Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Oct '15 21:48
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

    "Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population-report"
    --Jill Treanor

    "The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich..."
  2. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    14 Oct '15 13:52
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

    "Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population-report"
    --Jill Treanor

    "The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich..."
    Well the poorer half of the world population has nothing and that is the sum.

    Do we really wonder what these people have to lose?
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Oct '15 14:33
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

    "Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population-report"
    --Jill Treanor

    "The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich..."
    When they say a person's wealth, say $50,000 or so, does that mean how much money you have in the bank and can plunk down all at once on something or is that the total value of everything you own, TV sets, cars, house and so forth? What about yearly income, is that what they mean? Not sure of the units here.
  4. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    14 Oct '15 14:46
    The report deals with wealth. So only individuals with more than one million "worth" in terms of money or tradeable objects are considered here.


    That means criminlas are not considered and people only owning "normal" stuff are not lsited either...
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Oct '15 15:14
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    The report deals with wealth. So only individuals with more than one million "worth" in terms of money or tradeable objects are considered here.


    That means criminlas are not considered and people only owning "normal" stuff are not lsited either...
    So if you have a house worth $100,000 is that counted as your wealth? It would seem that would be a variable depending on how much is mortgaged Vs the assessed value.

    For instance, if a young couple buys a house that costs $100,000 that wouldn't seem to me to count towards their 'wealth' since their equity in the house is essentially zero, maybe 10% if that is their down payment so in that case their 'wealth' would only be 10,000 wouldn't it? That would be V an old married couple with a paid for house, it too worth $100,000. THEY would have a wealth of 100,000 to my way of thinking.

    But what about income? Doesn't that factor in? How is 'wealth' tied to income if at all?
  6. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    14 Oct '15 17:04
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

    "Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population-report"
    --Jill Treanor

    "The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich..."
    Not a major surprise. The rich have been exploiting the poor for centuries. It normally follows 4 periods

    1. A massive gap between the rich and everyone else

    2. Uprisings (usually violent)

    3. A more even distribution of wealth

    4. A slow build up of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the masses

    And the cycle starts again

    Now we know what the future holds....
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Oct '15 17:08
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    When they say a person's wealth, say $50,000 or so, does that mean how much money you have in the bank and can plunk down all at once on something or is that the total value of everything you own, TV sets, cars, house and so forth? What about yearly income, is that what they mean? Not sure of the units here.
    They mean net worth. Yearly income minus expenses adds to wealth.
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    14 Oct '15 21:02
    Originally posted by bill718
    Not a major surprise. The rich have been exploiting the poor for centuries. It normally follows 4 periods

    1. A massive gap between the rich and everyone else

    2. Uprisings (usually violent)

    3. A more even distribution of wealth

    4. A slow build up of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the masses

    And the cycle starts again

    Now we know what the future holds....
    Well that is not the pattern revealed by the data, as Piketty showed recently, and I am not sure where you think these revolutions were that turned the world on its head. In the 19th century, there was a massively unequal distribution of wealth, ignoring the USA where special conditions arose from the expansion into the west over two centuries, Those special conditions no longer apply. Elsewhere there was a very wealthy plutocracy owning at least 90% of all wealth. Economic growth was slow and uneven, contrary to popular opinion, and conditions favoured inherited wealth at the expense of initiative. In Britain and the USA, a commitment to repay national debt and maintain government budget surpluses held back economic development significantly. The growth there was came through imperialism in various forms, notably the "Rush for Africa" of the 1870s. The US sought growth abroad through direct imperialism (remember the Phillipines?) and the enforced opening of markets, notably the Chinese markets, to the advantage of the American corporations.

    In World War 1, a huge proportion of the world's wealth was destroyed and the same happened in World War 2. That hit the wealthy most and they lost their total domination of the world's political systems. Notice the destructive impact came through war and not through revolution, which followed the disaster of war in Russia after WW1, China after WW2. There was a period of vigorous economic growth in which wealth was to some extent redistributed, benefitting the middle class but not the less affluent 50%. Since the seventies, growth has slowed and conditions have again come to favour the wealthy at the expense of those seeking to earn their living. We are returning to a plutocratic distribution of wealth and income, our middle classes are shrinking dramatically, opportunity is increasingly concentrated on those who inherit wealth and privilige. This time around, the USA is very much within the same pattern and the "Anglo Saxon" economies are seeing a far more severe process of wealth oncentration than the social democracies to the extent that they retain at least some commitment to redistribution.

    Expect that your grandchildren will be unable to work their way out of relatively very modest means unless you are able to leave them a significant sum in your wills, which is not very likely for most people - for more than 90% of people, to be accurate.

    The good news? normbenign has discovered that all this economic research is deeply flawed and he is going to explain this to us soon, which will doubtless attract international attention since academic economists have been unable to demonstrate the flaws in Piketty's research.
  9. 14 Oct '15 23:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report

    "Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population-report"
    --Jill Treanor

    "The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich..."
    In the US it doesn't matter who gets elected, Democrat or Republican, the divide continues to grow. It is as if the two sides are working together. It is almost as if high ranking politicians become part of the super rich.

    Oh, that's because they do.

    Comments of course are based on the situation in the good ol' US of A.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Oct '15 15:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    In the US it doesn't matter who gets elected, Democrat or Republican, the divide continues to grow. It is as if the two sides are working together. It is almost as if high ranking politicians become part of the super rich.

    Oh, that's because they do.

    Comments of course are based on the situation in the good ol' US of A.
    As far as leaders go in the US, you get what you pay for.
  11. 15 Oct '15 15:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    As far as leaders go in the US, you get what you pay for.
    In this country you get what the Bilderberg group pays for.
  12. 15 Oct '15 17:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    In this country you get what the Bilderberg group pays for.
    I wonder what fraction of the Bilderberg group are 1%-ers.

    The chairman of their steering committee, who "lives on the Boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris, and his brother-in-law lives in the same building.[1] He spends his weekends in a castle in Anjou, and also spends one week a month in the United States.[1]"
    wikipedia
  13. 15 Oct '15 18:34
    Originally posted by bill718
    Not a major surprise. The rich have been exploiting the poor for centuries. It normally follows 4 periods

    1. A massive gap between the rich and everyone else

    2. Uprisings (usually violent)

    3. A more even distribution of wealth

    4. A slow build up of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the masses

    And the cycle starts again

    Now we know what the future holds....
    Ever read Animal Farm?
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    15 Oct '15 18:38
    Originally posted by JS357
    I wonder what fraction of the Bilderberg group are 1%-ers.

    The chairman of their steering committee, who "lives on the Boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris, and his brother-in-law lives in the same building.[1] He spends his weekends in a castle in Anjou, and also spends one week a month in the United States.[1]"
    wikipedia
    I think they all are. You can't get an invite unless you're a 1%er.
  15. 15 Oct '15 22:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I think they all are. You can't get an invite unless you're a 1%er.
    Here is a list of participants at the 2015 meeting:

    http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2015.html

    I wonder which one is "Eladar."

    And here is the agenda of that meeting. Climate change is missing. "Current economic Issues" might include economic inequality, perhaps discussing how to maximize it.

    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/press-release.html