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: 9
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Do you really think this is what this is all about?

That's all people care about - money?

Is that all you care about - your money?

It's about survival - with no hope of thriving

You're not poor beezzer - so, that must mean you did something right

Be glad




posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


You do realise that making $20K a year makes you 'richer' than millions of people in developing countries? Seems most people have a lot of anger for those whose bank balance is better than theirs without thinking about that.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by beezzer
 


Do you really think this is what this is all about?

That's all people care about - money?

Is that all you care about - your money?

It's about survival - with no hope of thriving

You're not poor beezzer - so, that must mean you did something right

Be glad


This whole thread is about wealth disparity, right?

Billions have been given to 3rd world countries.

So they are better now, right?

Wealth redistribution will just mean that different people will be seated at those "85" chairs.

It won't help a damned soul.

People need to change.

Not checking accounts.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Because a man makes more than another man does not mean he has a sudden obligation to help others.

Greed got them where they are can you really even expect them to give it up so easy?



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



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Here are the richest people in the world. This is from the billionaires list on Forbes.
www.forbes.com...

Look at this list, and take a look at how they made their money. Most of them are people that work hard and are very ambitious. These people are not evil, these people are not the devil.

Now tell me if you think we should punish people, steal their wealth for hard work and lots of luck. One of them is an owner of Mars, the candy corp. Should we be angry at him, or any of them for selling products to us?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Biigs
reply to post by beezzer
 


Because a man makes more than another man does not mean he has a sudden obligation to help others.

Greed got them where they are can you really even expect them to give it up so easy?



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


Is it still greed for wanting to keep a house you built?

Is it still greed for wanting to keep a company you built?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Wealth redistribution will just mean that different people will be seated at those "85" chairs.

You keep bringing up wealth redistribution - why so fixated on that?

Is that what this thread is about?

Is that what I've been proposing?

Is that what anyone has been proposing?

Did you read this thread from the start?

:-)

People have a funny reaction to anything having to do with the poor - the poor make them nervous



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Technically greed is to have more of anything than others have. This is why the super rich cant stop themselves they strive to have more than the next millionaire, the fact they have it is irrelevant.

Company's who turn BILLION dollar profits while paying their employees as little as possible and then reinvesting those profits for more profits next year, thats pointless greed out of control.

People who work hard and get paid hard really should not be the focus.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


85 people have half the world's wealth.

When has that ever been different at any time in history?



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


85 people have half the world's wealth.

When has that ever been different at any time in history?


You've said this more than once.

I challenge you to show me a single time in history when this has been the case.

Gotta call out your BS.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

beezzer
85 people have half the world's wealth.

When has that ever been different at any time in history?

This would be the first time.

Not that the powerful haven't been trying for this since the beginning of time, just that it is the first time it was possible to achieve on a global scale.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

webedoomed

beezzer
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


85 people have half the world's wealth.

When has that ever been different at any time in history?


You've said this more than once.

I challenge you to show me a single time in history when this has been the case.

Gotta call out your BS.


prove it.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The onus is on you, Beez.

Don't try to bunni hop out of this one.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by beezzer
 


The onus is on you, Beez.

Don't try to bunni hop out of this one.


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.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Not really a reply to my post -

And anyhow, I'd rather hear you explain what it is you're trying to say - if it's something more than this:

"The poor you will have with you always."


In other words, when the writer said there would always be poor people in the land, it was a concession to Israel's likely failure to obey the law requiring them to protect its most vulnerable citizens. Sure enough, that's pretty much how the story plays out in the rest of the Old Testament.

There would always be poor people because the Israelites would not prove as generous as they were meant to be. There would always be poor people because Israel would not cancel everyone's debts like they were supposed to. The statement "you will always have the poor with you" is not an excuse for apathy; it's a condemnation of it.


There will always be poor - so why even bother ?

:-)

Outta here beezzer -

Keep your back to wall and watch the door - always someone out there trying to get in



edit on 1/21/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

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.


That was a HORRIBLY POOR answer.

If you think at ANY POINT IN HISTORY that 50% of the wealth GLOBALLY was dished out to .000000012% of the population, then you are SEVERELY deluded.

Again, I challenge you to provide an adequate response.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

webedoomed

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.


That was a HORRIBLY POOR answer.

If you think at ANY POINT IN HISTORY that 50% of the wealth GLOBALLY was dished out to .000000012% of the population, then you are SEVERELY deluded.

Again, I challenge you to provide an adequate response.


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)



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

webedoomed

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.


That was a HORRIBLY POOR answer.

If you think at ANY POINT IN HISTORY that 50% of the wealth GLOBALLY was dished out to .000000012% of the population, then you are SEVERELY deluded.

Again, I challenge you to provide an adequate response.


I just did. Sorry you didn't like the answer.

At the height of the British Empire, one person sat on the throne.

At that same time, one ruler ran China.

Another ran Russia.

Some families in North America had the rest.

They all had billions (at least) back then. That's where my reasoning lies.

But feel free to poke holes into it!



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
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!!



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

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.



new topics




 
43
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join