It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: stevieray
People who work hard will always earn more of them than people who aren't capable, or who are too lazy.


Enough of that 'hard work' myth. That's bullchit.

Some of the hardest working people I know are on minimum wage.



Totally agree man.

There is ZERO correlation between hard work and how much money you make, how hard you work, and how intelligent you are.

I've met extremely intelligent and hard working people who have been in the same position for years. Many of them.

You have to be totally naive to believe that mythology.




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Wasn't there a group that was outraged about this in 2011? "Inhabit Roof Ave."? No, that's not right...



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I think I have more money than 25% of the world since they do not have a buck to their name...lol



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What I find sad is you think it's funny and a laughing matter.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove

What I find sad is you think it's funny and a laughing matter.


Well it is because you all blame all your problems on the super rich. Screw them, they might as well be on Mars. Divide 1 trillion by 7 billion and it comes out to 142 bucks per person. Who cares.
edit on 20-1-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Which, as you so tacitly pointed out, is far, far more than what 25% of the planet's population needs to survive on. Would they would care?
Or do they not matter anyway, because they don't have money? How curious.

Our planet and technology is easily capable of supporting our current population quite comfortably. It is the greed and arrogance of humanity that stifles that goal. Sixty two men should not hold more value than 3.5 billion people.
"What's yours is mine. What's mine is mine. Mine. Mine. Mine."

edit on 20/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Not to mention one trillion dollars is nothing with their pocketbooks combined. They split that trillion between them, they'll still be individually richer than many countries liquidated.
edit on 1/20/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Puppylove

What I find sad is you think it's funny and a laughing matter.


Well it is because you all blame all your problems on the super rich. Screw them, they might as well be on Mars. Divide 1 trillion by 7 billion and it comes out to 142 bucks per person. Who cares.


Yeah who cares! Didn't those losers work hard enough in high school to become computer programmers like everyone else?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kenodinks
a reply to: Honcho

Isn't this how socialism starts?


To some extent yes. But how exactly is that a bad thing? Sure, hardcore socialist states haven't panned out that well, but America already has socialist principles built into it. It's been that way for some time now. Much like most advanced societies out there. There are many snippets of ideology our country was founded on that have undertones of socialism.

Are things such as free healthcare and college for all evil ideas? Of course not. There's no reason why we shouldn't have a healthy and educated society. It will only increase the welling being of the country as a whole. That's the entire purpose of having a government in the first place. We intrust that they look out for us, and make our lives, and country, a better place. And that's surely not happening right now at all. And it's getting even worse by each passing day.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Repeating this link here:

Oxfam's Misleading Inequality Numbers


1) The methodology Oxfam used implies there are more poor people in North America than in China.


And adding these:

Oxfam’s misleading wealth statistics


The weird thing is that triangle in the top left hand corner. If you look at the tables in the Credit Suisse datebook, China has zero people in the bottom 10% of the world population: everybody in China is in the top 90% of global wealth, and the vast majority of Chinese are in the top half of global wealth. India is on the list, though: if you’re looking for the poorest 10% of the world’s population, you’ll find 16.4% of them in India, and another 4.4% in Bangladesh. Pakistan has 2.6% of the world’s bottom 10%, while Nigeria has 3.9%.

But there’s one unlikely country which has a whopping 7.5% of the poorest of the poor — second only to India. That country? The United States.

How is it that the US can have 7.5% of the bottom decile, when it has only 0.21% of the second decile and 0.16% of the third? The answer: we’re talking about net worth, here: assets minus debts. And if you add up the net worth of the world’s bottom decile, it comes to minus a trillion dollars. The poorest people in the world, using the Credit Suisse methodology, aren’t in India or Pakistan or Bangladesh: they’re people like Jérôme Kerviel, who has a negative net worth of something in the region of $6 billion.



Oxfam’s claims on inequality are misleading



10 per cent of the world’s poorest reside in America and around 20 per cent of the world’s poorest reside in Europe, but virtually none of the world’s poorest live in China (See figure 1).

A young investment banker with student debts is deemed one of the poorest people in the world. However, a rural farmer in India with minimal savings is considered richer than the young investment banker.

Once debts have been subtracted, a person needs only $3,210 to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Living on a "Tax Haven Island" our government is always crying about funding... money this.. money that... our island is a huge finance center, Guernsey I'm talkin' about, but there's not enough money to repair damaged school swimming pools, it's the tax payers who are currently giving money and providing their trade, our government says they haven't enough money, so our citizens have bonded together to fix this pool.. if being a tax haven made us so much money, surely we'd be able to fix a school swimming pool right? No.

I mean the rothschilds have an "Private International Bank" over here, also a "Wealth management and Trust" company, yet our government expects it's citizens to clean up the mess they've made, we're as broke as the rest of you are, here our cost of living is very high, our rent is out of proportion, there's no activities for kids, the island purely focuses on finance and tourism and it's a complete failure, so with us having many celebrities hiding money here, it just makes me think... why, this island obviously isn't getting any benefit from it.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
If only that were true. They are behind the people who write tax laws that effect us all. Look how political the Kochs are and the walmarts,hobby lobby's etc.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: stevieray

So senselessly squandering our resources is definitely the right idea!

Why can't we make most of our products out of hemp?

This literally has nothing to do with anything that's been said in the entire thread.

I'm all for hemp, and legalization of marijuana.

But this has zero to do with combating sloth, theft, and fraud among the lazy of society.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: stevieray

Considering many chocolate factories use child slave labor to produce their goods. I don't think Marx or most people would wonder why production ceased when the slaves were liberated. But hey, you're for the slave masters over the child slave labor, right? As long as that chocolate keeps getting produced who cares about the living conditions or rights of those doing the work.

Yes, my whole stance is based on just loving child slave labor. You caught me. Dang.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Xtrozero
If only that were true. They are behind the people who write tax laws that effect us all. Look how political the Kochs are and the walmarts,hobby lobby's etc.

Yeah, look at how much economic activity, how many jobs, how many hospitals and community programs these bad, bad people have created. For shame.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Xtrozero

What I find sad is you think it's funny and a laughing matter.

I think it's hilarious. Oh the sadness. If one can't become apoplectic and catatonic about somebody being rich.....maybe me being happy and amused and enjoying life......will do the trick.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: stevieraySocialism and communism is all about growing that to include giving everything to everybody,


So, even if that WERE true - what's wrong with everybody having everything?


For starters, that isn't possible. There isn't enough of everything for everybody.

In declaring it as your goal, since it isn't an attainable one, all efforts will necessarily affect things in ways that you didn't intend.

lol, it always ends up the same in every socialist / communist paradise. They run out of free stuff at a 30% tax rate, so they raise it to 50%. They run out of stuff again at 50, raise it to 70. Same same....raise it to 90.

Run out again....everybody starves and revolts.....collectivists say "huh wuh wut went wrong ?"

It's only happened in USSR, west germany, romania, cuba, venezuela, vietnam, north korea, china, etc.

But gee, that shouldn't stop us from starving another country to try it again....should it ?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

90% tax rate... Now, where have I heard that one before.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: stevieray
marx would kill all the owners and operators of the chocolate factories, and wonder why they didn't run themselves when the phase of everybody's / everything/s perfect love came about. I think this happened in South Africa, lol.


Marx was dead long before the first Communist revolution. I'm not sure why you're even talking about Marx except that most people are programmed to believe a set of false dichotomies — e.g. capitalism vs communism — as though there are no other options. There's also a dogmatic belief bordering on religious that capitalism is the end all of economic systems and any problems with the economy could be fixed if we strip away all government intervention to get to the unadulterated "pure capitalism" of "unregulated free markets" operating according to a set of immutable natural laws.

This is all nonsense. Everything around us is constantly evolving and there's every reason to believe that global economies will necessarily change in tandem with everything else, particularly technological progress.

In my opinion, with some augmentation to our employment paradigm, capitalism can remain viable for several more generations but if we don't do anything at all, we're going to sooner or later death spiral into economic collapse.


You really said "what does marx have to do with this"......yes, you did say that.

If it takes 10-20 generations for capitalism to somehow theoretically fail in the future, I think I'll still stick with it over collectivism, which has been proven every time to fail in one or two generations.

Don't take my word for it. Interview a north korean. Ask them how much fun the magical equality and fairness has been for them.



new topics




 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join