Wealth Inequality

[craft]

• The richest 85 people in the world owns the same as the bottom half of the world’s population.

•Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one precent of the population.

• The wealth of the one precent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

•The richest one precent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012. (Australia was 2nd on the list)




http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf

But its O.K because Hockey and the G20 are going to fix the problem by adopting a new higher growth target Trickle down will work - It just needs more head pressure - A bit more growth concentrated at the top and it will flow like a charm.

 

[burglar]

...

I don't know what you're expecting here?! *feigned surprise*

 

[Value Collector]

The rich still only eat one breakfast a day.

Those numbers just show who owns the wealth, the wealth being the infrastructure and businesses that keep the global economy ticking.

Generally wealth will accumulate with those who allocate capital efficiently in productive ways, who then reinvest the earnings again and again rather than consume their profit, and a growing portion of the super rich are choosing to give the majority of their wealth back to society. eg, Buffet and gates etc etc

 

[craft]

The rich still only eat one breakfast a day.

Those numbers just show who owns the wealth, the wealth being the infrastructure and businesses that keep the global economy ticking.

Generally wealth will accumulate with those who allocate capital efficiently in productive ways, who then reinvest the earnings again and again rather than consume their profit, and a growing portion of the super rich are choosing to give the majority of their wealth back to society. eg, Buffet and gates etc etc

Yeh Value Collector

The system works just fine - nothing too see here - just move on. What ever you do don't think about it or question it.

 

[McLovin]

The rich still only eat one breakfast a day.

What does that mean in the context of the thread?

The Walton's (Wal-Mart) wealth is equal to the poorest 100 million Americans. Meanwhile 50 million Americans don't have access to healthcare. The US has done a grand job of enriching a few at the expense of the majority, I don't think it's permanently broken and things will change. But to just pass it off as BAU is rather short sighted. History is full of examples of what happens when the rich control too much in the view of the majority. And to be honest, it's not the kind of place I want to live in.

 

[darkhorse70]

No one ever said society was a good place. Maybe its kill or be killed. Maybe its survival of the fittest. Maybe were programmed like viruses to consume till we self destruct. Maybe we like to believe that we can over come our flaws and make earth a better place. All this stuff about fairness and equality might not even be applicable to humans. We just believe that were entitled to fairness and such because thats what our society tells us and we believe that we are intelligent enough. Anyhow first I gota help myself and my family then and only then will I try to help others. Who are we to say that the worlds richest people should give their money away. They played the game better than others (be it they were born into it or whatever).

Just playing devils advocate here hahaha

 

[McLovin]

Who are we to say that the worlds richest people should give their money away.

We're not. That's why we have tax.

 

[burglar]

We're not. That's why we have tax.

Buffett says he should pay more tax!!

 

[Julia]

Yeh Value Collector

The system works just fine - nothing too see here - just move on. What ever you do don't think about it or question it.

Perhaps you could outline how you believe the problem could be addressed?

 

[Klogg]

Perhaps you could outline how you believe the problem could be addressed?

Correcting the huge mis-alignment of self interests, particularly in the US and Australia (I don't know enough of other countries) could be a start.

Think about the amount of wealth associated with the Republican party alone. It's in their interest, both at an individual and party level, to make available an entity structure that allows for lower tax rates (an example, but not the only one here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...es-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html)
I haven't given it sufficient time or thought to have an opinion on how to exactly change this, but surely you could fund part of a decent medicare system in the US through these alterations.

The same can apply in Australia - Discretionary trusts/holding companies allow people to allocate profits to minimise tax... And politicians from both major parties generally have a large enough asset pool to warrant such structures (most, not all). Knowing this, how can you let that same pool of people decide what the rules are?

We've already baked in the self-interests into the system, making the "how to change" far more difficult than the "what to change"...

 

[Value Collector]

Yeh Value Collector

The system works just fine - nothing too see here - just move on. What ever you do don't think about it or question it.

View attachment 56932
View attachment 56933

remember our discussion about economic growth, and I said we still need global economic growth because millions of people are starving because they live outside of the developed economy? well the picture of the poor little girl is an example of someone living outside the developed economy.

If a wealthy person spent all their money on ships, they wouldn't be rich after a while, they get their toys by investing in assets and businesses that produce and contribute back into the economy.

 

[Value Collector]

What does that mean in the context of the thread?

The Walton's (Wal-Mart) wealth is equal to the poorest 100 million Americans. Meanwhile 50 million Americans don't have access to healthcare. The US has done a grand job of enriching a few at the expense of the majority, I don't think it's permanently broken and things will change. But to just pass it off as BAU is rather short sighted. History is full of examples of what happens when the rich control too much in the view of the majority. And to be honest, it's not the kind of place I want to live in.

I was basically commenting that there are not people starving because rich people consume to much.

ie, just because we have rich people doesn't mean the rest get less.

If person A goes to woollies and buys eggs and bacon for $6 and cooks it at home, and person B pays a personal chef $200 to cook eggs and bacon for him, they have both only consumed 2 eggs and 3 rashes of bacon.

The fact that person B spend an extra $193 doesn't mean he took more value out of the economy, especially if the reason he can afford the extra $193 is because he operates a factory producing 500,000 loaves of bread a day or invented a computer program that made the entire economy more productive.

 

[Value Collector]

We're not. That's why we have tax.

Buffett says he should pay more tax!!

I totally agree in a fair rate of tax and think the highest earners should pay a higher amount.

I don't think it should be more than 50% though, and I have trouble with the idea of increasing taxation, because I think the government already gets enough, and just needs to stop wasting it.

 

[waimate01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution


In other news, most people have heights that fall within very standard bands. But some few people are much, much taller than that. And some are much, much shorter. Outrageous.

Contemplate this: 80% of all health care costs go towards caring for 20% of all recipients. So if you take those 20% out and shoot them, guess what the landscape will look like afterwards. 80% of all health care costs will still go towards caring for 20% of recipients. The total spent will be less, but the skewing will be just the same.

Such is the nature of normal distribution curves. They are self-similar across scale.

Doesn't mean you can't have empathy or choose to do something to help, but the characteristic is baked-into diverse populations of anything.

Nature abhors flat curves.

 

[Value Collector]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution


In other news, most people have heights that fall within very standard bands. But some few people are much, much taller than that. And some are much, much shorter. Outrageous.

Contemplate this: 80% of all health care costs go towards caring for 20% of all recipients. So if you take those 20% out and shoot them, guess what the landscape will look like afterwards. 80% of all health care costs will still go towards caring for 20% of recipients. The total spent will be less, but the skewing will be just the same.

Such is the nature of normal distribution curves. They are self-similar across scale.

Doesn't mean you can't have empathy or choose to do something to help, but the characteristic is baked-into diverse populations of anything.

Nature abhors flat curves.

Nice point

 

[craft]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution


In other news, most people have heights that fall within very standard bands. But some few people are much, much taller than that. And some are much, much shorter. Outrageous.

Contemplate this: 80% of all health care costs go towards caring for 20% of all recipients. So if you take those 20% out and shoot them, guess what the landscape will look like afterwards. 80% of all health care costs will still go towards caring for 20% of recipients. The total spent will be less, but the skewing will be just the same.

Such is the nature of normal distribution curves. They are self-similar across scale.

Doesn't mean you can't have empathy or choose to do something to help, but the characteristic is baked-into diverse populations of anything.

Nature abhors flat curves.

Except wealth does not adhere to a normal distribution - its possibly one of the most skewed distributions you will come across. There's nothing natural about it and hence why I believe its unsustainable.

 

[burglar]

... If person A goes to woollies and buys eggs and bacon for $6 and cooks it at home, and person B pays a personal chef $200 to cook eggs and bacon for him, they have both only consumed 2 eggs and 3 rashes of bacon.

The fact that person B spend an extra $193 doesn't mean he took more value out of the economy, especially if the reason he can afford the extra $193 is because he operates a factory producing 500,000 loaves of bread a day or invented a computer program that made the entire economy more productive.

Where I shop the eggs come in six packs or dozens, the bacon rashers can be bought individually.
O.k. for sake of argument, I accept $6 is about right for 2 eggs and 3 rashes of bacon.

But I must question why $200 less $6 comes out to $193.

What happened to the other dollar?

 

[craft]

No one ever said society was a good place. Maybe its kill or be killed. Maybe its survival of the fittest. Maybe were programmed like viruses to consume till we self destruct. Maybe we like to believe that we can over come our flaws and make earth a better place. All this stuff about fairness and equality might not even be applicable to humans. We just believe that were entitled to fairness and such because thats what our society tells us and we believe that we are intelligent enough. Anyhow first I gota help myself and my family then and only then will I try to help others. Who are we to say that the worlds richest people should give their money away. They played the game better than others (be it they were born into it or whatever).

Just playing devils advocate here hahaha

I like your maybe thinking.

Maybe we get what we accept. Maybe we shouldn't just accept things we don't like. Maybe we don't know how to fix it but maybe we should still raise our objections. Maybe we can play hard within the rules whilst still agitating for change. Maybe if enough people don't accept the status quo we will work how to change those rules. Maybe winning can be defined differently. Maybe nature is more precious then money. Maybe the change can only happen at individual level. Maybe we can achieve it at a community level. Maybe the silent majority can be heard above the loudest.

Maybe - I like Maybes.

 

[Value Collector]

But I must question why $200 less $6 comes out to $193.

What happened to the other dollar?

Lol, yeah i originally had the woolies price at $7, but changed it to $6 when i rewrote the analogy, but didnt update the bottom, you get the point though, spending lots doesn't mean your taking away from others.

 

[craft]

remember our discussion about economic growth, and I said we still need global economic growth because millions of people are starving because they live outside of the developed economy? well the picture of the poor little girl is an example of someone living outside the developed economy.

If a wealthy person spent all their money on ships, they wouldn't be rich after a while, they get their toys by investing in assets and businesses that produce and contribute back into the economy.

Once something has grown to it's natural limit (ie a child has matured) any further growth is just adding fat.

Humanity does not need more absolute growth - it needs to get fitter and by improving its circulatory system.

The pie is already big enough - it just needs to be shared more evenly. We don't need more indiscriminate growth where a super yatch is considered equal in GDP terms as educating and empowering millions of impoverished women that is know to be a major driver of lifting communities out of poverty.