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

webedoomed

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)

I have, you've danced around them and continue to do so. I've yet to see anything other than emotion and superficial talking points from you. It all comes down to "the rich are evil because...just because dammit!" LOL

peck420

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)

No it isn't!! You just made all of that up, right on the spot didn't you?

reply to post by NavyDoc


The actual numbers are irrelevant within the context of what's "evil". What is wrong, is to game the system.

Being at either extreme end gives you more opportunities to game the system.

THAT is the "evil" which is currently designed into the system.

We need to undo policies which have lead to the ability for so many to exploit.

The corruption is so systemic that you're essentially a fool for not attempting to exploit to the furthest benefit you can.

Does that seem right to anyone else?

NavyDoc

I have, you've danced around them and continue to do so. I've yet to see anything other than emotion and superficial talking points from you. It all comes down to "the rich are evil because...just because dammit!" LOL

False. I have not used the word evil until this very post. I have also not tried to focus on any one group, rather the way the system over time has lead to the current instabilities. I have objectively pointed out key differences.

Go over my earlier posts. I think everyone is to blame for allowing this to go on for so long, so there's no need for blame at all.

Just corrections.

Not sure this has been pointed out, so apologies if it has, but how does your wealth compare? I'd hazard a guess that although I supposedly live in 'abject poverty' (I earn less than half the median wage in the UK) I'm richer than at least a million other people on the planet put together. Most of whom don't have central heating, TV, laptops, a bottle of wine every night, etc etc. Some of you may have more money than tens of millions of others put together.

That's what happens when you're amongst the 1%.

We're rich. All of us. Most people in the world, compared to us, are poor.

That a few people are evern richer than us is just life. You can't change the one without the other.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Wealth is not evil.....................
How that wealth was earned is what makes the difference. Paying 99% of the people, who are doing all the work slave wages, while raking in millions,that is what I have an issue with. People who make their money by being in bed with bankers, manipulating markets, causing people all over the world suffering and a farther slide into poverty, that is what I have an issue with. Oprah is a propaganda mouthpiece on the idiotbox, is she on the level with people that own mines, etc? Probably not, but she is no saint for sure. Rowling wrote a book, I don't see how that is a harmful thing, unless like I said, if she had slaves printing her book.

NavyDoc

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?

Its not about punishing people, that is the word you would use to describe what would happen to the god kings if the broken system of life game humans established were to be fixed. I know this is not the best site and I do recall seeing a thread on this topic recently, but what do you think of this: motherboard.vice.com...

ImaFungi

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)

LOL. I love the intellectual dishonesty here. So the wealthy are evil and must be punished and "burn in hell" because one cannot be wealthy without being an exploitive criminal and the instant you are given an example that contradicts your underlying ideological premise, you do backflips to justify her as an "anomaly." So which is it? Are wealthy people exploitive because they cannot become wealthy without exploiting people and committing crimes or do you have to admit that people can become very wealthy honestly without exploiting anyone?


How does Rowling transfer tuition money into her own wallet? You are making # up again.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

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?

Its not about punishing people, that is the word you would use to describe what would happen to the god kings if the broken system of life game humans established were to be fixed. I know this is not the best site and I do recall seeing a thread on this topic recently, but what do you think of this: motherboard.vice.com...

Not punishing people? What does all of the rhetoric from this thread about burning in hell, being imprisoned, being executed, having everything taken away anything but some fanatical desire to punish someone for no specific reason other than "I hate them?"

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

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)

LOL. I love the intellectual dishonesty here. So the wealthy are evil and must be punished and "burn in hell" because one cannot be wealthy without being an exploitive criminal and the instant you are given an example that contradicts your underlying ideological premise, you do backflips to justify her as an "anomaly." So which is it? Are wealthy people exploitive because they cannot become wealthy without exploiting people and committing crimes or do you have to admit that people can become very wealthy honestly without exploiting anyone?


How does Rowling transfer tuition money into her own wallet? You are making # up again.

I am in full admittance that 1 person cannot physically fix the worlds economic/poverty problems. Economy/poverty is a problem, that means not 1 person, but every person is to blame for the lack of collective action in starting the process of fixing it. The people with more money are more to blame, because they have more power.

TKDRL
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Wealth is not evil.....................
How that wealth was earned is what makes the difference. Paying 99% of the people, who are doing all the work slave wages, while raking in millions,that is what I have an issue with. People who make their money by being in bed with bankers, manipulating markets, causing people all over the world suffering and a farther slide into poverty, that is what I have an issue with. Oprah is a propaganda mouthpiece on the idiotbox, is she on the level with people that own mines, etc? Probably not, but she is no saint for sure. Rowling wrote a book, I don't see how that is a harmful thing, unless like I said, if she had slaves printing her book.

edit on Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:47:21 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

SO being wealthy is not evil. We can agree on that. As for the rest, is it not gradations? Let's say Rowling's books were made in "sweat shops." Let's say that she felt bad and stopped having them made in "sweat shops" and returned the binding from Bangladesh to Manchester. Now those people in Bangladesh went from a crappy job to no job at all. Are they better off?

Insider trading, bribing politicians, breaking the law--of course I can agree that this is criminal and should be punished. A prime example of someone who should be punished for profiting off misery and actually doing those things is George Soros. He bought politicians, changed the laws, used insider influence and polices to make money while hurting a lot of people. I agree, someone like George Soros should be in prison for definite and definable crimes that are actually crimes, not a perception of wrongdoing. Being wealthy is not wrong in and of itself.

About the destruction of the most wealthy individuals, yes that can only be beneficial to the solution, they are the largest obstacle, if the goal of humanity was to start to fix the problem of poverty. To have their wealth in a collective fund for the constructors of the newer world to use at their collective dispose when the long and careful process of discussing the best course of action to create the base of the new fair and just and humane and intelligent and civilized world begin.

NavyDoc
No it isn't!! You just made all of that up, right on the spot didn't you?

Not really, just did rough number calculations.

We have the current data...85 uber wealthy/7,000,000,000 persons.

We have estimated data from the past.

Last greatest being the English Empire..approx 458,000,000 persons with a wealthy caste well into the hundreds (for the record that is more persons then the 'Great Khan' had available on the planet circa 1200).

Then we have the future. Which, I have seen no current evidence to suggest a deviation from the current model.

At current trends that will put approx 1/3rd of the current wealthy in charge at the next population doubling...so approx 28/14,000,000,000.

Okay, I will give you the near future estimate is off by a bit (1:500,000,000 vs 1:1,000,000,000), but not too shabby for rough estimates.

ImaFungi

NavyDoc

ImaFungi

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)

LOL. I love the intellectual dishonesty here. So the wealthy are evil and must be punished and "burn in hell" because one cannot be wealthy without being an exploitive criminal and the instant you are given an example that contradicts your underlying ideological premise, you do backflips to justify her as an "anomaly." So which is it? Are wealthy people exploitive because they cannot become wealthy without exploiting people and committing crimes or do you have to admit that people can become very wealthy honestly without exploiting anyone?


How does Rowling transfer tuition money into her own wallet? You are making # up again.

I am in full admittance that 1 person cannot physically fix the worlds economic/poverty problems. Economy/poverty is a problem, that means not 1 person, but every person is to blame for the lack of collective action in starting the process of fixing it. The people with more money are more to blame, because they have more power.

I'd say the problem of poverty is more complex than that. There are many variables that create poverty.

One can agree that poverty is a problem and that people should not go hungry. I agree.

The problem is that no system will eliminate poverty. Utopia, by definition, is unachievable.

Does that mean we should give up? No.

However, we may disagree on the method to reduce poverty. IMHO, of all of the systems economic and societal freedom and free markets do more to life people out of poverty than any other system and, IMHO, history shows this quite clearly. The problem is, that you cannot create a free system that only benefits one certain class and if you want to lift people out of poverty without making other people rich, you won't succeed. Freedom usually benefits everyone.

It blows your mind how two sets of people can view the same story so differently?
How this story can make anyone feel anything other than anger and frustration and sympathy.... is just beyond me.

It really shows there is no hope at all, when people can defend uber billionaires and justify starvation and extreme poverty.

Sickening.

NavyDoc
The problem is that no system will eliminate poverty. Utopia, by definition, is unachievable.

Hey now, that's not fair.

Our current system, uber elites and all, has done more to eliminate global abject poverty then every other system recorded...combined. It does have a fairly good chance of eliminating abject poverty in its entirety.

This is why I don't care if there is 85 persons with 1/2 the world's wealth...let them have it...I will just redefine what wealth means to me.

peck420

NavyDoc
No it isn't!! You just made all of that up, right on the spot didn't you?

Not really, just did rough number calculations.

We have the current data...85 uber wealthy/7,000,000,000 persons.

We have estimated data from the past.

Last greatest being the English Empire..approx 458,000,000 persons with a wealthy caste well into the hundreds (for the record that is more persons then the 'Great Khan' had available on the planet circa 1200).

Then we have the future. Which, I have seen no current evidence to suggest a deviation from the current model.

At current trends that will put approx 1/3rd of the current wealthy in charge at the next population doubling...so approx 28/14,000,000,000.

Okay, I will give you the near future estimate is off by a bit (1:500,000,000 vs 1:1,000,000,000), but not too shabby for rough estimates.

In other words you made it up. LOL.

That's a rather silly equation. 85 wealthy into 7 billion. You forget that there are many more super wealthy than that 85, there being 1500 billionaires alone and many thousands of millionaires below the billionaires. You also make the incorrect assumption that those 7 billion are all in poverty, which they are not. Then you ignore the fact that the average quality of life in the world now is better, not worse than it was just a 100 years ago.

So let's see. Made up stats based on incomplete data and false assumptions.

Think of wealth/ money as life support credits, these greedy bastards are hogging all the food et cetera while their brothers & sisters starve.

NavyDoc
In other words you made it up. LOL.

This coming from a person that is attempting to uss the Mongolian Empire as a relevant comparison...

That's a rather silly equation. 85 wealthy into 7 billion. You forget that there are many more super wealthy than that 85, there being 1500 billionaires alone and many thousands of millionaires below the billionaires. You also make the incorrect assumption that those 7 billion are all in poverty, which they are not.

All irrelevant. Wealth is relative, not absolute. Those 85 make the 1500 billionaires look like poverty, the millionaires are less, and the rest are abject.

Then you ignore the fact that the average quality of life in the world now is better, not worse than it was just a 100 years ago.

I have made no such claim...in fact I have claimed the opposite on multiple occasions...granted, based on your entire reasoning being based on the absurd...I'm not shocked.

So let's see. Made up stats based on incomplete data and false assumptions.

Thank you for defining your own argument so succinctly.

I have at least got some historical data to prove my case...what do you have again? Ah yes, the absurd.

Not very surprising.

I mean even regarding companies, when you look up branches or subsidiaries, it really comes down to very few businesses, as in the end it comes down to very few people.


Why can't a be one of them

peck420

NavyDoc
In other words you made it up. LOL.

This coming from a person that is attempting to uss the Mongolian Empire as a relevant comparison...

That's a rather silly equation. 85 wealthy into 7 billion. You forget that there are many more super wealthy than that 85, there being 1500 billionaires alone and many thousands of millionaires below the billionaires. You also make the incorrect assumption that those 7 billion are all in poverty, which they are not.

All irrelevant. Wealth is relative, not absolute. Those 85 make the 1500 billionaires look like poverty, the millionaires are less, and the rest are abject.

Then you ignore the fact that the average quality of life in the world now is better, not worse than it was just a 100 years ago.

I have made no such claim...in fact I have claimed the opposite on multiple occasions...granted, based on your entire reasoning being based on the absurd...I'm not shocked.

So let's see. Made up stats based on incomplete data and false assumptions.

Thank you for defining your own argument so succinctly.

I have at least got some historical data to prove my case...what do you have again? Ah yes, the absurd.

Incorrect. The Mongolian empire was perfectly appropriate illustration of a historical example of extreme wealth being controlled by one individual. The premise was that never before was so much of the worlds wealth was concentrated into so few people and he was but one example of several to show that was not true historically. That's the fact of the matter. Stomping your foot and saying "no it isn't" does not make it any less true.

I see you shift the goalposts by calling wealth "relative." Based on your flawed logic then, then it must all fall on the single richest person on the face of the earth because someone has got to be at the top. Why divide the top 85 into 7 billion, why not just do the top one or two and make your nonsensical stat even bigger? LOL. Absurd indeed. Yes, your whole premise is absurd and really does not account for much by the way of variables, the "relative" nature of wealth, and assumes that wealth is a zero sum game. All flawed premises. 2nd grade math, certainly, but not having anything to do with reality.

And finally, what "historical data?" You arbitrarily chose two numbers. That's not data. You might need to look up what that word means.