The 62 richest people have as much wealth as half the world

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Not sharing that's for sure.

It's mind blowing to me how more people don't see this as a growing problem.

People think there's just an endless supply of money and things to invent and business to run but there just simply isn't. There's a cap on everything and we need to be smarter with how we choose to go about reaching that cap.

We could open up entirely new industries if the Governments worldwide would deregulate many, and encourage others.

Like space exploration, mining, colonization...as being ONE which would unite us, and have multiple scientific benefits.

But we don't....we dip billions into Twitter and Facebook.

a reply to: MOMof3

The fed rates are low to encourage spending rather than savings. Savings rates suck, but it's a good time to borrow or get a mortgage. I'd say you did well to buy land or real estate as a long term investment instead of playing the stock market for instance.

As for the people who have access to the shadow banking industry...
They rely on the U.S. consumer to buy their products, rely on US infrastructure to sell and ship their products, rely on the U.S. To protect their operations and trademarks all over the world.

Yet they manufacture their products overseas while working to lower wages for Americans and cut services to the people whose former jobs now reside in Vietnam. Traitors indeed.

a reply to: onequestion

People think there's just an endless supply of money and things to invent and business to run but there just simply isn't.

Either that or they simply do not care as it does not affect them personally....

Yes, let's just print more monies... what could possibly go wrong.

Nobody is stopping you from attempting to realize your ideas.

a reply to: HighFive

It won't be long term for me at 65. But I am going to start a family Truck Farm business. The land is debt free and I have figured out multi dwellings for living. It won't make us rich,but it will be something real for my kids to retire to or rely on during hard times. I don't expect the changes in the economy to be easy. Due to the oil.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

The uber wealthy are the ones who control the government. Oligarchy, remember?

The government is simply their fist. Cut off the head, not the hand.

Interesting article: Oxfam's Misleading Inequality Numbers

The media is running with Oxfam’s annual "shocking" statistic on wealth. This year "the richest 62 people have the same wealth as poorest 3.6 bn."

But all is not what it seems:

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Exactly. Government protects these rich with their regulations and their bailouts.

To amass the same amount of wealth as Bill Gates, earning $100,000 a year (a pretty darn high number for most US citizens, right?) and having no living expenses or taxes, you would need to work for seven hundred and ninety two thousand years.

Has Bill Gates contributed 792,000 years worth of work to society?
I would think... Not.

a reply to: theantediluvian

As you know I'm an anarchist who, for practical reasons, is in favour of socialism. Hardly the guy to defend the current system, methinks.

But - the notion that say 100 or less people "control" the Earths population is ridiculous. There are far more culprits - the entire system is outdated and should be replaced soon. Only problem is that it works way too well for the haves - and that, mostly, includes at least a third or more of the readers in here, INCLUDING ME!


As some correctly pointed out: these 62 aren't Scrooge McDucks, they don't stash cash in some hidden cellar. In fact, they aren't even really in control of "their" money. The control over "their" money is in the hands of a large number of others whom all "control" a bit of it. These others in turn hire others to do work (and control yet a smaller chunk of the money), which hire others to do work (whom control yet a smaller chunk money) and this re-iterates a number of times untill we finally get to the point where Joe Sixpack enters the picture to do the actual work.

As long as the work is being done by labourers - Joe and Jane - the entire pyramid of "managers" and "leaders" will receive their salaries and bonuses. Roughly a third of all employed spend their days deciding what needs to be done with the chunk of money the are allowed to manage. They do this within the guidelines of the ones that in turn manage them. And in the end, yes, there is that one guy that decides - only very, very major things and always advised by the thousands that work for him. Even more assist these "managers", for example financial and legal experts, whom don't really "produce" anything directly either.

I think it's safe to say that roughly half of our population does not do any physical labour and receives their money to provide some (managerial, supporting) role.

But the other half - Joe Sixpackse - suffers a great deal lately. Joe is gradually replaced with hard- and software and this makes him superfluous. He is not in control of any money other than the amount he receives when his paycheck arrives. And if he's made redundant, he is simply handed a pink slip, no "old boys network" for him.

We need to take care of ALL people, including those that aren't talented / lucky enough to become managers of other folks money. To allow this, we should give Joe Sixpack at least a decent basic income, regardless if he works or not. In the end, machines will do most labour anyway.

Giving ALL people sufficient money to live (or, as capitalists would say: to consume) is what needs to be done, in tandem with further automation and mechanisation.

Apart from that, as an anarchist, I resent the bossing around that is done in many organisations, as it degrades human dignity. But in general, I can appreciate the functional pyramid of leaders and subleaders, as long as it are qualities and not sheer luck that decide who does what. That's another of my problems with the current system: there are apes, pigs and cows that run most large parts of our companies because they had the dumb luck of being at the right place and right time, not because they are talented.

So, in short: we won't get far by hanging the 62 - we need to take care of the 50 percent.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

The issue is that all that wealth flows to the top on a turbolift. The wealth chart does not look like an inverted triangle or a wing glass as might be reasonable. It looks like a helicopter landing pad balanced on a toothpick.

Wealth inequality itself isn't really an issue. It's generally going to exist to some extent. The problem is the obscene levels which it has risen to in today's world. And it is still rising.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Bill Gates has earned every cent of his wealth based on the immense value he has delivered to us all. Half of the tech in existence, perhaps even ATS (even thoughI don't know what server Simon Gray first uploaded ATS on nor what OS he was using at the time [probably windows, though]) what would not have existed wasn't it not for him. Governments use windows as well for their ahem.. services.

If you look at the hundreds of millions, or even billions of pc's, servers, microsoft phones and the produce their users have delivered over the past 30 years I would think it is worth 792,000 years worth of work. Less would be stealing from him. Would you like others to take claim on your blood sweat and tears, no matter what the value you have delivered to society, just because they believe they have a better use for your own money than you do? Open your door so the poor can come in and confiscate some of your food and goods. They have a better use for it than you do.

In fact, we who can afford to be discussing here on ATS are the 1% of the world. I know I am. You probably are. Let's all be taxed at 90% so the rest of the world can get our money.

www.globalrichlist.com...

a reply to: TheBandit795

I believe Discotech will take issue with your statements on the value of Bill Gates' work.

Me, personally? I'm probably in the realm of the bottom 50%. Still a student, after all...
That says more about the state of the world than it says about the state of us. Also, that calculator would appear to fail to take into account the cost of living. If I earn $100,000 a year, and someone earns $10,000 a year, but everything for them is 1/10th the price of what it is for me... Well, it's not as simple as it would appear.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

If you're in the bottom 50%, you're surviving on less than $1300 per year. That's less more than $108 per month. I highly doubt it.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Hmm, yes, that actually seems about right. As I said, I am a student (barely 18) living with my mother. Thankfully, we own our house in entirety, so there is no rent. Only food and utility bills. We could survive on, I would say... $350 a month? That is a very rough estimate. Very little by comparison to others in our country however, for sure.
We do not live opulently.

Regardless, perhaps indeed then, we too are part of the problem. Not the ultimate instigators, but a cog. This world is built on the backs and the graves of the less fortunate.

a reply to: TheBandit795

Actually more web servers are hosted on linux than windows. In fact it seems less than 2% of webservers are hosted by windows... bad example, but the rest of your statement is valid.

Webservers by OS

I wouldn't worry yourself with their desire for printed pieces of paper,
why don't you just reacquaint yourself with the source and start your journey and take some psychadelics and break your loyalty to the illusion of democracy and capitalism.

Dissolve your societal boundaries severe the chains of your imprisonment
self medicate your mind and kill your ego and those billionaires will lose their wealth and be as poor as you or I

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Thanks for the correction. Back then (90's) the market share was much higher though. Around 20%.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: TheBandit795

Regardless, perhaps indeed then, we too are part of the problem. Not the ultimate instigators, but a cog. This world is built on the backs and the graves of the less fortunate.

And the countries who are increasing their economic freedom the most have the fastest growing economies nowadays. Botswana is an example of this.

Let think about future. What if there will be one guy who will have more money than whole world?

This sounds like SciFi modern dictatorship movie but we are not so far, 61 people need to lose some money and we have one ultimate guy, he will provably say we should call him god and many will