the only " reasonable" avenue to deploy cash because all the other avenues are forced shut.

Homesteading for example, is difficult or costly to due in most states even though the price to own land may be incredibly cheap. The consequence of not being able to live a low operating cost lifestyle forces people to compete in cities, where there are a fixed amount of real estate to compete over driving costs of living higher.

Business also cant be conducted on small scales outside of cities because the amount of revenue available (time to commute costs money/ energy to commute costs money) cannot overcome operating costs from federal minimum wage laws.


No minimum wage might lower income of an individual down to 11.2k a year for example ((5$ph x 40hwk x 56wk)). in a city thats impossible, but in a remote town where cost to own an acre is 1k and cost to own 400sqft house is 12k that would put the 12k a year individuals 30 year mortgage at 61$ month.

the poor farm hand would end up saving more than the "minimum wage" worker in the city who has to pay 1200$ a month for rent under that scenario

 

[ultramanhyata]

A more accurate statement would be 8 men have the same wealth as the poorest half of the world. But 8 men do not in fact have half of the wealth of the entire planet. In that sense it is very misleading.

It's interesting that the article you referenced made that distinction and you did not.

Shock value perhaps?? Bit of trolling perhaps??? Not sure what your agenda was. But I do know you are exaggerating an issue that needs no exaggeration, and that is an excellent way to make sure people do not tune into you.

My initial OP was only three paragraphs long. I wrote nothing there that was misleading. I did not fail to make any necessary "distinction" as I wrote nothing that was in contradiction with the statistic. I also linked to what was a fairly brief article that specified its claim at the very beginning.

This was the one and only article I had seen in my newsfeed prior to posting to the WR. And I simply used the article's headline, verbatim.

Eight men posses as much wealth as half the world's population. As much wealth as half of the people in the world. As much wealth as half the world.

Sorry language usage doesn't follow the rules you want it to, boss. Not everything you're confused by has a nefarious motive or CT at it's core.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I am sure it has been mentioned but the study is bullshit

Is this the latest Trump Tweet??

Please show us where and how Oxfam's math breaks down.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Read this earlier.

The real takeaway, for me, is that they realized the poverty levels in China and India are far, far worse than expected.

So, while this is superficially about income inequality, the real problem is that the 3.6 billion people living in abject poverty are actually poorer than we thought. Not that the rich people suddenly got richer.

So how did we reach the point where about 25 of the richest Americans have the same net worth as the bottom half of all Americans?

Is it because the bottom half has "gotten poorer"? Or because the 25 have "gotten richer"?

And... gulp... might there be some correlation between the two changes in economic circumstance?

 

[JDragon]

Is this the latest Trump Tweet??

Please show us where and how Oxfam's math breaks down.

It is methodological nonsense. Oxfam is comparing apples and oranges.

The apples are in the Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. The authors estimate wealth by adding up the sum of savings and subtracting all debt and then estimate how much the poorer half of the world possesses.

The oranges are the Forbes list. They just go down the list and add up the estimated wealth of the richest folks on the list until the sum reaches that of the poorer half of the world.

The issue is the following: According to the Credit Suisse logic, an American college student is part of the poorer half of the world, because he is in debt - even if he is from a middle class background and will eventually earn a ton of money at Wall Street. But according to the Credit Suisse logic, he's poorer than a farmer in Africa who simply never would get a loan and therefore cannot have a negative net worth. This is where the logic and the math fails.

That said, Oxfam doesn't really care and they have publicly stated so whether the correct number is 8, 62, 128 or a completely different number. What they're doing is agenda setting regarding wealth inequality, and they're doing it successfully.

EDIT: To make that clear. Credit Suisse did not attempt to estimate the (often negative) he poorer half. They are interested in real wealth to know where business opportunities lie. For the "poorer half", their methodology is not intended. Oxfam was using that by-product and compared that to the added-up Forbes list.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thank you for the well thought out response, im not going to be able to counter this right off the bat, but i think i might try to form an argument involving the goal of "happiness" and "rightousness" without getting too theistic. Reason being that 1.) happiness may not even be an appropriate goal because there are things that exist worth suffering for, and 2.) the act of distribution is too simple of a solution for complex individuals

Well, that was abbreviated. By "happiness" I'm talking about a state of reduced stress, increased freedom, greater knowledge, etc. Not so much just joy. But there's also no need to complicate it too much. There's certainly more to life than happiness, however you define it, but there doesn't need to be much more to economic policy.

What if society is the problem instead of the distribution policy? example: what if apathy on part of the populus is skewing far too much wealth in the hands of mark zuckerberg relative to his output? was individual personal responsibility a factor in the housing market crash? or was it entirely the distribution process.

If your policy isn't compatible with people as they are, it's not a good policy for people. Speculative bubbles show up even in some models so I don't see a point in blaming investors. It's like blaming individual drivers for traffic.

Im not sure exactly what your concern with property laws are either.

I think the existence of property is good (note, BTW, that property rights have always come with associated obligations of some type or another in every society in which they exist), but it's not right to say that there isn't force behind them or that they're completely voluntary. The takeaway from that isn't so much "property is bad" as "when limited resources are involved, some form of force to determine and maintain one's preferred system of distributive justice is inevitable."

 

[cooks1]

My initial OP was only three paragraphs long. I wrote nothing there that was misleading. I did not fail to make any necessary "distinction" as I wrote nothing that was in contradiction with the statistic. I also linked to what was a fairly brief article that specified its claim at the very beginning.

This was the one and only article I had seen in my newsfeed prior to posting to the WR. And I simply used the article's headline, verbatim.

Eight men posses as much wealth as half the world's population. As much wealth as half of the people in the world. As much wealth as half the world.

Sorry language usage doesn't follow the rules you want it to, boss. Not everything you're confused by has a nefarious motive or CT at it's core.

Soooo.....what you are saying is that you are too dumb to realize what you wrote was misleading as opposed to it being a deliberate attempt to troll or attention whore. Well, that's brave of you to admit.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

this is good news. there should be a massive trickle down effect coming. any time now...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Soooo.....what you are saying is that you are too dumb to realize what you wrote was misleading as opposed to it being a deliberate attempt to troll or attention whore. Well, that's brave of you to admit.

That's a little overly aggressive here, but it is a misleading stat. The bottom 40% of the world (and the U.S.) has a net worth of about 0. So it's really "eight men have the same net worth as people in the 40th-50th percentile combined," which actually still does seem pretty bad but pales in comparison to the image created by the thread title

 

[panamaican]

So how did we reach the point where about 25 of the richest Americans have the same net worth as the bottom half of all Americans?

Is it because the bottom half has "gotten poorer"? Or because the 25 have "gotten richer"?

And... gulp... might there be some correlation between the two changes in economic circumstance?

I thought we were talking about the article regarding the bottom half of the world. If we're going to talk about the U.S....it's a very different conversation.

We reached this point because the richest Americans can take advantage of the global economy while the bottom half of Americans cannot. So globalism has allowed some Americans to reach a much larger consumer base while it has exposed other Americans to greater labor competition.

It's a completely different set of circumstances than the world poor issue and they require completely different resolutions. In one, you have people who have plenty but are facing competition. In the other, you have people who have nothing and it turns out nothing is even less than we thought. One is a real problem, the other is a "1st world" problem.

 

[cooks1]

That's a little overly aggressive here, but it is a misleading stat. The bottom 40% of the world (and the U.S.) has a net worth of about 0. So it's really "eight men have the same net worth as people in the 40th-50th percentile combined," which actually still does seem pretty bad but pales in comparison to the image created by the thread title

Perhaps a bit aggressive. But the point remains. The TS either knew what he was doing or he didn't. If he knew what he was doing, he was deliberately misleading. If he didn't, the problem is intellectual.

 

[panamaican]

So how did we reach the point where about 25 of the richest Americans have the same net worth as the bottom half of all Americans?

Is it because the bottom half has "gotten poorer"? Or because the 25 have "gotten richer"?

And... gulp... might there be some correlation between the two changes in economic circumstance?

I thought we were talking about the article regarding the bottom half of the world. If we're going to talk about the U.S....it's a very different conversation.

We reached this point because the richest Americans can take advantage of the global economy while the bottom half of Americans cannot. So globalism has allowed some Americans to reach a much larger consumer base while it has exposed other Americans to greater labor competition.

It's a completely different set of circumstances than the world poor issue and they require completely different resolutions. In one, you have people who have plenty but are facing competition. In the other, you have people who have nothing and it turns out nothing is even less than we thought. One is a real problem, the other is a "1st world" problem.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Perhaps a bit aggressive. But the point remains. The TS either knew what he was doing or he didn't. If he knew what he was doing, he was deliberately misleading. If he didn't, the problem is intellectual.

Well, yeah, but someone can get something wrong by accident without being generally intellectually deficient--even an easy question.

I thought we were talking about the article regarding the bottom half of the world. If we're going to talk about the U.S....it's a very different conversation.

We reached this point because the richest Americans can take advantage of the global economy while the bottom half of Americans cannot. So globalism has allowed some Americans to reach a much larger consumer base while it has exposed other Americans to greater labor competition.

See my earlier response to Cooks. A big part of it is that a lot of people have negative net worth (and a lot of them are in first-world countries). So whether you're looking at the U.S. only or the world as a whole, roughly the bottom 40% of net worth comes out to zero. So rip's joke about them being eight posters actually applies if it was the bottom 40% rather than the bottom 50%.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your diagnosis. If labor movement was as free from political and other barriers as capital movement (that is, if workers were exposed to more competition), low-end workers would be much better off relative to the top. And if competition reduces labor incomes, why wouldn't that be equally true for competition among capital holders?