Richest 1% to own more than the rest

[SolidIce]

Richest 1% to own more than the rest http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30875633

The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population, according to a study by anti-poverty charity Oxfam.
The charity's research shows that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year.
On current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016...

The charity is calling on governments to adopt a seven-point plan to tackle inequality, including a clampdown on tax evasion by companies and the move towards a living wage for all workers.
Oxfam made headlines at Davos last year with the revelation that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion people).
It said that that comparison had now become even more stark, with the 80 richest people having the same wealth as the poorest 50%...

Link for full. Nothing to see here though. Job creators obviously. It'll trickle down.

 

[Flamma]

USA has the biggest divide. Another first for Uncle Sam.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

The ludicrous wealth of the investment class is galling because it is not rooted in production. It is one thing for a Rockefeller or Carnegie to earn their wealth through creating amazing industry, it is quite another thing for bankers to manipulate imaginary money out of thin air.

"Inequality" is not inherently problematic - in fact, pure equality is worse than even the most extreme inequality - but it is troubling because it usually shows a disregard for sane economic policy which considers the common weal and the national interest.

 

[Banchan]

99% here. At least I wont be lonely.

 

[Fronk]

The ludicrous wealth of the investment class is galling because it is not rooted in production. It is one thing for a Rockefeller or Carnegie to earn their wealth through creating amazing industry, it is quite another thing for bankers to manipulate imaginary money out of thin air.

"Inequality" is not inherently problematic - in fact, pure equality is worse than even the most extreme inequality - but it is troubling because it usually shows a disregard for sane economic policy which considers the common weal and the national interest.

yay for serfdom, bow to your masters!

 

[kpt018]

1% is a cutoff used for arguments sake, but really it's the 0.1% that has most of the wealth. Included in 1% are folks like surgeons, small business owners and the like that make great money, but a guy making $300k a year is in that number with billionaires.

Let's be clear, we are talking about the billionaires here.

 

[BearGrounds]

Seems counterproductive, in respect to species advancement.

 

[PEB]

Well so much for Obama's promise about helping the poor out of poverty and helping the middle class? Well does anyone in Washington really work for the middle class and poor anymore? Rich gonna rich I guess?

In other news never mind music acts the biggest act right now is Pope Francis over 6 million of 73 million Catholics in the Philippians showed up to his mass.

 

[SammyPops]

Saw this on CBC this morning. Kida really fucked up.

 

[PEB]

Saw this on CBC this morning. Kida really fucked up.

The funny thing is the people that are featured in the article are only the working class for the real rich. When I see names like Buffett and others they get their orders from the people at the real top of the food chain. I saw an article recently from an established news source not some crazy blog that put Rothschild's family fortune value at more then the gross domestic product of all Countries except for the top 10. They listed the combined value at over 1 trillion dollars. This is the whole family not just individuals but they act like a block when they do deals and that is how they stay out of the news. They have one property that they estimated at over 1/2 billion dollars. This is just one of the true top 10 super power brokers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Just to be clear: This is the worldwide 1%, right? Everyone making more than $34K? I'm all for doing more to reduce inequality in America and worldwide (much more important issue within countries, but we should encourage development of developing countries), but some of this stuff is pretty misleading. A kid with a buck in his piggy bank and no debt has a higher net worth than a quarter of Americans put together (actually more, if you count negative net worth). That's not where our inequality problems are.

 

[Bay Area]

The funny thing is the people that are featured in the article are only the working class for the real rich. When I see names like Buffett and others they get their orders from the people at the real top of the food chain. I saw an article recently from an established news source not some crazy blog that put Rothschild's family fortune value at more then the gross domestic product of all Countries except for the top 10. They listed the combined value at over 1 trillion dollars. This is the whole family not just individuals but they act like a block when they do deals and that is how they stay out of the news. They have one property that they estimated at over 1/2 billion dollars. This is just one of the true top 10 super power brokers.

There are families connected to the Vatican with more money. Royal bloodlines. For example the Aldobrandini's, Orsini's, and Breakspear. These families tend to stay out of the news. Ludicrous amounts of money. Anyway it is hard to get an estimate on the wealth of families such as these because the own a lot of things indirectly.

 

[Lead]

1% is a cutoff used for arguments sake, but really it's the 0.1% that has most of the wealth. Included in 1% are folks like surgeons, small business owners and the like that make great money, but a guy making $300k a year is in that number with billionaires.

Let's be clear, we are talking about the billionaires here.

But it's really the .01% we are talking about here.

 

[Lead]

Just to be clear: This is the worldwide 1%, right? Everyone making more than $34K? I'm all for doing more to reduce inequality in America and worldwide (much more important issue within countries, but we should encourage development of developing countries), but some of this stuff is pretty misleading. A kid with a buck in his piggy bank and no debt has a higher net worth than a quarter of Americans put together (actually more, if you count negative net worth). That's not where our inequality problems are.

It's worldwide which is really a different discussion entirely from the US which would deal with poverty and undeveloped countries.

 

[panamaican]

Just to be clear: This is the worldwide 1%, right? Everyone making more than $34K? I'm all for doing more to reduce inequality in America and worldwide (much more important issue within countries, but we should encourage development of developing countries), but some of this stuff is pretty misleading. A kid with a buck in his piggy bank and no debt has a higher net worth than a quarter of Americans put together (actually more, if you count negative net worth). That's not where our inequality problems are.

I believe they used assets, not income. So ~$757k. A big house and some decent retirement savings.

 

[Strychnine]

Ahhh, dat trickle-down should be hitting us poor serfs any minute now...:icon_neut

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

yay for serfdom, bow to your masters!

I am not suggesting serfdom.

A world where we are all forced to be equal, where not a single person is allowed to be anything but what everyone else, is a world of profound and utter tyranny. It would be totalitarian in a way that even Mao or Stalin could not have dreamt of.

Ultra-egalitarianism is absolutely worse than even a world where there is maximal inequality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I believe they used assets, not income. So ~$757k. A big house and some decent retirement savings.

Wow, I wouldn't have thought the wealth requirement would be so high. Good for the world, I guess.

 

[whougonnacall]

I am not suggesting serfdom.

A world where we are all forced to be equal, where not a single person is allowed to be anything but what everyone else, is a world of profound and utter tyranny. It would be totalitarian in a way that even Mao or Stalin could not have dreamt of.

Ultra-egalitarianism is absolutely worse than even a world where there is maximal inequality.

so maybe we aim for somewhere in between?

 

[5H3RD0G]

The problem is not wealth it's distribution for an overpopulated world. With so many people there will not be enough resources, forget the money what can you buy if there is only ample amounts not even close to meeting the demand of 7 billion plus. Obviously our leaders are not the scholarly level when future planning comes to play.