62 Members of the Elite Have as Much Money as the Poorest 3.6 Billion People on the Entire Planet
Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 3 months ago to Economics
"Back in 2010, 388 members of the elite had as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity. But since then that number has been steadily falling and now it is down to just 62. At this pace, Oxfam is projecting that in just a few years a single person will have as much money as the poorest half of the global population combined."
Yep, change we can all believe in. Will all this change in 2016 with the General Election? Well, here's this:
"“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)
Yep, change we can all believe in. Will all this change in 2016 with the General Election? Well, here's this:
"“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966.)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Basically, this takes into account "Net Wealth," which includes debts like mortgages, student loans, and direct loans. And there are many people in the world that are worth a net negative amount (including myself, currently). Taking that into account that the poorest of the poor are worth something like -$1.7 trillion (negative), and the next subset up is worth +$2.2 trillion.
So ignoring debt, the poor have a lot of wealth, and there are a lot of rich people (way more than claimed) that have the equivalent value.
Your 2nd and 3rd sentences actually says everything that needs to be said. The USA created the paradigm, and some followed to a limited extent and others not at all. The followers did much better than the others. Now, the USA has decided for irrational reasons to become like those who never followed the American example. Crazy, right? The question is not really income disparity for the impoverished. It is; how do you get to put food on the table, clothes on your body, and a roof overhead. The world was shown how in the 19th century, but perhaps it was thought to be some sort of a miracle. It was no miracle, it was the result of having the freedom to sweat. And by that I mean the freedom to work at what you are capable of and ambitious enough to achieve it.
So what? In what way is this a bad thing?
"is from pages 5-6 of Richard Epstein’s magisterial 2014 study, The Classical Liberal Constitution:
At root, the classical view of American constitutionalism examined all legal interventions under a presumption of error. The structural protections of the separation of powers, check and balances, federalism, and the individual rights guarantees built into the basic constitutional structure were all part of combined efforts to slow down the political process that, left to its own devices, could easily overheat.
Epstein goes on to show that what he calls “a presumption of error” – that is, a wise presumption that individuals exercising the power of the state, even when democratically elected, always exercise such power with limited knowledge and under the strong temptation to enhance their own private welfare at the expense of the public – was discarded as “Progressivism” took hold of Americans’ minds. The state then came to been seen as, if not the only, certainly the best means of curing whatever ills afflicted (or were thought to afflict) society. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution’s obstacles to state intervention were regarded by “Progressives” as obstacles to the social and economic progress promised by vigorous government – obstacles to the obvious need for a benevolent government to act energetically, quickly, and with the wide discretion needed for effective social engineering.
In short, the prudent and appropriate fear of state power that animated America’s founding generation was replaced by imprudent impatience for salvation by the state.
There is no significant opposition. ACLU now looking for a good court case and a bought and paid for judge to get that into the mill.
US billionaires - regardless of political leanings. I recall when gates billions had produced x other billionaires, y other millionaries, z other upper middle class and I think most through stock options and pick a new letter A direct employees and B other companies and so forth positions.
Then a listing of the current 62 would be useful and Compare the 100 russian billionaires in that respect to the top 100 in the US or Europe or Latin America
My point is we're better off with with fettered capitalism than unfettered socialism and unfettered capitalism would be a much preferred goal.
Maybe the addition and example of the other commenters will give this question the due diligence it deserves.
Sheeple is not a source and neither are 50 year old quotes that fell on deaf ears then and deaf ears now.
What I wouldn't give to see a plan, a solution a candidate's name aoffered? But no when that happens it's slam dunk in the trash defeatism. You deserve to go under martial law. you've earned it.
There's a reason why things we USED to make here are made in China: the laws our leaders (via their masters) passed thus making it undesirable to stay in the U.S. Who gets the shaft? Not them, but the 'little guy'. Sure profit margins increase, (for the Chinese too) but how do the laws benefit the U.S.? http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy...
I have no issues with the "rich" being rich. However, when they are start buying off politicians and make laws that are ironically counter-productive to those who want to increase competition by starting their own business, that's when I call a spade a spade. I shouldn't have to move to China in order for me to have a business in America. Such idiocy reeks of elitism.
Moreover, those 600 or 60 or 6 wealthy people do not porpoise around in bills and coins like Scrooge McDuck. Their money is at work... for all of us... And I am glad - heck grateful that it is. Everything we have above subsistence is because of capital-ism: No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
We have people here in the Gulch who are proud to be hunter-gatherers. Of course, they actually use guns made in factories with ammunition made in factories... They wear clothes made in factories... and live in homes build from production materials, like nails and screws, and lumber all trued up and cured, and perfect bricks by the truckload (brought to them by trucks built in factories).
And let them live in animal hide tents if they want: six billion of us could not. The hunter-gather lifestyle might support a million people globally. And they would not have telescopes or microscopes... or televisions... or computers... or even band-aids by the box for under a dollar anytime you want.
I have no complaint about the richest people in the world. Some might be "nice" and others might be "nasty" but all of them, as a class, pretty much make it possible for the rest of us to survive.
Viva Liberty,
iSank