Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[Famine]

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

If you don't have specifics, you don't have a picture. At the moment your big picture is the Mona Lisa, but you haven't spotted that her smile is on the wrong way up.

Yes probably some items just like anybody

Okay. So you've bought a product invented by one of the world's 85 richest people. Let's assume that's a PS3 or something similar, even though Sony's CEO may not be on the list - that's about $300 you've given to him. Sure, it's swallowed up by R&D costs, production costs, transport costs and employee salaries, but you've still given him a couple of cents on his "over the top fortune".

Given $300 to any poverty charities lately?


And that's why the wealthiest 85 people have more than the 3.5 billion poorest. There's fewer of them for the money to go to and they make what you want to buy. They're not rich because they're evil capitalists - they're rich because of evil consumers...

still doesn't justify the circumstances under how these things were produced

What circumstances? Are you seriously back onto ALL wealthy people exploiting ALL other people?

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.

Shareholders = consumers

What is it you think CEOs actually do? If it's "rake money in by being evil", you couldn't be more wrong. There's a reason they run the companies and make money - and if you'd only answer the very first question I asked you'd realise it.

So, again, how do CEOs become CEOs.

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

Nothing has been twisted in any way. Well, except when you decided to twist two questions I asked you into me supporting any attempt to gain wealth. Fabulous effort.

And no, I'm not the topic. Keep it on the topic and not the people discussing it.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

My take on this? An economy needs a balance between capitalism and socialism. Obviously nothing works without competition and the lure of wealth, but it benefits society as a whole to have a large middle class and very few poor. For example, if you give a rich man £10,000, he'll likely put it in some sort of fund or savings account, as he already has plenty of money and 10 grand is an insubstantial amount to him. If you give 100 people who are not very well off £100, they'll go out and spend that money to buy food, clothing, pay their rent, or possibly buy something they've been saving for, like a new phone or a toy for their children. It'll go right back into the economy.

The IMF has come out numerous times and stated that high wealth inequality will cause shorter, less stable periods of economic growth. Look at the American economy. Starting in the 1980s, wealth inequality began to rise. The 90s saw incredible economic growth, but the 2000s saw the worst recession in recent history, and the world still hasn't recovered. Part of this is to do with financial deregulation, a risky business that rarely benefits anyone, but part of it is to do with the fact that a lot of this money was going to a few people, who became very rich, while a large section of the population remained poor. If those poor were given even a small part of that wealth, they would spend it, make their lives better, decrease strain on the welfare system, and generally contribute to society, while the ultra rich would hardly notice the missing money.

Of course, rich people will always exist and are a necessary part of society. Society needs some basic financial hierarchy to function, as people are motivated far more by greed than by charity. Look at the lack of technological advancement that happened in the USSR compared to what the NATO countries did. But taxing and regulating the wealthy is a healthy thing for the economy, because it allows the wealth to be redistributed. I would not allocate this money through welfare, rather would have the hypothetical government in question spend money hiring unemployed people to improve the infrastructure and other public facilities. This would benefit everyone with the outcome of the work (if done properly) and would put people to work, giving them an income and work experience.

Woah, that's about three paragraphs longer than I intended to write. I don't even want to know what kind of bollocks I put in there.

 

[Famine]

My take on this? An economy needs a balance between capitalism and socialism. Obviously nothing works without competition and the lure of wealth, but it benefits society as a whole to have a large middle class and very few poor. For example, if you give a rich man £10,000, he'll likely put it in some sort of fund or savings account

Which is then used by banks for trading purposes (going back into the economy) or collateral for government debt and spending (going back into the economy) on infrastructure improvements. No savings = no roads.

If I may cite the fictional Golgafrinchans at this point, no society can function without creators, workers and managers. We actually see this in the UK (and the USA), where our youth are now so disproportionately self-entitled that they will refuse to do jobs they have the skills for and cannot get jobs they want because they're unwilling to work for them and they're filled by 1st and 2nd generation migrants. The demeaning jobs they deem as beneath them - street sweepers, bog cleaners, burger flippers, factory line workers - are absolutely essential to keep society functioning, and we need (evil) businesses to provide those jobs. In between those two worlds, we need layers of management to guide the workers and advise the creators - so the workers can work and the creators can create without having to manage themselves.

The mindset that the creators exploit the workers ignores the fact that the creators create the jobs for the workers and the fact the creators compensate the workers for their work by selling the products they make to consumers (who are creators, workers AND managers).

The Golgfrinchans, of course, invented an apocalypse story and used it to dispense with the management portion of society and livid in an idyll free of officiousness - until they were all wiped out by a disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Which is then used by banks for trading purposes (going back into the economy) or collateral for government debt and spending (going back into the economy) on infrastructure improvements. No savings = no roads.

I'll admit that that's beyond my knowledge of economics and finances, so I'm working on instinct and stupidity here. I would argue that it's highly undesirable for a government to rack up huge amounts of debt because it lowers the stability of that economy. Look at the financial instability America's massive debt has brought. It's a game of chicken between the Republicans and the economy. Ideally, governments should balance their budgets and run a small surplus to save in case the economy goes sour, but I don't think that's possible in today's world where it's normal to spend money that doesn't exist.

 

[Famine]

I'll admit that that's beyond my knowledge of economics and finances, so I'm working on instinct and stupidity here. I would argue that it's highly undesirable for a government to rack up huge amounts of debt because it lowers the stability of that economy.

Well... you've got a "yes but" and a "no though", there.

"Debt", in general, is good if you can afford it. What debt allows you to do is buy something really awesome now, so you have it, and then pay for it in little bits over time.

With government debt, they borrow money from banks (at very low rates of interest - see the credit rating thing often mentioned in relation to countries), use it to buy materials, manpower and expertise and, in two years' time you've got a nice big motorway or a new railway line*.

It's like buying a house using a mortgage. Or buying a car on finance. Or buying a big TV at 0% for the first 6 months. What you could do is save up for a couple of months to get the TV, a few years to get the car or... oooh. Planning on renting aflat forever? Similarly, government could just tax the crap out of you for a couple of years to get that surplus going and buy a new airport.


Debt's bad if you can't afford to pay it back. This is where credit ratings come in - your ability to take credit and pay it back is rated, so people know if they can lend you money. It happens with governments too - see Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch.


Banks get the money to lend as credit from savings and investments. Typically, government debt is a good, safe, but low return investment. So every time you put money into an ISA, you help build a library.

Or fund a weird, ongoing war. Swings & roundabouts.



*Not that this is a valid function of government, but hey.

 

[Bram Turismo]

they just happened to be way smarter than most others

Depends on what you mean by smart. You don't need an intelligent mind to earn a lot of money. Sometimes all you need is recklessness and arrogance.

 

[Roger the Horse]

The IMF has come out numerous times and stated that high wealth inequality will cause shorter, less stable periods of economic growth. Look at the American economy. Starting in the 1980s, wealth inequality began to rise. The 90s saw incredible economic growth, but the 2000s saw the worst recession in recent history, and the world still hasn't recovered.

Shorter perhaps isn't the best word. The 90s/early 00s boom was the longest we've seen in a very long time, but in turn the recession which followed was the worst in 70 years.

I would not allocate this money through welfare, rather would have the hypothetical government in question spend money hiring unemployed people to improve the infrastructure and other public facilities. This would benefit everyone with the outcome of the work (if done properly) and would put people to work, giving them an income and work experience.

While I agree that governments should put some of the money used to pay for welfare towards instead hiring unemployed individuals to do jobs which help to improve public infrastructure etc. (mainly because most countries could do with some improved infrastructure, and because working is good for people's overall self esteem), I feel that there are a few fundamental problems with your plan:

1. However many jobs this investment creates, one must question how many of the people employed in the initial creation of the infrastructure will continue to be employed afterwards.
2. If the government finds themselves in a situation where they cannot create enough jobs to employ all of those people, some will have to be laid off, as it is altogether unproductive to hire someone to come into work and do nothing. As it would be immoral to allow these people to fall into destitution, the government will have to pay welfare benefits to ensure that these people do not.
3. Hiring people to do work costs more than paying them welfare, as welfare only requires that you pay people to pay household expenses, while those in work must also pay ever increasing travel expenses. There is also the cost of the land and capital required to provide those people with a job which extends beyond sitting around watching daytime television. (And even then, government investment is usually required to create an effective broadcast system.) Of course, government investments in infrastructure will likely benefit the economy as a whole and lead to more jobs in the long term, so this is not too major a negative.
4. Some people have to be paid welfare as they quite simply cannot work, and allowing them to fall into destitution would be immoral. These people include students (some of whom may one day become one of that top 85, if things turn out well for them), those suffering from disability or illness and whom cannot work as a result (or even if they can work, require extra income to help pay for treatment, therapy, and other such capital which allows them to deal with their disability or illness), and full time carers such as parents or those with disabled family members.
5. As Famine pointed out, some people see certain lines of work as beneath them, and, although for the most part these people should be a bit more willing to accept what is offered to them, the fundamental fact remains that they wont unless you force them to, and, I'm afraid to say it, even allowing those who are unwilling to contribute to the economy by working to fall into destitution is immoral, just as allowing anyone else to fall into destitution is. (And anyway, they'll contribute a lot more to the economy by using the money they receive from welfare to pay for food, heating, electricity, housing etc. than they will by sitting on a street corner begging for food.)

 

[Northstar]

Depends on what you mean by smart. You don't need an intelligent mind to earn a lot of money. Sometimes all you need is recklessness and arrogance.

True, but you are not going to get to the top 85, which is what I was referring to.

 

[Danoff]

Shorter perhaps isn't the best word. The 90s/early 00s boom was the longest we've seen in a very long time, but in turn the recession which followed was the worst in 70 years.



While I agree that governments should put some of the money used to pay for welfare towards instead hiring unemployed individuals to do jobs which help to improve public infrastructure etc. (mainly because most countries could do with some improved infrastructure, and because working is good for people's overall self esteem), I feel that there are a few fundamental problems with your plan:

1. However many jobs this investment creates, one must question how many of the people employed in the initial creation of the infrastructure will continue to be employed afterwards.
2. If the government finds themselves in a situation where they cannot create enough jobs to employ all of those people, some will have to be laid off, as it is altogether unproductive to hire someone to come into work and do nothing. As it would be immoral to allow these people to fall into destitution, the government will have to pay welfare benefits to ensure that these people do not.
3. Hiring people to do work costs more than paying them welfare, as welfare only requires that you pay people to pay household expenses, while those in work must also pay ever increasing travel expenses. There is also the cost of the land and capital required to provide those people with a job which extends beyond sitting around watching daytime television. (And even then, government investment is usually required to create an effective broadcast system.) Of course, government investments in infrastructure will likely benefit the economy as a whole and lead to more jobs in the long term, so this is not too major a negative.
4. Some people have to be paid welfare as they quite simply cannot work, and allowing them to fall into destitution would be immoral. These people include students (some of whom may one day become one of that top 85, if things turn out well for them), those suffering from disability or illness and whom cannot work as a result (or even if they can work, require extra income to help pay for treatment, therapy, and other such capital which allows them to deal with their disability or illness), and full time carers such as parents or those with disabled family members.
5. As Famine pointed out, some people see certain lines of work as beneath them, and, although for the most part these people should be a bit more willing to accept what is offered to them, the fundamental fact remains that they wont unless you force them to, and, I'm afraid to say it, even allowing those who are unwilling to contribute to the economy by working to fall into destitution is immoral, just as allowing anyone else to fall into destitution is. (And anyway, they'll contribute a lot more to the economy by using the money they receive from welfare to pay for food, heating, electricity, housing etc. than they will by sitting on a street corner begging for food.)

Biggest problem with all of that is that you're creating a job that isn't needed by taking money from someone who would have created one that is needed. What's not seen is what is taken/eliminated when you tax. You take money from companies that invest efficiently in a workforce that is needed and use it to invest inefficiently in a workforce that is not needed.

 

[mister dog]

Just read this news article and it couldn't be more fitting for this discussion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25887905

 

[Tornado]

So some guy gets paid 1.5 million dollars, probably as part of his contract; and 18 million in shares of the investment firm he runs. That's a pretty important specificity to just gloss over like that article did.

 

[Famine]

It's also an important point that when the firm didn't do so well in 2012 he forfeited half of his salary.

It's almost like the people responsible for the success of a company have fortunes directly linked to the success of the company or something.

 

[niky]

More complete:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/jamie-dimon-gets-a-big-raise-102570.html

An on-paper loss doesn't tell the whole story. He got the legal issues settled, long term forecasts are good and share prices are up.

And his "increase" is entirely in "restricted" shares. His basic pay is "only" $1.5m. In other words, if he screws up, that extra compensation goes down the tubes... as it did in 2012 (tree'd on that).

 

[daan]

If you took 85 random GTPlaneteers and put them on that double decker bus, we'd still be richer than hundreds of millions of people. There are rich people and there are poor people, and I don't see how that has changed recently.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I think the issue is not so much that wealth is distributed unevenly, it's how it's distributed unevenly, and by how much.

Personally, I find it morally repugnant that there are people born into this world with almost no food to eat, no clean water to drink, no medicine to treat their ills, and no roof over their heads; while others are born into extreme wealth and security that it'd take either an awful lot of stupidity or bad luck on their part for them to lose. Of course, one could argue that I'm a hypocrite, sitting here in my northern European home, typing away on the internet using a computer that almost certainly was at least in part (even if it was only during the extraction of primary resources from the land) produced under working conditions that I would most likely consider to be unacceptable, rather than doing much actively other than the odd charitable donation; and in a way it's frightening how little this bothers my conscience. Ultimately, this emphasises one thing, which is that humans are greedy. This isn't always a bad thing. Greed drives us to improve, but it can also drive us to be horrible, horrible people to each other, and when someone psychopathic comes into the occasion (it has been noted that those displaying psychopathic traits are often more likely to be succesful), people can be very, very horrible with very. very, little remorse.

 

[Exorcet]

Of course, one could argue that I'm a hypocrite, sitting here in my northern European home, typing away on the internet using a computer that almost certainly was at least in part (even if it was only during the extraction of primary resources from the land) produced under working conditions that I would most likely consider to be unacceptable, rather than doing much actively other than the odd charitable donation; and in a way it's frightening how little this bothers my conscience. Ultimately, this emphasises one thing, which is that humans are greedy.

I don't see the greed.

It's probably good that you aren't bothered so much by it. If you were overly worried it would probably get in the way of day to day living and you would still only be able to do as much as you can right now, which may be occasionally donating to charity in addition to contributing to society, which makes things better for everyone else anyway.

There is nothing wrong with people being born into unimaginable wealth (although no one is, the only amount of money that can't be spent is an infinite amount). It's all the same all the way down to having nothing, because money isn't a requirement for living. It's a luxury. The person living on a box on a street corner that only has a dime to their name does not need that dime. They're holding on to it because they want (as opposed to need) a certain quality of life. The same goes for the minimum wage worker, the successful middle class worker, and all the CEO's.

There would be no point to sharing wealth if people only lived for the sake of other people because, it would just be money passing hands indefinitely. There is nothing wrong with pursuing luxury, and it doesn't stop you from trying to be generous. In fact it allows you to be generous. I can't devote millions of dollar to curing cancer. A billionaire can.

 

[mister dog]

I think the issue is not so much that wealth is distributed unevenly, it's how it's distributed unevenly, and by how much.

Personally, I find it morally repugnant that there are people born into this world with almost no food to eat, no clean water to drink, no medicine to treat their ills, and no roof over their heads; while others are born into extreme wealth and security that it'd take either an awful lot of stupidity or bad luck on their part for them to lose. Of course, one could argue that I'm a hypocrite, sitting here in my northern European home, typing away on the internet using a computer that almost certainly was at least in part (even if it was only during the extraction of primary resources from the land) produced under working conditions that I would most likely consider to be unacceptable, rather than doing much actively other than the odd charitable donation; and in a way it's frightening how little this bothers my conscience. Ultimately, this emphasises one thing, which is that humans are greedy. This isn't always a bad thing. Greed drives us to improve, but it can also drive us to be horrible, horrible people to each other, and when someone psychopathic comes into the occasion (it has been noted that those displaying psychopathic traits are often more likely to be succesful), people can be very, very horrible with very. very, little remorse.

Hear hear
You're also right that by nature we are all greedy and a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Azuremen]

Hear hear
You're also right that by nature we are all greedy and a bunch of hypocrites.

Hey, you should respond to all those comments on the JP Morgan bit, or did you realize your "relevant" contribution back fired massively on you?

You need to realize the devil is in the details instead of reading headlines and making sweeping statements based on a very limited amount of information.

As for the hyper wealthy, like Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs, their companies employee 100,000 and 80,000 people directly. Then Apple uses Foxconn to produce good, and they employ 1.2 million people. Then you have the support, sales, distribution, and other jobs for their products. Gates has donated $28 billion to the Melinda Gates foundation, which has poured massive amounts of money into improving developing countries.

You could argue they've exploited people to get their money, but they have generated an incredible amount of jobs and put tones of money into economies.

Then extreme luxury items, like hyper cars and yachts, have massive support industries and employee many thousands purely to accommodate these select few. It is like you can't see the details about how all these toys and all this money ultimately go back into employing people, developing products and technologies, and philanthropies.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Just scroll up and read the damn post.

Except that ultimately that person living on(?) a box on a street corner that only has a dime to their name ultimately will need that dime to afford food and water to stay alive, unless you're suggesting that they should steal food.

The fact that I'm not bothered ultimately is a good thing, because me having a breakdown from guilt wouldn't help anyone.

Ultimately the thing that sits badly with me about the current world is the idea that one individual can be born in a position where, even if they have no actual talent with which they can contribute to society, they can live in a comfortable position for the rest of their life, while someone who, if presented with the opportunity may well be able to contribute great things to society, could never get the chance because they die at an early age as a direct result of being born into extreme poverty.

 

[mister dog]

Hey, you should respond to all those comments on the JP Morgan bit, or did you realize your "relevant" contribution back fired massively on you?

Frankly i don't give a crap if the link didn't demonstrate 100% that he didn't deserve it; seeing what kind of **** JP Morgan have been pulling the past years. If you all think he deserves an extra 20 million dollars which he can throw with his other millions, I say good for you

 

[Azuremen]

Frankly i don't give a crap if the link didn't demonstrate 100% that he didn't deserve it; seeing what kind of **** JP Morgan have been pulling the past years. If you all think he deserves an extra 20 million dollars which he can throw with his other millions, I say good for you

Basically, you just hate the rich because they have more than you and screw all reasoning because it isn't fair, right?

Oh, and what kind of stuff has JP Morgan pulled for years that has made you so angry, besides just having money you don't seem to have.

 

[Tornado]

Frankly i don't give a crap if the link didn't demonstrate 100% that he didn't deserve it; seeing what kind of **** JP Morgan have been pulling the past years. If you all think he deserves an extra 20 million dollars which he can throw with his other millions, I say good for you

Again, he doesn't get an extra 20 million dollars. He gets an extra 1.5 million dollars, then 18 million in stock that almost certainly has restrictions in how he can utilize it (for example, I'm doubting he can instantly dump it as soon as he receives it). Stock whose value (and thus the value of his "salary") is directly related to how well of a job he does.

 

[mister dog]

Basically, you just hate the rich because they have more than you and screw all reasoning because it isn't fair, right?

Oh, and what kind of stuff has JP Morgan pulled for years that has made you so angry, besides just having money you don't seem to have.

The noob likes your post
Fitting really.

 

[Exorcet]

Except that ultimately that person living on(?) a box on a street corner that only has a dime to their name ultimately will need that dime to afford food and water to stay alive, unless you're suggesting that they should steal food.

The dime is needed to pay for food sold conveniently by a seller. That's a luxury. Food is available for free both in and outside of towns and cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism

There are people with normal incomes that do this. They do not buy food, they scavenge from the trash and live healthy and happy. Anyone is able to do it.

Ultimately the thing that sits badly with me about the current world is the idea that one individual can be born in a position where, even if they have no actual talent with which they can contribute to society, they can live in a comfortable position for the rest of their life, while someone who, if presented with the opportunity may well be able to contribute great things to society, could never get the chance because they die at an early age as a direct result of being born into extreme poverty.

Even in that case, the former person is doing good. Unless they don't spend at all, the money goes to someone. What you mention isn't really so much of a problem since one isn't really related to the other. The unfortunate thing is that some people are born without an option to live with luxuries. If we can produce people who are born into luxury though, that's a good sign.

 

[Joel]

The noob likes your post
Fitting really.

Are you going to put any substance into your arguments or just use cheeky emoticons and feels?

 

[Tornado]

The noob likes your post
Fitting really.

And yet just yesterday you had the stones to complain about Famine violating the AUP?

 

[mister dog]

And yet just yesterday you had the stones to complain about Famine violating the AUP?

I just stated the truth, Noob really liked his post

Are you going to put any substance into your arguments or just use cheeky emoticons and feels?

It's 3 o clock here so if you don't mind my fingers already hurt from all the typing

 

[Azuremen]

Are you going to put any substance into your arguments or just use cheeky emoticons and feels?

Based on the deterioration of his arguments into attacks ranging from "why do we care about details" to just plain old insults, I doubt it.

The whole thread reminds me of a University Freshman that just started taking a social studies class and realized how much variance there is in wealth and power... and it just isn't fair.

 

[Tornado]

The whole thread reminds me of a University Freshman that just started taking a social studies class and realized how much variance there is in wealth and power... and it just isn't fair.

Occupy GTP.

 

[Famine]

It's 3 o clock here so if you don't mind my fingers already hurt from all the typing

That probably explains why I had to edit your post for a swear filter bypass.

Go to bed and get some rest before your tired fingers get you into trouble.