Richest 1% to own more than the rest

[IDL]

Obviously our leaders are not the scholarly level when future planning comes to play.

Either that or maybe they are serving the interests of themselves and their donors and aren't actually concerned about the peasants.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

It worried me a bit that I felt in some agreement with you here...

"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.

But then I read this shite and realized I wasn't losing my grip. :icon_lol:

 

[5H3RD0G]

Let's apply some political math and work some magic. :icon_lol: All 7 billion people make the same amount of money what are the possible pitfalls to that? Let's see if our genius politicians can figure it out at elementary home base.

 

[7437]

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.

Thats what I was thinking too, the worldwide 1 % includes almost every american.


I am actually pretty surprised that we dont already own more than 50% of everything.

 

[7437]

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

I thought that was the American number, not the worldwide number.

Being in the top 1% with a 34k income, but needing to save it all for 22 years to reach 1% in assets doesnt make much sense.

 

[OldGoat]

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

It already has. I suppose a very high historic standard of living doesn't mean anything because someone else has more.

 

[OldGoat]

It worried me a bit that I felt in some agreement with you here...



But then I read this shite and realized I wasn't losing my grip. :icon_lol:

Other than jealousy of the lesser classes what is the problem with inequality again?

 

[panamaican]

I thought that was the American number, not the worldwide number.

Being in the top 1% with a 34k income, but needing to save it all for 22 years to reach 1% in assets doesnt make much sense.

Nope, it's the worldwide number.

And the difference makes sense. Wealth, if viewed as an acquisition of assets, should take time to accumulate. If you earn in the top 1% ($34k), spend and invest wisely, then over time you should accumulate assets the reflect your lifetime income.

Buying a nice house, investing in some stocks/bonds, not buying a depreciating asset new, etc. Disregard females, accumulate wealth.

 

[7437]

Nope, it's the worldwide number.

And the difference makes sense. Wealth, if viewed as an acquisition of assets, should take time to accumulate. If you earn in the top 1% ($34k), spend and invest wisely, then over time you should accumulate assets the reflect your lifetime income.

Buying a nice house, investing in some stocks/bonds, not buying a depreciating asset new, etc. Disregard females, accumulate wealth.

with the exception of pick great stocks, the idea that someone earnign $16 an hour (34k a year) will end up with 757k in assets is ludicrous. Saving 50% of income would take 44 years. thats pretty unlikely.

 

[panamaican]

with the exception of pick great stocks, the idea that someone earnign $16 an hour (34k a year) will end up with 757k in assets is ludicrous. Saving 50% of income would take 44 years. thats pretty unlikely.

Are you accounting for cumulative interest and asset appreciation?

Because I think 40+ years is pretty decent, assuming the economic discipline is there. Start at 22 and you're only in your mid-60's by the time you've covered 44 years. And that's assuming you never get a raise and your assets only keep pace with inflation, which is unlikely.

 

[Strychnine]

It already has. I suppose a very high historic standard of living doesn't mean anything because someone else has more.

Haha! :icon_lol:

 

[clmetal]

Either that or maybe they are serving the interests of themselves and their donors and aren't actually concerned about the peasants.

Money of the 1% > votes of the 99% even in democracies

Like the general benefits of outsourcing and mass immigration (and customized tax breaks for the job creators). I watcbed Elysium btw (after u mentioned it)

 

[clmetal]

It already has. I suppose a very high historic standard of living doesn't mean anything because someone else has more.

People are making less while the stock market booms and food prices increase. And the megarich influence policy. How many billionaires are pushing for amnesty? That's going to further suppress wages. But who cares, zuckerberg is having a hard time finding employees. gates too (when ms isn't laying off americans and creating jobs overseas)

 

[IDL]

Money of the 1% > votes of the 99% even in democracies

Like the general benefits of outsourcing and mass immigration (and customized tax breaks for the job creators). I watcbed Elysium btw (after u mentioned it)

Money buys all sorts of things, including power. Power buys the ability to rig the system and make more money. It's a cycle that leads to bad places.

I think Elysium is a decent take on where things might go because of this cycle (assuming it doesn't collapse in on itself) where those at the top isolate themselves while retaining their power and wealth.

It ends up with the earth essentially being a slave colony which is really the logical conclusion of power consolidation.

Hunger games is another play on this scenario. As with many others. Problem is those with power will live in a state of fear that they will lose it, and that can cause them to obsess over it and do crazy things.

 

[Adamant]

This is bullshit. So just because you're more successful in life means you have to pay extra for it so it's fair to those who aren't as successful? What a fucking joke.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

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.

No evidence to suggest that this is true.

Was the collapse of Rothschild bank in the late 80's planned as well?

This is bullshit. So just because you're more successful in life means you have to pay extra for it so it's fair to those who aren't as successful? What a fucking joke.

Many people in America and Canadians I have met resent the uber wealthy and want a system that is more "equal".

In other words they want others to have less money just like them. This is a very unhealthy type of thinking but they learn it from somewhere. Often Universities and he public schools.

 

[guassian]

In Russia, 110 persons own 35% of the countries wealth.
The median wealth in Russia is lower than India.

Russians are fools.That is all.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365401766/

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

It worried me a bit that I felt in some agreement with you here...



But then I read this shite and realized I wasn't losing my grip. :icon_lol:

You want to live in a society where strict equality is enforced by totalitarian government?

The only way we can mandate equality is to cripple the most able and to impose such strict laws as would crush individuality.

Mao's solution to inequality in China was to kill the intellectual class and murder 100,000,000 Chinese people. That is the sort of government that is ultra-egalitarian.

There is a fruitful inequality amongst men that needs to be respected even as we move towards an economic order that does allow for broad prosperity. I am not suggesting that our level of inequality of wealth is a good thing. It isn't, as it reflects a ludicrous movement away from actual production to imaginary finance. But even this system, or even a system in which equality had virtually no place at all, is superior to the egalitarian extreme.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

In Russia, 110 persons own 35% of the countries wealth.
The median wealth in Russia is lower than India.

Russians are fools.That is all.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365401766/

That's what you get from 80 years of communism, about 15 years of functional capitalism.

Putin has been putting billionaires and mobsters in jail.

 

[Orgasmo]

If you want to break history down into a very simplistic cycle:

Inequality rises -> social unrest -> open conflict -> new class of wealthy elites -> back to step 1