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.

 

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

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


How many indigenous tribes exist today, vs a century ago, vs 5 centuries ago, vs 2 millenia ago.

You are providing a western re-educated statement that is absolutely false.

How many people were in control of the Americas before the Europeans arrived?

That alone destroys your reasoning in it's entirety.

There is no way in hell you can honestly tell me that civilization was so widespread today, as it was centuries, and millenias ago.

There were far more tribes, bands, and groupings where the power was decentralized.

Your view is absolutely false. I will not back down to your propaganda.




posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

wmd_2008
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


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


Doesn't matter what the actual wealth is.

All that matters is that (since 1973) it can be converted into a globally accepted USD equivalent.

Which is also why this has never happened before in the history of mankind. Very hard to equate a persons wealth into globally accepted fiscal terms...long before globally accepted fiscal terms ever existed.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

NavyDoc
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.


You're not even close.

The closest the world has ever been to this level of concentration would be in a range of hundreds of thousands of poor to 1 wealthy.

Right now it is millions of poor to 1 wealthy.

In the near future it will be billions of poor to 1 wealthy.

As the technology advances, the concentration increases...which is why this is a first. Just as the next stage will be a first.
edit on 21-1-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


How many indigenous tribes exist today, vs a century ago, vs 5 centuries ago, vs 2 millenia ago.

You are providing a western re-educated statement that is absolutely false.

How many people were in control of the Americas before the Europeans arrived?

That alone destroys your reasoning in it's entirety.

There is no way in hell you can honestly tell me that civilization was so widespread today, as it was centuries, and millenias ago.

There were far more tribes, bands, and groupings where the power was decentralized.

Your view is absolutely false. I will not back down to your propaganda.


Not even that, but none of history matters. Everyone alive right now, are the people that are a live right now, on the cutting edge, the constantly turning page of history, the highest level of science and intelligence and knowledge mankind has ever known, the highest potential for well being and comfortable living standards, none of history matters when we have the power to create our present and futures destiny. These arguments of how things used to be are a distraction, there used to be slaves, are you upset there was revolution about that as well? The people on that same side of the argument should feel just as ashamed when posterity agrees with us. These conversations could be in history e books of the future! Our collective actions certainly will be.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Fungi, where are you?

We have progressed IN SPITE of the huge financial inequalities. This is due to technology.

Where do you get that I'm against a revolution to free slaves?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

ImaFungi

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.


Certainly someone who does wrong should be punished, but simply having wealth is not evidence of wrongdoing. You have to prove wrongdoing and crimes before you punish someone. How many people did J. K. Rowling hurt to earn her billions? What crimes against humanity did she commit? Oprah is one of the richest women in the world at 2.9 billion dollars. What crimes against humanity did she cause apart from her crappy show?
edit on 21-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

peck420

wmd_2008
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


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


Doesn't matter what the actual wealth is.

All that matters is that (since 1973) it can be converted into a globally accepted USD equivalent.

Which is also why this has never happened before in the history of mankind. Very hard to equate a persons wealth into globally accepted fiscal terms...long before globally accepted fiscal terms ever existed.


Actually it DOES because it's the total value of the assets of their BUSINESSES which guess what may actually put a roof over the head of members on here either directly because they are employed by one of these people or the company the work for provides products or services for those companies!!!!!
edit on 21-1-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
First of all there should be noone on earth starving. Necessities of life should be a priority, as they are to all people. If necessities of life were a focus noone would be starving, because you would figure with this much technology and this many people, the more people the better! The more people thats more food to plant and harvest, thats more materials to collect and use to build homes and clothing, the more people the easier life should be! No, because our abstract economy is now no longer based on necessities and living life, it is based on higher and higher levels of complexity (a psuedo subconscious form of Darwinian evolution, where the higher classes wind these intricate pathways of society and culture and immaterial 'economic paradigm' like girraffes growing longer necks to reach higher food, the higher ups are competing with each other, there academia and increasingly abstract forms of making themselves richer which directly whether conscious or not makes the poor poorer, and this makes a game of keep away the life from the poor, its a race, a game to make life gratifying for those that were born into the already comfortable and simple life, I know all this stuff, yea the poor person does my plumbing and grows and picks my food, and builds my house, but I know all these numbers and can cheat old people out of money on the stock market) that yea, make it harder and harder for the poor to assimilate. It is disgusting, that billions of people struggle just to live, just to live, that is what life is about, and these people are happy about it, these people think there is something wrong with them, these people think they dont deserve to live.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


How many indigenous tribes exist today, vs a century ago, vs 5 centuries ago, vs 2 millenia ago.

You are providing a western re-educated statement that is absolutely false.

How many people were in control of the Americas before the Europeans arrived?

That alone destroys your reasoning in it's entirety.

There is no way in hell you can honestly tell me that civilization was so widespread today, as it was centuries, and millenias ago.

There were far more tribes, bands, and groupings where the power was decentralized.

Your view is absolutely false. I will not back down to your propaganda.


And roving bands of hunter gatherers had wealth? How? The "controlled the continent?" How? Even in those microcosms known as tribes, the power was usually centralized into a single individual known as "chief" who often ruled the tribe with strength. Your undergraduate fantasy of everyone in the tribe acting like a collective with shared control and a sort of democracy is laughably false. They were small kingdoms, in and of themselves.

The historical record backs me up quite nicely. You are the one who shuffles goalposts around like a three-card monty player. I'm sorry if the facts of the matter do not support your ideology.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

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.


Certainly someone who does wrong should be punished, but simply having wealth is not evidence of wrongdoing. You have to prove wrongdoing and crimes before you punish someone. How many people did J. K. Rowling hurt to earn her billions? What crimes against humanity did she commit? Oprah is one of the richest women in the world at 2.9 billion dollars. What crimes against humanity did she cause?


Its the collective acceptance of the system, which insures and perpetuates an staggeringly massive and increased number of impoverished and exploited humans. The people with the most money are to blame because they have the most power to change the system. Intelligence dictates the system should not be as it is because if half the population in poverty is a problem (I think it is) what is causing the problem needs to be changed. For the richest people in the world, for anyone in the world to claim humanity and intelligence to not see it as a problem and be aboard to finding a solution/s they are wrong. And I also believe there should be a cap on how much money an individual can obtain.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


then, once again I am saying this, you don't solve those problems by taking money.

People need to change.

Not who's name is on a bank statement.

People need to realize this. People need to be aware. People's mindsets need to change.

Simply taking the wealth from someone and giving it to someone else will NOT solve the problems we now face.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Let's consider what you say to be true.

That each tribe had a king, how many tribes were there?

Again, half the world's pot into 85 people has NEVER happened on the planet and YOU KNOW IT!!

Growing Economic Disparity

Of particular note, look halfway down to the chart which shows the income of the top 1% and top 1/2% percent.

Notice how we're reaching levels not seen since the 1920's-1930's time period.

Guess what kind of tax was introduced to redistribute the wealth, and look at where that brought us!

90%. We taxed the richest 90%. I'm not advocating that, but to think that we're somehow gouging those who have gained the most over the last few decades, as absolutely ridiculous.

Things have NOT always been this way, they DO cycle back and forth, and we're IN THE RIGHT to call out such extreme disparities that exist today, much as was done in the past.

History is not static, it ebbs and flows.
edit on 21-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


That would only be a valid comparison, if all the chiefs were living in a big fancy hut, eating all the food the rest of the tribe gathered, while the tribe starved and had no place to live. That was not the case at all, and in many tribes, the chief was chief because he was the best hunter, so it wasn't like he was just sitting around on his ass all day.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


then, once again I am saying this, you don't solve those problems by taking money.

People need to change.

Not who's name is on a bank statement.

People need to realize this. People need to be aware. People's mindsets need to change.

Simply taking the wealth from someone and giving it to someone else will NOT solve the problems we now face.


Both wouldnt hurt.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

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.


Certainly someone who does wrong should be punished, but simply having wealth is not evidence of wrongdoing. You have to prove wrongdoing and crimes before you punish someone. How many people did J. K. Rowling hurt to earn her billions? What crimes against humanity did she commit? Oprah is one of the richest women in the world at 2.9 billion dollars. What crimes against humanity did she cause?


Its the collective acceptance of the system, which insures and perpetuates an staggeringly massive and increased number of impoverished and exploited humans. The people with the most money are to blame because they have the most power to change the system. Intelligence dictates the system should not be as it is because if half the population in poverty is a problem (I think it is) what is causing the problem needs to be changed. For the richest people in the world, for anyone in the world to claim humanity and intelligence to not see it as a problem and be aboard to finding a solution/s they are wrong. And I also believe there should be a cap on how much money an individual can obtain.


SO other than some sort of ideological stance, you don't have any specific "crimes" with which to charge these people. Again, I ask you directly. What crimes did J. K. Rowling commit that she deserves to have hear wealth stripped from her and "burn in hell" as you put it?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Let's consider what you say to be true.

That each tribe had a king, how many tribes were there?

Again, half the world's pot into 85 people has NEVER happened on the planet and YOU KNOW IT!!

Growing Economic Disparity

Of particular note, look halfway down to the chart which shows the income of the top 1% and top 1/2% percent.

Notice how we're reaching levels not seen since the 1920's-1930's time period.

Guess what kind of tax was introduced to redistribute the wealth, and look at where that brought us!

90%. We taxed the richest 90%. I'm not advocating that, but to think that we're somehow gouging those who have gained the most over the last few decades, as absolutely ridiculous.

Things have NOT always been this way, they DO cycle back and forth, and we're IN THE RIGHT to call out such extreme disparities that exist today, much as was done in the past.

History is not static, it ebbs and flows.
edit on 21-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)


Nonsense. If a thousand hunter gatherer had some sticks, and a faraway king had castles and gold and land and people to do his bidding, the majority of the global wealth is still concentrated in that king.

"Notice we're reaching levels not since the 1920's-1930's time period." I thought you said that never before in history was wealth inequality this bad. You've now contradicted yourself and yet moved the goalposts yet again. Have you ever given this rational thought or have you been driven by emotions this entire time.

The top marginal rate may have been 90% (on a very few people) but due to the laws written with tax shelters and deductions that no longer exist, the actual rate was much, much lower. But let's not let reality get in the way, shall we?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Rowling? She isn't even on the radar..... Not even in the top 1000 I bet. Then again, maybe her books were printed in a sweatshop in China, which would make her fortune ill gotten IMO.
edit on Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:26:04 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

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.


Certainly someone who does wrong should be punished, but simply having wealth is not evidence of wrongdoing. You have to prove wrongdoing and crimes before you punish someone. How many people did J. K. Rowling hurt to earn her billions? What crimes against humanity did she commit? Oprah is one of the richest women in the world at 2.9 billion dollars. What crimes against humanity did she cause?


Its the collective acceptance of the system, which insures and perpetuates an staggeringly massive and increased number of impoverished and exploited humans. The people with the most money are to blame because they have the most power to change the system. Intelligence dictates the system should not be as it is because if half the population in poverty is a problem (I think it is) what is causing the problem needs to be changed. For the richest people in the world, for anyone in the world to claim humanity and intelligence to not see it as a problem and be aboard to finding a solution/s they are wrong. And I also believe there should be a cap on how much money an individual can obtain.


SO other than some sort of ideological stance, you don't have any specific "crimes" with which to charge these people. Again, I ask you directly. What crimes did J. K. Rowling commit that she deserves to have hear wealth stripped from her and "burn in hell" as you put it?


Nothing shes an anomaly, a lottery winner for playing one of the games of abstract economy and culture, exceptions to the rule like she is, is the greatest excuse the real rich and powerful have over the masses. She is the jangling key 'look everyone, if you work hard enough, you too can become this, send your kids to our universities, yes bring on the English majors' (Transfers tuition money from students hand into wallet) 'now make sure you study hard and get a good job, so you can pay me back all that interest on those student loans" .
edit on 21-1-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

NavyDoc

"Notice we're reaching levels not since the 1920's-1930's time period." I thought you said that never before in history was wealth inequality this bad. You've now contradicted yourself and yet moved the goalposts yet again. Have you ever given this rational thought or have you been driven by emotions this entire time.


Incorrect. Wealth inequality has never been this bad. The chart shows the top 1%, and the top 1/2% of INCOME, also, these numbers are skewed by the ones who are truly elite.

I have not contradicted myself, nor have I moved the goalposts. The original spread was through history, I have chosen to destroy this reasoning by focusing on particular aspects of change within history. You have simply not considered all the factors in play.
edit on 21-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Rowling? She isn't even on the radar..... Not even in the top 1000 I bet. Then again, maybe her books were printed in a sweatshop in China, which would make her fortune ill gotten IMO.
edit on Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:26:04 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


So what's the definition of wealth that is evil? Rowling is not evil because she ranks lower in the billionaire class than others? That's the problem...so many people don't even understand what they want to punish except the know they want to punish people that have more than them. So if Rowling's paltry 2 billion is not sufficient, what is? What makes her more moral not being in the top 1000 than someone who is in the top 1000? Is Oprah half as moral than Rowling because she has twice as much money?



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join