Worlds richest 1% to own more than everyone else put together

purch

ging84 wrote: »

So many of those kids Bob Geldof was trying to feed in the 80s, are in their early 30s, and can have around 30 grand kids, none of who have 2 pennies to rub together.

Santim..........................

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The worlds richest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world's population combined.

If they gave it all away to the other 7 billion of us we'd all receive about £300.

Whoopee. :j

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

If they gave it all away to the other 7 billion of us we'd all receive about £300.

Whoopee. :j

Although a throw away point.... imagine how far that £300 would go in some countries. That £300 may be insignificant to you and us in the UK, but would be very significant to some living in 3rd world countries.

What could a family of 4 do with a £1,200 windfall in some areas of Africa? Quite a lot I'd imagine, especially if they grouped together in villages.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What could a family of 4 do with a £1,200 windfall in some areas of Africa? Quite a lot I'd imagine, especially if they grouped together in villages.

You're going to be in the top 2% or so of the world's wealthiest people. What's stopping you sending £1200 right now given the impact it could have?

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Although a throw away point.... imagine how far that £300 would go in some countries. That £300 may be insignificant to you and us in the UK, but would be very significant to some living in 3rd world countries.

What could a family of 4 do with a £1,200 windfall in some areas of Africa? Quite a lot I'd imagine, especially if they grouped together in villages.

Unfortunately the top 1% don't have the cash. They simply own assets worth trillions of $. So the family in Africa would own a small % of, say Microsoft. But they couldn't sell it because there would be no one to buy it after capitalism is abolished.

I know you believe taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will solve all our problems. In reality of course, it simply doesn't work.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You're going to be in the top 2% or so of the world's wealthiest people. What's stopping you sending £1200 right now given the impact it could have?

I already support two charities, one not involved in anything to do with Africa, the other one is.

But your point is a strawman, only posted because you thought it was somehow clever. I was responding to a posters specific statement.

I wasn't suggesting the rich give money away. I was replying to Rinoa's point that should they give away money....where he too presumably thought he was being cleverl, suggesting that £300 is nothing.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I already support two charities, one not involved in anything to do with Africa, the other one is.

But your point is a strawman. I was responding to a posters specific statement.

If you're in the top 1% you're as rich as croesus and should be sending wheelbarrows of money but drop into the top 2% and all you can afford is a few quid a year?

Most of these articles are follow a basic jealously theme - more of a concern that rich people are rich rather than poor people being poor. An easy way to indulge in some self righteous indignation. That must be what they are because I can't really see a link between Bill Gates being rich and most of Africa being poor.

ruggedtoast

Rinoa wrote: »

Unfortunately the top 1% don't have the cash. They simply own assets worth trillions of $. So the family in Africa would own a small % of, say Microsoft. But they couldn't sell it because there would be no one to buy it after capitalism is abolished.

I know you believe taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will solve all our problems. In reality of course, it simply doesn't work.

It would work for the poor. It depends what side of the fence you find yourself.

I dont think you will find many people in rural African crying their eyes out because they 've suddenly had their net worth multiplied by a factor of ten but Cheryl Cole has to start shopping at Lidl.

I cantr imagine myself caring much about that either.

Rinoa

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It would work for the poor. It depends what side of the fence you find yourself.

How well did it work for the Russian poor after their revolution, or the poor chinese under Chairman Mao.

They only improved living standards when they allowed capitalism to flourish again.

gadgetmind

padington wrote: »

The rich judge themselves by their neighbours. They play 'keep up with the Jones's' . If someone else has a lot more, they feel slightly inadequate.

If you read "The millionaire next door" you'll see that those who have the wealth *don't* tend to try and keep up with others, and the flashy ones who do, don't tend to have any real wealth.