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

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Yes, how many lords per land, and how many lands in existence globally?

How many societies based on the feudal system?

NO WAY it's comparable to the situation we have today.

Absolutely NO WAY!!

It isn't? How? In all kingdoms in history, the king held absolute power. He could and would take and give away land at will. In Europe, for example you had a dozen rulers (roughly) comprised of two or three families that owned everything. The subject had nothing that couldn't be taken away by the king at whim.

NavyDoc
Actually, he has a point. In the feudal system, ALL of the wealth, not just a percentage of it, belonged to the lords. Land, animals, buildings, and even the peasants themselves. Those lords in turn were owned by the king. One can say that, in those systems, ALL of the wealth belonged to one person. It was not until the industrial revolution and the rise of the middle class that wealth spread beyond a few families.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

That is a very Western view of a global problem.
2nd

reply to post by NavyDoc


Is this not a eurocentric view?

What of the Americas?

What of Australia?

What of Africa?

What of the many lands around the world that were not subjugated by a ruling Kingdom?

Only within the last few centuries has the reach been so global by so few.

Regional, yes, global, NO!

peck420

beezzer
Kingdoms, realms, caliphates, have always controlled the worlds wealth.

The minority has always controlled the majority of the worlds wealth.

Now if you're going to bust my chops on that number being 85, then I must place the Hat of Silliness on you.

Define 'wealth'.

Now, define 'wealth' for each period.

Wealth? Money, gold, currency, property, valuables used to trade and/or negotiate.

Wealth now?

Cash money!

What if the majority used democracy to wage war against those 85 for crimes against humanity?

peck420

NavyDoc
Actually, he has a point. In the feudal system, ALL of the wealth, not just a percentage of it, belonged to the lords. Land, animals, buildings, and even the peasants themselves. Those lords in turn were owned by the king. One can say that, in those systems, ALL of the wealth belonged to one person. It was not until the industrial revolution and the rise of the middle class that wealth spread beyond a few families.

edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

That is a very Western view of a global problem.
2nd

The comment was "never before had so few controlled so much of the wealth." That is but one example that disproves the statement "never before." The Great Khan at one time owned almost all of Asia and good chunks of Europe. One guy.

beezzer
Wealth? Money, gold, currency, property, valuables used to trade and/or negotiate.

Wealth now?

Cash money!

Lol...interestingly enough, good steel would have been a much better sign of 'wealth' in most of Europe, for far longer.

Same with food, clean water, healthy livestock, etc, etc.

'Wealth' was situational, even for the West, really until industrialization, and situational for most of the world until WW2.

Didn't even become a global commonality until 1970..73, I think, I will have to look that one up.

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Is this not a eurocentric view?

What of the Americas?

What of Australia?

What of Africa?

What of the many lands around the world that were not subjugated by a ruling Kingdom?

Only within the last few centuries has the reach been so global by so few.

Regional, yes, global, NO!

edit on 21-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

So now you expanded it to the last few centuries, LOL. See my answer above.

During the height of the British empire, with one person ruling much of the earth, another ruling China, another empire (The Ottoman) that covered the middle east and a chunk of Europe and northern Africa, one could argue that the wealth of the world was held by a dozen people and/or their families. Isolated tribes in Africa and South America and SE Asia didn't control much wealth, so as a percentage of the world's wealth, one could argue that this wealth was controlled by a few.

peck420

beezzer
Wealth? Money, gold, currency, property, valuables used to trade and/or negotiate.

Wealth now?

Cash money!

Lol...interestingly enough, good steel would have been a much better sign of 'wealth' in most of Europe, for far longer.

Same with food, clean water, healthy livestock, etc, etc.

'Wealth' was situational, even for the West, really until industrialization, and situational for most of the world until WW2.

Didn't even become a global commonality until 1970..73, I think, I will have to look that one up.

Okay. Then my definition was wrong.

Not my statement, however.

ImaFungi
What if the majority used democracy to wage war against those 85 for crimes against humanity?

The first step would be to determine who did what "crimes" first. Simply being wealthy is only a crime in the minds of the envious and foolish.

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
What if the majority used democracy to wage war against those 85 for crimes against humanity?

The first step would be to determine who did what "crimes" first. Simply being wealthy is only a crime in the minds of the envious and foolish.

Well in a democracy of the people, cant the majority wage war? This happens all the time with America. Cant the country do what it wants, they are a much bigger risk to peace and prosperity and the pursuit of happiness then most people in jail or Edward Snowden. This situation is akin to if all of humanity was an island village of 1000 people, and there is one field on the island and it has 3000 cows, and everyone just wants to live and have their family and do the necessary work, and everyone for the most part is nice and friendly and peaceful, and one night 1 of the 1000 people goes out and kills every cow and hides all 3000 cows in a cave and vaults the door. Except in reality the numbers are more 1 person in a village of 35,294,117,647. I think that person is the devil and deserves death or at least eternal torture in hell. Its not their fault because its what the system, the game promotes and congratulates, yay they are winning, isnt that fun, so admirable. But yes the game and the system is of evil as well. From a state of unbiased intelligence, the wealth inequality of humans of earth is the most blatantly barbaric, savage, uncivilized thing that exists. Everything bad follows from it.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Expanded? Are you kidding me?

History has been going on for 10,000 years!

I condensed it into but a fraction of that.

Look at what beez originally said. This has been the case throughtout history. He actually thinks this to be true!!

You people are ridiculous.

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Expanded? Are you kidding me?

History has been going on for 10,000 years!

I condensed it into but a fraction of that.

Look at what beez originally said. This has been the case throughtout history. He actually thinks this to be true!!

You people are ridiculous.

Yup!

Still do, actually.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
What if the majority used democracy to wage war against those 85 for crimes against humanity?

The first step would be to determine who did what "crimes" first. Simply being wealthy is only a crime in the minds of the envious and foolish.

Well in a democracy of the people, cant the majority wage war? This happens all the time with America. Cant the country do what it wants, they are a much bigger risk to peace and prosperity and the pursuit of happiness then most people in jail or Edward Snowden. This situation is akin to if all of humanity was an island village of 1000 people, and there is one field on the island and it has 3000 cows, and everyone just wants to live and have their family and do the necessary work, and everyone for the most part is nice and friendly and peaceful, and one night 1 of the 1000 people goes out and kills every cow and hides all 3000 cows in a cave and vaults the door. Except in reality the numbers are more 1 person in a village of 35,294,117,647. I think that person is the devil and deserves death or at least eternal torture in hell. Its not their fault because its what the system, the game promotes and congratulates, yay they are winning, isnt that fun, so admirable. But yes the game and the system is of evil as well.

In a democracy, we have this thing known as "due process". If the people decided that the guy was a cow-murderer and just strung him up without evidence of a crime or a trial, they are just as evil as the man they purport to "punish." Just because a lot of people are envious of another or "feel" he is wicked is not evidence that they are either criminals or deserving of lynching or hellfire or whatever silly things mindlessness inspires in people. Tyranny of the mob is just as evil as tyranny of one...except perhaps the mob is a faceless and nameless mass where evil and cruel people can hide in anonymity whereas everyone knows who the tyrant of the one is.

reply to post by webedoomed




You actually cannot argue with those defending the wealth hoarders and justifying poverty.
It's so insane, so beyond comprehension, that you're better off banging your head against a wall.
These people are deluded.

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Expanded? Are you kidding me?

History has been going on for 10,000 years!

I condensed it into but a fraction of that.

Look at what beez originally said. This has been the case throughtout history. He actually thinks this to be true!!

You people are ridiculous.

In written history, going back that 10,000 years, wealth has been concentrated in royal families. That's the truth of the matter. Agreed that, perhaps in Neolithic times, hunter-gatherers didn't have nor measure wealth. But again, your incorrect statement was that "never before in history, has wealth been as concentrated as it is today" and this is false. I've given you several examples of when wealth was just as concentrated, if not more, than today. In fact, the average person now is better off than they were 500 years ago. Technology, democracy, and free markets have elevated everyone.

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi
What if the majority used democracy to wage war against those 85 for crimes against humanity?

The first step would be to determine who did what "crimes" first. Simply being wealthy is only a crime in the minds of the envious and foolish.

Well in a democracy of the people, cant the majority wage war? This happens all the time with America. Cant the country do what it wants, they are a much bigger risk to peace and prosperity and the pursuit of happiness then most people in jail or Edward Snowden. This situation is akin to if all of humanity was an island village of 1000 people, and there is one field on the island and it has 3000 cows, and everyone just wants to live and have their family and do the necessary work, and everyone for the most part is nice and friendly and peaceful, and one night 1 of the 1000 people goes out and kills every cow and hides all 3000 cows in a cave and vaults the door. Except in reality the numbers are more 1 person in a village of 35,294,117,647. I think that person is the devil and deserves death or at least eternal torture in hell. Its not their fault because its what the system, the game promotes and congratulates, yay they are winning, isnt that fun, so admirable. But yes the game and the system is of evil as well.

In a democracy, we have this thing known as "due process". If the people decided that the guy was a cow-murderer and just strung him up without evidence of a crime or a trial, they are just as evil as the man they purport to "punish." Just because a lot of people are envious of another or "feel" he is wicked is not evidence that they are either criminals or deserving of lynching or hellfire or whatever silly things mindlessness inspires in people. Tyranny of the mob is just as evil as tyranny of one...except perhaps the mob is a faceless and nameless mass where evil and cruel people can hide in anonymity whereas everyone knows who the tyrant of the one is.

No no, its not about envy, when its a matter of life or death the rules that protect the wrong doer no longer applies, the 1 person affecting negatively to the point of life and death,but a main focus on death, billions of people, those people have the natural right as life craving creatures, to destroy the source of their suffering. Be it the person and the system.

reply to post by stargatetravels


Do people on here ACTUALLY believe that the wealth of those 85 is CASH ???????

wmd_2008
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Do people on here ACTUALLY believe that the wealth of those 85 is CASH ???????

Cash and cars. Maybe those collectible plates we used to get at the gas station as well.

wmd_2008
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Do people on here ACTUALLY believe that the wealth of those 85 is CASH ???????

Do you actually believe that is of any significance compared to what is actually of significance in this conversation?