Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[mister dog]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Recent Oxfam stats show the 85 richest people have the same combined wealth as the poorest half of this entire planet...

Opinions about the gap between rich become super rich, compared to the struggling middle class and the poor + CEO's and super rich supposedly becoming more powerful than politicians nowadays?
Does capitalism rule us more than ever before?

 

[Danoff]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Recent Oxfam stats show the 85 richest people have the same combined wealth as the poorest half of this entire planet...

Opinions about the gap between rich become super rich, compared to the struggling middle class and the poor + CEO's and super rich supposedly becoming more powerful than politicians nowadays?
Does capitalism rule us more than ever before?

Uh... no.

First, how are they "ruling" you or anyone. Second, why do you think capitalism is responsible for people being rich?

 

[Northstar]

I really don't get where this seeming "war on the wealthy" has come from, it's not like people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett just fell into their mountains of money, they started out like everyone else, they just happened to be way smarter than most others(both are also noted for their humanitarian efforts).

I also think the idea that simply redistributing the wealth will solve all the worlds problems is just moronic. Really, it won't solve anything so long as there are governments killing their own people like there currently is in Africa (and North Korea more than likely). Pumping more money into some of these poverty ridden countries would likely only make matters much worse instead of better.

 

[Pupik]

Okay, so now you've given everyone ten thousand dollars, which buys everyone a used car, a big screen TV, two outfits, and week's worth of groceries. Poverty is clearly eradicated at that point...if you're 16 and living at home.

Viva la Revlon-lution.

 

[mister dog]

This surprises me a little; I would have expected most here to say "scandalous!; one single double decker bus filled with people that have as much personal wealth as 3.5 billion people!"

Yet i get the sense that is not the case here

My personal opinion is that I think it's too much, I agree that these people deserve to be rich as they were smart and made businesses for themselves, and a couple of them (like mr. Gates), have committed to donate millions of their fortunes to charity which is a noble thing.

I am however a bit disturbed, of how it is said we are in a financial crisis all the time; whilst the rich have never been richer. Just look at the trend of hypercars; would you have imagined 20 years ago that new supercars were gonna be constructed that have a price close to a million dollars? And they sell like hot cakes nowadays. Same with luxury yachts being bigger than ever before; castles being build instead of penthouses etcetera...

My personal belief is that the globalization we are experiencing in the past 10 years or more; were local businesses and local companies are bought and become global multinationals + industries closing factories in the west so they can open another one in a third world country, where workers can be exploited and earn not even a fraction of what one would pay a western person; serves only to make CEO's and shareholders alike super rich instead of rich.
It has a negative effect on us westerners as we loose our jobs and have to compete with wages and worker rights which we cannot even think to compete with + whilst it benefits people in the third world as they now have the option to go and work in a factory; most of them have to work in bad conditions and are exploited...

 

[Zenith]

Have you taken an introductory college level economics class?

You're not getting the reaction you want/expect because many people here have a firm grasp on economics.

 

[mister dog]

Have you taken an introductory college level economics class?

You're not getting the reaction you want/expect because many people here have a firm grasp on economics.

So knowing how economics work; makes you think this is a fair game?
My point is not to find the root causes of why this occurs, I'm more interested in what you think about this current trend and if you agree with it or not + what would you change about it?

 

[Famine]

Just look at the trend of hypercars; would you have imagined 20 years ago that new supercars were gonna be constructed that have a price close to a million dollars?

The McLaren F1 was released 20 years ago. It cost a million dollars.

So... yes?


I don't get the issue. A handful of people who were gifted enough to have the ideas, strong enough to keep hold of them, smart enough to exploit the ideas and fortunate enough to continue to do so are more highly valued by the societies that consume their ideas than half of all people.

If we didn't have the 85 richest, there wouldn't be 3.5 billion people on the planet.

 

[Roo]

Are there any figures for how many people held half the world's wealth from any other period of time?

I'd be suprised if things are any different now than they were then.

Just look at the trend of hypercars; would you have imagined 20 years ago that new supercars were gonna be constructed that have a price close to a million dollars?

Date of release: 1992. Price: £635,000/~US$1,000,000.

Also see: XJ220 (1992, £403,000/~US$650,000), CLK GTR (1998, £1,000,000/~$US1,500,000).

In any case, 20 years of inflation will pump the numbers up. Things have doubled in price since the early 90s because of inflation. I'll find some figures for incomes when I get a chance.

Edit: tree'd. Serves me right for trying to find inflation figures.

 

[Dotini]

So knowing how economics work; makes you think this is a fair game?
My point is not to find the root causes of why this occurs, I'm more interested in what you think about this current trend and if you agree with it or not + what would you change about it?

Life is not fair. Who says it's supposed to be?

The current trend is for the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer. And for the middle class to dry up.

This trend is almost universally supported by business, government, regulators and bankers. It has strong academic justification centering around the teachings of Milton Friedman.

Whether I "agree" with it or not doesn't matter; and there is nothing you, I or anybody else can do to change it.

Fortunately for me, I have accumulated property, gold, guns and am comfortably retired. Although I have marched and struggled for human rights, civil rights, peace, freedom, and compassionate but frugal government, my days of idealism and protest are over. I've lived a good life, and have a good family and 10 kart racing championships to show for it. These days nothing interests me so much as a good craft brew and The Game of Thrones.

It is for the young and the dispossessed to fret and take action if they are capable of it. Unlikely because of the entertainment and drugs which distract them, and the surveillance state which monitors them.

Allow me to leave you with a few eternal truths:
- The strong do as they will and the weak do as they must.
- Might makes right.
- The ends justify the means.

 

[Ibonibo]

^That surely is true, but unstoppable? No, i don't think so. Take away the wrong thing and it gets ugly. Food will be one of those. Look at 1789. People can only take so much till they all come together and heads roll... What it will take in our society to go mental, idk...I thaught the alst decade was pretty heavy already...
But you right, the change might never come. That's why you should study hard and find a job that is "secure" and try to be in the class that goes up not down.


------

Exploit is the word.

While some people like Bill Gates and Buffet are legimate exemples, there are others like Icahn, Fitschen,...

I don't like the 1% idea, because it mixes people who have earned it, with people who have exploited other people in order to get rich.

And that makes a huge difference.

The idea of innovation for humanity : the Apple ideas of the 2000 are a great innovation, but at the cost of slavery. But nobody gives a crapapple about it if students, young people are exploited so we have a fancy smartphone every year.
Gates vs Ballmer. Very different rich people.

The whole concept of the occupy XY, had the same 1% hatered. I saw an interview where they then gone on how capitalism is bad, and yaddy ya. When the reporter asked what economic alternative there was. Blank stupid stare...

Capitalism is very good. You work more you get more. There's nothing wrong with that. It get's wrong if you bully someone to do your work without proper recompensation.
But we aren't in the pure and simple capitalism anymore. Since late 80's we are in the hypercapitalism. And that is the bad thing.

You can't expect to get infinite growth for eternity. There are natural and moral bounderies which should hold it all together.

It isn't normal people can places bets on primary food stocks, which led to food crisis all over Africa for the last decade.
That's no capitalism anymore.

What's next... trading Chinese labor (aka Humans) as financial products.

 

[mister dog]

There they go nitpicking on the details again , well i admit you got me there with the Mclaren and inflation certainly plays a role (everything is more expensive nowadays), but I still get the feeling ridiculously priced vanity objects (like supercars and such), are selling better than ever before because the rich got even more rich than they ever were.

I live in a country that has been hit hard because of the financial crisis; middle class is struggling to be able to pay the bills these days (and that's a general trend in Europe it seems), is it inflation? is it the crisis? There's many factors that cause it, but it's a bit daunting to see this on the one hand, and on the other hand see how rich CEO's are getting. They get payed more than prime ministers of presidents, and no not all of them are inventors that changed the way human kind evolved. Some of them just make sure a factory closes down, the company restructures and as a reward they get paid a bonus of a couple of millions on top of their wages...

 

[Famine]

And they got to be CEOs... how? Were they born as CEOs?

 

[mister dog]

And they got to be CEOs... how? Were they born as CEOs?

So once you get to the top you can permit yourself anything? You have earned the right to fill your own pockets by exploitation if needed?

 

[Famine]

I can't see anywhere in my post where I might have implied any part of that.

In fact it was just two questions. I'll answer the second one for you so there's only one question. "No".

 

[Northstar]

but I still get the feeling ridiculously priced vanity objects (like supercars and such), are selling better than ever before because the rich got even more rich than they ever were.

Ridiculously priced vanity items are selling more across the board, so far 7 million next-gen consoles have been sold in the couple months they've been out, plus the old ones are still selling fairly well. Not to mention almost everyone has a smartphone or a tablet.

 

[mister dog]

I can't see anywhere in my post where I might have implied any part of that.

You seem to give the impression so far, that you don't mind these people being millionaires/ billionaires, as they worked their way to the top of a company (correct me if i'm wrong):

I don't get the issue. A handful of people who were gifted enough to have the ideas, strong enough to keep hold of them, smart enough to exploit the ideas and fortunate enough to continue to do so are more highly valued by the societies that consume their ideas than half of all people.
If we didn't have the 85 richest, there wouldn't be 3.5 billion people on the planet.

Which in a way disregards that many of those millionaires/ billionaires acquired their over the top fortunes through exploitation of workers (in the west and in the third world).

You are strictly talking about "how did they get rich", i'm asking if that 400 million dollars on their bank account is justified according to what they gave back to society?

Ridiculously priced vanity items are selling more across the board, so far 7 million next-gen consoles have been sold in the couple months they've been out, plus the old ones are still selling fairly well. Not to mention almost everyone has a smartphone or a tablet.

I hardly think you can compare a PS4 that costs 400 bucks, to a Bugatti Veyron or a luxury Yacht as a ridiculously priced vanity item.

 

[niky]

So once you get to the top you can permit yourself anything? You have earned the right to fill your own pockets by exploitation if needed?

Who exploits who? You live in a domicile with at least four walls and a roof, have internet, video games and, presumably, a cellphone and other niceties at the expense of minimum-wage workers in third world countries who make most of the things you use on a day-to-day basis.

The system itself is exploitative... though it's hard to declare it exploitative when for the many who work sweatshop hours and get a pittance for wages, participating in the system is preferable to living outside of it. Which is why nobody wants to be a farmer... because even if you can become self-sufficient in terms of food production, you don't make enough money to pay for clothing, toiletries, emergency medical expenses and the other niceties of civilization.

-

To make money, you have to spend money. And those who have the most to spend have the potential to earn the most. It is inevitable that, over time, money will be concentrated in the hands of those who are adept at making it. The only way to stop this from happening is to adopt a completely moneyless society.

 

[Famine]

You seem to give the impression so far, that you don't mind these people being millionaires/ billionaires, as they worked their way to the top of a company (correct me if i'm wrong).

Okay. You're wrong.

Which in a way disregards that many of those millionaires/ billionaires acquired their over the top fortunes through exploitation of workers (in the west and in the third world).

Only if you believe every millionaire got their fortune through exploiting workers. And that their fortune isn't deserved.

You are strictly talking about "how did they get rich", i'm asking if that 400 million dollars on their bank account is justified according to what they gave back to society?

No I'm not.

I'm asking you how the CEOs you despise just because they're CEOs got to be CEOs. They weren't born as CEOs, so how did they become them?


Incidentally, do you own anything invented by a member of the bottom half of the world's population ranked by wealth? Do you own anything invented by a member of the top 85?

 

[Northstar]

I hardly think you can compare a PS4 that costs 400 bucks, to a Bugatti Veyron or a luxury Yacht as a ridiculously priced vanity item.

I think you completely missed my point. People, no matter their wealth bracket, are spending money on frivolous things at a higher rate than ever before. Also, to quite a few people a PS4 might as well be a Veyron or a luxury yacht.

 

[Dotini]

We no longer live under a government by the consent of the governed but an oligarchy ruled by corporate interest and other big money contributors.

The first words of our constitution read, “We the People of the United States,” not we the corporations and elites of the United States. Clearly the founding fathers intended ours to be a government, of, by and for the people.

The time has come to say, “No More,”
http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...stitution-party-chairman-calls-for-revolution

Here is a call for revolution from the Chairman of the Arizona Constitution Party. He blathers about the Constitution to support his case. But the fact is, the Constitution currently supports the corporate state.

 

[mister dog]

Okay. You're wrong.Only if you believe every millionaire got their fortune through exploiting workers. And that their fortune isn't deserved.No I'm not.

I'm asking you how the CEOs you despise just because they're CEOs got to be CEOs. They weren't born as CEOs, so how did they become them?


Incidentally, do you own anything invented by a member of the bottom half of the world's population ranked by wealth? Do you own anything invented by a member of the top 85?

You are quite good at dissecting someone's post, and hammering on specific points where you can try and prove them wrong; whilst avoiding the general picture.

Like @Third Reign said in the popcorn shooting thread:

Protip: You can win every exchange just by being one level more precise than whoever talked last. Eventually, you'll defeat all conversational opponents and stand alone.

I too believe this to be your 'modus operandi' by now.

Who exploits who? You live in a domicile with at least four walls and a roof, have internet, video games and, presumably, a cellphone and other niceties at the expense of minimum-wage workers in third world countries who make most of the things you use on a day-to-day basis.

The system itself is exploitative... though it's hard to declare it exploitative when for the many who work sweatshop hours and get a pittance for wages, participating in the system is preferable to living outside of it. Which is why nobody wants to be a farmer... because even if you can become self-sufficient in terms of food production, you don't make enough money to pay for clothing, toiletries, emergency medical expenses and the other niceties of civilization

I agree with this, yet i don't agree with the outrageous wages and bonuses CEO's receive, whilst all the time we are spoonfed the message that there is a financial crisis going on, so we should put water in our wine and be happy with our minimum wages + loosing workers rights. Nor do i think what is going on in Asian sweatshops is fair. You can counter this argument by saying "if it weren't for these sweatshops and the fact that the workers there are exploited, you wouldn't be able to pay the price of your electronic goodies", but i think that is an exaggeration. 50 years ago when companies still produced in the western countries where they also sold their goods; people were able to buy home equipment, houses and cars just the same as us today; the difference is there are more electronic goodies to spend your money on today.

A big chunk of the money that is saved by companies, that make use of sweatshops disappears in the pockets of the CEO's and the shareholders IMO.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There is really nothing to see here. These 85 people EARNED their money and were frugal about it. They saw emerging businesses and invested in them. Anyone can do the same if they put a little time and money into research of the markets.

Really, this chart is making a case for redistribution of wealth that shouldn't exist.

 

[niky]

The problem is your standard of living is higher than it was fifty years ago. Which means your money and wages are worth a lot more.

A lot of that is thanks to differences in wages between countries. Companies can afford to give you stuff you can... afford... because low labor costs in emerging economies and economies of scale let them sell low.

They can also afford ridiculously highly paid CEOs because those same economies of scale mean huge operations. Operations that need strong leaders to survive. A CEO is not "God"... if the Board of Directors thinks it can get better service for less, it'd drop him like a hot potato.

-

Sweatshops with illegally low wages and inhumane working conditions are bad... but not all third-world factories are sweatshops. If you want to produce goods that first-world buyers will actually buy, you need a modern factory with skilled labor. (Yes, I've been to and seen sweatshops. And their output is so bad that most third-world middle-class buyers wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole)

Really big companies like, say, Apple, employ skilled workers. Workers who need training and cost money.

These "exploitative" multinationals pay big money for labor. This money raises the standard of living. It also allows skilled laborers to bootstrap themselves and their families another rung up on the social ladder. This new middle class is spending more money. More money, more demand, more inflation.

This inflation increases the cost-of-living, which increases wages. Which means that, eventually, it will no longer be cheaper to build things in China... at which point the factories will up and leave.

All because the factories, rather than being exploitative, improves the economic standing of the people they employ.

If you want to slight the rich for anything, criticize them for playing Russian Roulette with the economy. But then, it's the bankers who did that... and they got a lot of help from those thousands of idiots who decided to take out loans they couldn't afford.

 

[Famine]

You are quite good at dissecting someone's post, and hammering on specific points where you can try and prove them wrong; whilst avoiding the general picture.

You can't get a general picture if you're blind to the specifics. Currently you're blind to the specifics of how 85 people managed to get their wealth and you've developed a general picture that CEOs exploit the third world.

Speaking of avoiding, you're still avoiding the questions. How do CEOs becomes CEOs? Do you own anything invented by the bottom 50% of the world's wealthiest? Do you own anything invented by the top 85 of the world's wealthiest?

I too believe this to be your 'modus operandi' by now.

That's smashing, but I'm not the topic. If you don't want to discuss the topic and instead metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and blurt out anti-rich rhetoric, try Facebook.

If you deign to answer the questions and actually discuss it, I'll still be here. And if you're really unlucky, Danoff will be too.

 

[Danoff]

I'm still lost on why we're assuming that all of these people are rich because of capitalism. Maybe it's true, but there are also some crazy rich people that get that way because they have a lot of guns and friends. Not every rich person lives in a capitalist government (I could argue that none of them do), or any government at all.

 

[mister dog]

You can't get a general picture if you're blind to the specifics. Currently you're blind to the specifics of how 85 people managed to get their wealth and you've developed a general picture that CEOs exploit the third world.

The "specifics" you always pinpoint so you can carry on about them, whilst they are only partly related to the issue at hand?

Speaking of avoiding, you're still avoiding the questions. How do CEOs becomes CEOs? Do you own anything invented by the bottom 50% of the world's wealthiest? Do you own anything invented by the top 85 of the world's wealthiest?

Yes probably some items just like anybody, still doesn't justify the circumstances under how these things were produced, and the fact that the one running the company (not necessarily the one who invented the product), has more money than he will ever be able to spend in his lifetime just by pleasing his shareholders.

That's smashing, but I'm not the topic. If you don't want to discuss the topic and instead metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and blurt out anti-rich rhetoric, try Facebook.

If you deign to answer the questions and actually discuss it, I'll still be here. And if you're really unlucky, Danoff will be too.

You become the topic when all you do is twist it around to gain the mental upper hand for yourself.

The problem is your standard of living is higher than it was fifty years ago. Which means your money and wages are worth a lot more.

A lot of that is thanks to differences in wages between countries. Companies can afford to give you stuff you can... afford... because low labor costs in emerging economies and economies of scale let them sell low.

They can also afford ridiculously highly paid CEOs because those same economies of scale mean huge operations. Operations that need strong leaders to survive. A CEO is not "God"... if the Board of Directors thinks it can get better service for less, it'd drop him like a hot potato.

-

Sweatshops with illegally low wages and inhumane working conditions are bad... but not all third-world factories are sweatshops. If you want to produce goods that first-world buyers will actually buy, you need a modern factory with skilled labor. (Yes, I've been to and seen sweatshops. And their output is so bad that most third-world middle-class buyers wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole)

Really big companies like, say, Apple, employ skilled workers. Workers who need training and cost money.

These "exploitative" multinationals pay big money for labor. This money raises the standard of living. It also allows skilled laborers to bootstrap themselves and their families another rung up on the social ladder. This new middle class is spending more money. More money, more demand, more inflation.

This inflation increases the cost-of-living, which increases wages. Which means that, eventually, it will no longer be cheaper to build things in China... at which point the factories will up and leave.

All because the factories, rather than being exploitative, improves the economic standing of the people they employ.

If you want to slight the rich for anything, criticize them for playing Russian Roulette with the economy. But then, it's the bankers who did that... and they got a lot of help from those thousands of idiots who decided to take out loans they couldn't afford.

Again you certainly have a point there, good description of how things work although i do not entirely agree with the fact that we have more purchasing power than our parents had back in the day for example. The generation of my parents could afford more than my generation with the same wage (comparatively speaking), but this of course is dependent of where you were raised, as consumerism was not yet introduced in large parts of the world 30 years ago.

So what you are saying is that, if we are patient enough, we just need to wait till the people in developing countries raise their living standards, and start to fight for worker rights just like the west did before, for the economy to stabilize in this regard and that there will be no more regions to exploit also. You might very well be right in that regard, it just sucks to have to wait 10 or more years now for this to happen

 

[Danoff]

The "specifics" you always pinpoint so you can carry on about them, whilst they are only partly related to the issue at hand?

Uh... no. Those little details threaten the underpinning of your entire opinion. I don't know why you're missing that.

Yes probably some items just like anybody, still doesn't justify the circumstances under how these things were produced, and the fact that the one running the company (not necessarily the one who invented the product), has more money than he will ever be able to spend in his lifetime just by pleasing his shareholders.

You have small concepts for how much money people can spend. If I had that kind of money, I would seriously consider founding an economics research and teaching institution. That kind of thing can make a Veyron look like a PS4.

You become the topic when all you do is twist it around to gain the mental upper hand for yourself.

Except so far @Famine has been on point and very much directing his posts at critical points of the argument, so that's not a fair characterization.

 

[BobK]

I don't recall just where I came across this but it was from what I consider a credible source. I would appreciate it if anybody can supply the source.

If you were to take all the wealth in the world and redistribute it equally amongst each person on the planet then step back and wait a few years, you'd find that the list of who is "rich" and who is "poor" would be substantially the same as it was beforehand.

 

[niky]

Well, the "old money" would certainly not be as rich as they were before.

When Danoff asked why we were assuming that the richest were rich because of capitalism... well... even dictators need oil to sell to generate profit. You can only milk a poor country for so long before you seriously have to feed people. And criminal organizations make money by selling contraband and drugs...

-

But the other category of rich, those who inherit their wealth, those who are simply rich because they were rich beforehand... they don't stay rich forever... they spend money just as stupidly as the rest of us.