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

[Deleted User]

wotsthat wrote: »

If you're in the top 1% you're as rich as croesus

More or Less covered this recently on Radio 4, you need total assets of just £500,000 to join the 1% club, so there will be plenty on this forum who are members. A house and a pension fund will put you well on the way.

gadgetmind

And here is another view of the report.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/19/oxfams-whining-again-the-top-1-will-own-50-of-everything/

tincans6

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is this a problem? I have my views, and I'd say it is. However, I'm not entirely sure what can be done about it.

Its a good question, but who can be surprised by the moronic level of debate on here - "Oooh why don't you donate £300 to a family in Africa then".

1) We know that at some point of inequality, then total economic growth wont be at an optimum (the same applies to a perfectly equal society). The analogy would be with high marginal tax rates.

2) We know that at high levels of inequality, that economic power begets political power - see Russia or South America.
As the apostle of capitalism Adam Smith said. "Wealth is Power".
The more unequal a society is, the more the elite fix the rules & laws to their own benefit.

3) High levels of inequality miss-allocate resources to trivial endeavors.
Its nice to have the pyramids now (if you like that sort of thing), but probably not great for the poor suckers enslaved into building them.
I doubt if the Sochi Olympic area investment was the most worthwhile use of investment in Russia.

What we don't know is how much of say the UK wealth inequality is the result of a mirage of property prices (like Japan pre late 1980's).

We do know that wealth inequality is increasing much faster in the UK than our GDP is increasing - which suggests that it is not just a bigger pie that is creating this disparity but the richest are grabbing a larger slice too & hogging the gravy.

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

Its a good question, but who can be surprised by the moronic level of debate on here -

.....

We do know that wealth inequality is increasing much faster in the UK than our GDP is increasing - which suggests that it is not just a bigger pie that is creating this disparity but the richest are grabbing a larger slice too & hogging the gravy.

yes indeed.................

cells

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.

The reason $1 is worth so much more than $1 in those extremely poor nations is simply because there is no capital inflow to said nations. If there was an attempt to flow eg 100% of their gdp into saod nations (about equal to the £300 per head) you would find $1 doesn't quite buy what $1 does now.

i think you would get a more accurate realisation of impact if you though....how much stuff can $500 buy in America and then ship that would to said poor people. Eg it might buy two pairs of shoes pants jumpers and a months food.

Much much better would be for the west to build for free the poor nations an electricity grid and fund for them domestic coal or gas to feed said power stations and let them get on with it. With electricity comes development and wealth. No amount of aid could have enriched china in 1980 but its investment in infrastructure (and especially electricity) allowed it to enrich itself

cells

Rinoa wrote: »

Unfortunately the top 1% don't have the cash. They simply own assets worth trillions ofitl$. 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.

Exactly the asset value is a poor guage of how much wealth can be extracted or produced from x.

Its better to look at dividends or income returns for what is possible. eg FTSE 100 might be worth £200B but its real wealth usable is the dividends of some £5B a year

by that metric some wealth is almost worthless as a way to try and 'redistribute'. Eg a house might be £200m but its rental yeild might only be £20k a month. A piece of art might be $250m yet its yeild or true return $0 (or however many people are willing to pay a single dollar to see it in a museum)

gadgetmind

tincans6 wrote: »

3) High levels of inequality miss-allocate resources to trivial endeavors.
Its nice to have the pyramids now (if you like that sort of thing)

Are you thinking of Maslow's Pyramid?

padington

gadgetmind wrote: »

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.

If you watch 'super rich and us' on BBC iplayer you'll see a Russian billionaire talking lucidly about how the rich Russians are as competitive with each other in regards to their billions as anyone else is with their peers or neighbours.

Many people with 5 million aspires to be as rich as the 100 million boys and the 100 million boys aspire to be multi billionaires.

Also if you watch the programme about necker island on iplayer they talk about how much talk there is trying to work out who is who and how super rich everyone is.

People dont get to the point in life and give up the thing that has been driving them, usually they just keep on going, unless they have a spiritual epiphany or lose their energy. From what I've seen in life anyway.

gadgetmind

padington wrote: »

If you watch 'suoer rich and us' on BBC iplayer

Um, no thanks.

And I wasn't talking about the uber-rich, just those who've gained wealth through hard work and not being "flash Harrys".

padington

gadgetmind wrote: »

Um, no thanks.

And I wasn't talking about the uber-rich, just those who've gained wealth through hard work and not being "flash Harrys".

You were talking about what I was talking about and I was talking about the 'obscene' rich. All I'm saying is people set goals and follow them. Some people make a bit of money from their proffesional and are happy with proffesional or marital success. If the aim is a nice house and family or to write a good book or build a good house you can get to that point if you are lucky. The whales of finance though are driven by having more money tomorrow than today, those guys just keep going because money is numbers and numbers are infinite.