It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 10:58 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the ideas of certain people, all the current issues are a ploy to prepare us for caving in to a Socialist dictatorship. Or something. I'm not quite sure, actually. Some minds are inscrutable in their insanity - not that I can talk.
edit on 18/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Lol. Touche.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: Staroth

What a load of pig #e.

The physical plant is still here. The resources are still here. The workers are still here. The infrastructure is still here. The people who actually buy and use a given product or service are still here.

They are nothing without us. We lose very little if they all just disappear.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:02 AM
But here's a question. We all here about and talk about the Illuminati or those rich families behind the scenes...the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds the Bushes etc. But those Guys never show up in any of the Richest people lists. Why is that?

Is it because they have money in corporations, Trust funds, S-Corps, LLCs and other investments and things that don't show up? Are there really Trillionaires on the planet that we can't see? How much of the worlds money do those guys have. Is there a secret wealth world where Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and George Soros and the Koch Brothers are mere peons and considered too poor to join these elite Wealth circles?

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:05 AM
To the OP: ... so what? They aren't hoarding it in money vaults and swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck.

How do the rich stay rich? Investing. What do they do with their riches? Spend it.

Who gets the money that rich people spend? Less rich people who create goods and perform services that the rich people like.

(Corrupt politicians perform services that rich people like.)

Meanwhile, de-regulation. That's a laugh in America. The only place that rich people will deposit their money is where regulations on money is lowest, if they want to stay rich.

Best way to get rich people's money in America? Lower the regulations on money in America.

This concludes this installment of common sense.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:40 AM
a reply to: Edumakated

Microsoft litigation

There's a reason both the US Government AND The EU filed lawsuits against M$

not to mention

Criticism of Microsoft

And as for your comment about M$ keeping people in work

While Microsoft's permanent workers enjoy some of the best corporate treatment, a large part of Microsoft's labor pool exists outside this privileged class. This includes the use of permatemp employees (employees employed for years as "temporary," and therefore without medical benefits), use of forced retention tactics, where departing employees would be sued to prevent departure, as well as more traditional cost-saving measures, ranging from cutting medical benefits, to not providing towels in company locker rooms.[45] Historically, Microsoft has also been accused of overworking employees, in many cases, leading to burnout within just a few years of joining the company. The company is often referred to as a "Velvet Sweatshop", a term which originated in a 1989 Seattle Times article,[46] and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees.[47] This characterization is derived from the perception that Microsoft provides nearly everything for its employees in a convenient place, but in turn overworks them to a point where it would be bad for their (possibly long-term) health. For example, the kitchenettes have free beverages and many buildings include exercise rooms and showers. However, the company has been accused of attempting to keep employees at the company for unreasonably long hours and working them too much. This is detailed in several books about Microsoft, including Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire.

Not the pretty picture you would like to paint for Microsoft now is it ?

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 11:57 AM
a reply to: woodwardjnr
They dont care about things to buy. They care about having power...unlimited. They care about owning politicians and making the law. They care about using adults and childrennfor sex objects and because they own the governments they know they will not be caught.

This is why they do what they do. They are insane and do not play by our rules.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:06 PM
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So why don't those rich people just pay the workers what their daily value of labor is if they don't care about the money and it's what you say it is...

You seem like your trying to talk us into liking this system why would you do that? Clearly it's not working...

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 01:57 PM
Oh Yes there is many trillions hidden awy in Jersey, BVI. Many, many dodgy organisations, sometimes so secretive even the solicitor doesnt know who the Trust belongs to. I know because I have seen extorniate amounts tied up in Trusts when I was in that field. Even when the FSC Regulations became more stringent. There is always a loop hole. Wouldnt be at all surprised if quite a few terrorist organisations have their billions tied up under the guise of a Trust Fund.a reply to: amazing

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:09 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Job creator myth? That's just silly. There's no way you can say what Microsoft has done hasn't directly and indirectly created millions of jobs across the globe in the last quarter century.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:11 PM

originally posted by: Staroth
a reply to: theantediluvian

And they are what keeps us all going. Without them and their money there would be no us. No food, no business, no cloths, no health care, nothing!

Their money is what keeps us all going. Without them, we could have their money, and we all could have the food, business, clothes, and health care what we need.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:22 PM
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Another restatement of the central supply-side economics postulate that money "trickles down" from the top. It amazes me how people latch onto this as though it's a fundamental law of some sort backed up with incontrovertible proof.

Consider this hypothetical:

I own a company called Von Neumann Robotics. At Von Neumann Robotics, we make robots for industrial automation. Our assembly line is composed of robot making robots. Now somebody had to build the first robot so my initial capital investment trickled down to and through the people who built Universal Constructor #1. From that point on however, my robots are busily making more robots. Aside from taxes, my only expenses are raw materials, electricity and distribution. Meanwhile, other rich folks are happily buying my robots to automate their assembly lines, thereby decreasing their own labor requirements. Perhaps I'm really innovative and I'm tired of the recurring expense of electricity and paying for raw materials. So I invest some of my billions in buying an iron mine in some extremely sunny locale and building a factory there.

I think you can see where this is going? Theoretically, I CAN automate my operation to the point that no human beings are required at all. At that point, aside from what I may or may not spend for my individual needs/wants, I'm not necessarily putting any money back into the economy and since I purchase all my goods and services from companies that are also my customers, they're able to provide me with what I want/need while they themselves are employing less people.

As stated, this is simply a hypothetical but it's not completely divorced from what's occurring in the real world. While automation hasn't quite reached a point where manufacturing is exclusively handled by robots, every year manufacturers manage to produce more with less human labor.

And that's just considering developments in manufacturing. Improvements in efficiency are reducing the need for human labor across the board and in the sectors where it isn't having as profound an effect — two examples that come immediately to mind are healthcare and education — prices are "rising" sharply compared to everything else. This is all without even getting into the financial sector and how wealth is effectively created out of nothing.

I think you're mistaking an outdated dogmatic misunderstanding for common sense.

edit on 2016-1-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:31 PM
These people should be rounded up and put in FEMA camps…There wealth confiscated and divided amongst us all!

We'd all be singing

Happy times are here again

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:33 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yeah , but they trickle it down to the rest of us.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:58 PM
Sensationalist title, but no substance.

The bottom half of the world lives in squalor. We're talking shanty-towns full of people without a penny to their name.

As an American who earns significantly less than the median income, my own net worth also dwarfs that of a person living in a third-world slum. How much of my paycheck should redistributed to othe nations' poor? Should I be ashamed of my spacious single bedroom apartment and 7-year old car, because not every person on the planet enjoys such opulent luxuries?

I get the idea OP won't be happy until every major city in the US has its own shanty-town suburb.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 03:01 PM
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

There's a difference between extremes.

If I give you a charlie horse, or I shoot you in the head with a high caliber elephant gun both is me attacking you. Would you call them equivalent harm?

Addendum: Oh and in case you didn't know, your wealth is the charlie horse and their is the damn elephant gun.

Just because they're both in the same category does not make them equivalent or deserving of being treated as equivalent.

No one's after your measly income. It's those who exist in extremes. Hell most of us have no issues with most millionaires.

Extremes are bad, M'kay?

Actually I take that back, those at the top would love to take your measly income the second they can manipulate someone to do the same job for less.
edit on 1/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 03:25 PM
Why do you care that someone else has more money than you?

Because you are starving?

Because although you have everything you need, you dont have everything you want?

Because they have more than you and its not fair!!!!

Personally, I dont care that some have an awful lot of money than I could ever imagine and most ATS posters have a lot more money than I do.

But I dont have a green eyed monster sitting on my shoulder.

I am happy. I have all I need.

Are you happy? And if not why ....?

Think about it

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 03:25 PM
a reply to: Puppylove
My point remains the same: there are always people who have more. Crying over the success of western society will not help the most impoverished people of the world. Shaming those who accumulate wealth will not help lift up those who have none.

Try shaming their corrupt and inept governments instead.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

If one person had all the wealth and we were all their slaves depending upon their good will for basic survival, would that be extreme enough a wealth gap for you to realize it's a problem? When is enough, enough?
edit on 1/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 03:38 PM
It's getting worse then.... I posted in a thread almost exactly TWO YEARS ago saying that

85 richest people as wealthy as half of the world's population

Here ya go...

So it's definitely getting worse... 23 less people, but still as rich as 3.5bn people.

Disgusting... can't believe that was 2 years ago.

edit on 18/1/16 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in