Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

So much for the American dream (which is a fallacy, Western European countries offer a higher rate of social upward mobility than the US). How did this happen? Why do people still support untempered capatilism when clearly it is making the rich richer and the poor poorer? This isn't new. Scott Fitzgerald addressed this in the 20's in The Great Gatsby (and it hasn't been mentioned since in US literature). Communism, Socialism and now even Liberal are dirty words. We have been brainwashed to love our masters.

Oh, and I think this belongs in the political conspiracy forums because that is exactly what it is. It is perhaps the oldest political conspiracy.

you left out the other part

the bottom 50% of the population hold only 1% of the planet's wealth

the problem is that people are unwilling to give up comforts in exchange for an uplifting of humanity

60 views and one reply. No wonder we're all getting shafted.

The article is potentially very, VERY misleading. Without knowing a true dollar figure for what the top 2% earns, it is impossible to know what the real situation is. An example? Suppose the top 2% is worth $1 trillion each. How much does that make the remaining 98% worth each? About $20 million.

Granted, this is an extreme example, but it perfectly illustrates why a person should be very, very skeptical when presented only with percentages.

The likely reality of the situation? The top 2% probably has a net worth closer to $400,000. This is not the world's elite we are talking about. 2% of the world's population is 120 MILLION people. And that $400,000 includes cars, houses, bank accounts, the $250 stuffed under the mattress...everything (note that this is NET worth; remaining mortgages, credit card payments and other debts must be deducted). The remaining 98% are worth about $8,000 in this scenario.

Stop thinking technical and start thinking how you would do it. In the day's of Ford and other big corporation's they had monoplized the market. The money is already in their hands. before labor laws. and after there was no money or market share being taken away. They just chnage the name of their companies.

This is so scewed because of under-developed 3rd world countries and backward Muslim countries. If more of the world copied the United States capatalistic system, the result of this study would be more balanced.

Blaming the United States in this case is not justified.

Capitalism is the only way to get better results!

real wealth is hidden.

Rockefeller's, rothschilds, bush family, the queen of England, some other queen i forget who. but yeah real wealth is hidden in companies

Rothschild's are supposedly worth 300 trillion. they own a lot of stuff.
same as the Rockefeller's. Bush family owns a couple oil tankers not to mention some oil companies. they all are in with the Carlyle group who owns tones of crap. seriously look into their investments and who runs the company who are the major share holders.

the rabbit hole is deeper then you think.

just look at this. www.cjr.org...

Originally posted by RRconservative
This is so scewed because of under-developed 3rd world countries and backward Muslim countries. If more of the world copied the United States capatalistic system, the result of this study would be more balanced.

Blaming the United States in this case is not justified.

Capitalism is the only way to get better results!

capitalism requires ZERO-SUM economics
if someone gets richer
someone else has to get poorer

why?
because we only have so much in terms of resources

the problem is that corporations in the united states have taken advantage of as many countries as they could

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


capitalism requires ZERO-SUM economics
if someone gets richer
someone else has to get poorer

why?
because we only have so much in terms of resources

the problem is that corporations in the united states have taken advantage of as many countries as they could

Then how come the United States has the "richest" poor people in the world?

Capitalism is not Zero-sum. Think of it as a pie-chart, instead of the pie-chart getting spit into more pieces, the pie actually gets bigger.

Capitalism (and with that I mean the extreme) is ultimately about cornering the market and gaining a monopoly at the cost of the competition and the customers.

Everything should be in moderation...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


capitalism requires ZERO-SUM economics
if someone gets richer
someone else has to get poorer

why?
because we only have so much in terms of resources

the problem is that corporations in the united states have taken advantage of as many countries as they could

So if Capitalist me bakes fifty pies and sells them in the open market and I make $50. Then someone becomes poorer because of my pie baking?

Then if lots of people around the world like my pies and I become a big fat corperation selling my pies to all the people in the world that want my pies I am taking advantage of those countries?

Do people not have a choice of who they buy from? Or does the left not like giving their people choices?

And when I build a factory in a country that likes my pies and employs lots of people to make those pies I’m just a greedy Capitalist?

This is all thanx to the Phederal Reserve...

you guys don't understand teh concept of capitalism being done in teh US, pleae read teh thread "Military strength of russia(and compared to other countries", the last page has a lot about Capitalism. also there's the thread "the American Grand strategy" might eb a good read about capitalism. the real way to go is socialism. people in the weszst are so blinded by propaganda, and think that socialism is that the government owns everything and puts everybody to wrok in whatever place they want, all that BS, when it's really not. just read thos two threads and you'll understand. there's also a thread for me somewhere in PTS on the socialist forum, it's title is something like "Communism and socialism: two very different things!" read that and you'll understand the difference, and how socialism is really the way to go. please do not answer this post until you've read at least some of the threads i've posted, do not answer me with the carefully constructed "truths" made up by western Propaganda.... or you could say World Propaganda if you want since most people of the world are blinded to what communism adn socialism really are, they don't even know what Capitalism is....

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

capitalism requires ZERO-SUM economics
if someone gets richer
someone else has to get poorer

why?
because we only have so much in terms of resources

If I write a song, and you buy a copy of it, paid for with crops you grew, how is that a zero sum game?

Next year, you can grow more corn, and I can cut another album. So how did either of us get poorer? the CD you bought is worth what you can get for it--but you're not "poorer" because of it. You have a higher quality of life than your neighbor does.

Free Enterprise is about baking a bigger pie, not fighting over the scraps.


The real reason the Canada and the US lead the world in owning stuff is because their worker productivity is the highest on the planet. So their workers get paid more, and buy more stuff. American productivity is approaching nearly $40 an hour. Meaning that American workers generate proportionaly more wealth, AND, a disproportionate share of the "global domestic product."

This little study has some interesting info: www.ecb.int...

France and USA are at the top of the productivity index, the the USA leads all of the EU countries listed in terms of average number of hours worked per worker. (As a side note, it looks like the national economy in Finland is totally exploding---an interesting thought for investors.)

The poorest nations all share one thing--whether it's Haiti, or Liberia, or tanzania---their productivity is stagnant.


Basically, the rich get richer by a geometrical progression. They are busy making "their" side of the the pie bigger. So, even if their wedge doesn't get wider, it has more and more material in it.

.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If I write a song, and you buy a copy of it, paid for with crops you grew, how is that a zero sum game?

Then your providing a non essential service and it's likely that some poor half starved person somewhere in the world did the labour that made it possible... Remember that the net flow of resources between the west and the third world is massively in favour of the west and not as result of choices the third world ever freely made...

Next year, you can grow more corn, and I can cut another album. So how did either of us get poorer? the CD you bought is worth what you can get for it--but you're not "poorer" because of it. You have a higher quality of life than your neighbor does.

The subsidy on US agricultural produce is as far as i remember the highest in the world and your in fact probably giving him the album for free considering the taxes you pay to help him grow. It would have to be a real good album to raise his quality of living btw.

Free Enterprise is about baking a bigger pie, not fighting over the scraps.

That would explain why so many dozens of third world nations are getting ever poorer to enrich the first world? The whole idea that the pie 'simple gets bigger' , especially under the current energy paradigm, is a illusion so that western people may think that they are solely responsible for their relative wealth.

The real reason the Canada and the US lead the world in owning stuff is because their worker productivity is the highest on the planet.

Actually your abusing those numbers rather badly as i remember understanding that Americans simply work on average more of the hours they are getting paid for ( due to more efficient oversight or lax labour laws?) thus resulting in more 'productivity' , as in dollars they earn for their employer, per hour paid. Now i don't trust this statistics to start with as blue collar manufacturing and production jobs are moving to Eastern Euro, SEA, China , South America and Africa. Why would all the real jobs be moved to such places if western workers were so productive? It does not in fact make sense at all.

I would suggest we consider those numbers with great skepticism if at all and note that American works now work the longest hours of workers in the Industrialized world probably contributing to any accuracy there might be left in that notion. Certainly the fact that Americans own ' so much stuff' is largely due to the way their ancestors went about stealing an entire continent with natural riches that few other nations have in such bounty.

So their workers get paid more, and buy more stuff.

This makes no sense as it assumes a contradiction? How can American workers be the most productive workers in the world and receive the highest wages to buy the most 'stuff' with? Productivity is a measure of the workers worth to his employer ( under the current energy paradigm; it can be changed) and the more of the workers labour is returned to his hands the less 'productive' he becomes to his employer hence the reason why manufacturing jobs have moved to other countries.

American productivity is approaching nearly $40 an hour. Meaning that American workers generate proportionaly more wealth, AND, a disproportionate share of the "global domestic product."

Then, once again, why is the real jobs moving to other nations where people will work for less pay simply to survive? How come the minimum wage in the USA is 5-6 USD if the average American worker earns his employer 40 USD per hour? I can not understand how the math was done but does this not make the average American worker a bit of a fool? Is a return on labour investment of 15% really the way the world should work and how on Earth can American afford the riches they do based on those kinds of salaries? It's not the whole story and you should look deeper...

This little study has some interesting info: www.ecb.int...

The bigger the better imo.

France and USA are at the top of the productivity index,

The French supposedly works the fewest hours of workers in the industrialized nations so once again i am left wondering how the math is done? How can Americans who work the longest hours be about as productive as the French who works least? Why are both focusing on service economies while manufacturing and essential industries goes elsewhere? Who does the real work and how little must they get paid if others live so well?

the the USA leads all of the EU countries listed in terms of average number of hours worked per worker. (As a side note, it looks like the national economy in Finland is totally exploding---an interesting thought for investors.)

So now it's a good thing that Americans are most productive per hour with such low minimum wages and yet still work the longest hours? What is there to be proud about and where does the real wealth come from?

The poorest nations all share one thing--whether it's Haiti, or Liberia, or tanzania---their productivity is stagnant.

Actually i would argue they that they earn their employers possibly the same return on labour but just get far less back hence their poverty... Why are all the real working jobs ( i have actually worked with shovel and such and sitting behind a desk is not 'work' imo) going (far) east or west or South? What does the work the so called work westerners do have to do with how high their standards of living are? Why are so many getting ever poorer as the rich get richer? You say this is not a Zero-sum situation?

Basically, the rich get richer by a geometrical progression. They are busy making "their" side of the the pie bigger. So, even if their wedge doesn't get wider, it has more and more material in it.

A very nice nicely cultivated delusion to assure the complicity of the western workers while their various governments pillages the third world nations for their wealth and labour energy. I must ask again; What does labour productivity have to do with the relative quality of life of the worker? Do you think sweat shops in Indonesia is not more productive for the owners than sweat shops in the USA would be? Why are such VERY productive slave workers in the East not experiencing such relatively high quality of life as those workers in Western Europe?

I would not be surprised to find this paper in the archives of every neo-nazi/KKK webpage and funnily i just observed that the study was done/sponsored by the European Central Bank with the Address:

Address
Kaiserstrasse 29
60311 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

If i noticed that before i made the neo-Nazi comment it would have probably edited it out, for possible bias, but since i only discovered who the study sponsors were afterwards i will leave it as possible food for thought...

Anyone who really believes that poor people are so because they do less work, or work less efficiently in terms of production, will frequently run into me openly disagreeing with this borderline racist notions.

Stellar