UKC

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-001228919.html

Way to go humans

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

the thing i dont like about this is that it almost lays blame and shame on these 8 people. they had an idea, they worked hard, it was the right time, they got a bit lucky, they carried on working hard and now theyre billionaires. yes it is a crazy statistic that these 8 men can accumulate a net worth larger than that of 50 percent of the worlds poorest population but why make them out to be bad people. bill gates for example has given billions to charity.

In reply to elliott92:


I'm not suggesting they aren't "nice" or "worked hard" but it is hardly a ideal situation that 8 people can own more than 50 % of the global population .
It just comes across as a absurdity of epic proportions.

Only a species such as ridiculous humans could conceive of it.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Misleading headline - they don't own half the worlds wealth, merely as much as the poorest half of the world - I suspect there's quite a big difference

Nonetheless it is an appalling state of affairs, but at least one of those 8 - Bill Gates - is quite philanthropic. It also worth remembering that most of his wealth - as with Zuckerberg and the Amazon guy - are in the form of shares in the companies they founded

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

If I was part of the poorest half of the world I'm sure I'd feel much better if Mr Zuckerberg had less money.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Would it make any difference if it was four people? Or twelve, or 200, or 29,000, or 500,000? It would still make an interesting headline, not a difference.

In reply to elliott92:


Who is making them out to be bad people? I don't know or much care who they are or how they came by their wealth. My concern is that when wealth is so grossly concentrated in the hands of a very few the conditions exist for corruption, the distortion of where power lies and who's interests governments serve.

Conditions and widespread perception of crass inequality have also preceded many of the great bloodlettings and upheavals of the past. I'm not keen to get caught up in another.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I guess the title might lead you to think that:

In reply to Chive Talkin\':
It's an interesting subject and one I don't fully understand the in's and out's of. I headline sounds bad at first, but is it?So genuine questions from are.

If Bill gates never bothered inventing Windows or founding Microsoft and instead just got a local job in IT would the poorest half of the world be $75 billion better off? Likewise with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook etc?

Is there wealth real and translatable? Someone 'worth' $50bn does not have 50bn time as much stuff as someone with $1. Most of their wealth is derived from the share values of the companies they own, these are intangible asserts who's value is determined by the market. Can the man worth billions on paper really translate that into pure goods and services? If some kids invents the possible next big thing in App's for example and some investors give him £1billion for 10% of his company, then he's sudden;y apparently worth £10bn, but all he's got is an idea and some code on a screen. All that value is speculation, people think it might do well and are betting it'll be worth more in the future. If that app gets realised and flops, that value disappears before it ever became anything.

Is it a bit misleading? How have they worked out how much money the poorest people in the world have? Totting up the numbers its an average of $118.6 net worth per person for half the world. Mean how to they value someones wealth if all they own is a few rags on their back? Mean how many people have literally nothing? 100m, 500m, 1bn? You could have a headline which reads "homeless beggar with £2.65 in his cap is worth as much as the poorest 100 million people on earth!"

Would it make any difference? As I said, it gives the average worth of someone in the bottom half of the world a total worth of $118.6. If all these billionaires shutdown everything they did, cashed up everything (if it's even possible) and have every penny to the worlds poorest half, then everyone has an average worth of just $237.2, is that really going to change anything? It seems to me the problem is a lot bigger than a few people. It's more like the difference in wealth between the top 5-10% of the world and everyone else, but of course that affects us and we're not giving up out money.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


In general, yes. Could they spend it fast enough to enjoy its full value in a lifetime? Probably not but that does depend what one wishes to buy. A space program or a tame government costs rather more than a big boat, a few choice villas and a classic aircraft collection.


And a billion pounds, you forgot the billion pounds.
jk

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

It is a misleading and meaningless measure, only good for generating an annual headline and some outrage.

Net wealth isn't a measure of how how much somebody has or can afford to use, how well they can live or what share of the word's resources they consume. Two examples:
a) A recent UK graduate with a salary of £30k, rented accommodation, car on PCP, no real savings and a £44k student loan. I'm sure their various possessions are worth few pounds but they will have a net wealth of about -£40k.
b) A street beggar in the third world who only owns the clothes they stand up in. Net wealth +£1.

So, by this measure, b) is £40k "wealthier" than a). Not a very sane or useful comparison, I'd say.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':


What about other species where a few alpha males lay claim to a majority of the females, is that so different?

In reply to Maynard:


I'm not sure of your question or point.

My post was mainly highlighting the economic inequality in the world which we hear about on a regular basis but fail to ever really do anything about .

In reply to NathanP:


As Lord_ash2000 brilliantly pointed it, the figure itself is indeed somewhat misleading. However I'm not sure that this means it's a pointless exercise. Surely the outrage is justified, it's just that nothing ever gets done about it.

In reply to elliott92:

Don't forget each of these people were probably quite ruthless in their pursuit of market domination/power or whatever, combined with a lot of luck and intelligence. Hard work, yes but that is not the defining characteristic, i doubt they work harder than someone holding down 2 sh*t jobs to make ends meet, or someone in indentured labour in an Indian brick kiln, or even an A&E doctor on the NHS.

In reply to RX-78:

youre right i guarantee they work no harder than those people. im not saying that anyone who works hard can ammas that wealth. my point was more that they havent just inherited this money. it hasnt landed on their laps. they earned it. yes there was a lot of luck and some probably shrewd business moves made but my point stands... i dont agree with targeting people because they earned a crazy amount of money.

its like slating people who won £100,000,000 on the euro's. they are basterds because they won big and i won a fiver.

what can we do to top this? cap earnings? once you hit x amount everything else goes to charity? then why on earth would anyone work hard or push their ground breaking and world changing ideas?

tis a part of life

In reply to jon:


But it doesn't - it talks about "humanity". Unless I'm mistaken, that's all of us?

In reply to elliott92:


But you could argue that why do millionaires and billionaires still carry on working instead of cashing it all in and enjoying life? I don't know why they carry on working, but they do.

In reply to Trevers:

I'm quite in favour of a fairer world, I just don't think this foolish and easily discredited measure advances that objective, in fact it is counter productive.

The more I think about it, the more I think it isn't easy to find one simple measure that fairly sums up such a complicated question across widely different economies:
- net wealth certainly doesn't because you can live very comfortably in debt but with a high income whilst somebody else is (just) debt free but in getting by on almost nothing.
- annual income is a poor measure too - to take an extreme example, are you really better off earning a lot for a short time (for example sports professionals) than a a bit less for a longer working life or with a small income but having somehow acquired the big-ticket items like somewhere to live?
- annual consumption might be better but it counts the miser with massive savings and a debt-free home as worse off that somebody spending every penny to get by in rented accommodation.
- maybe lifetime earnings would be a good measure but quite hard to collect the data retrospectively and in advance.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

I don't get why people with this sort of wealth are talked of in negative terms. It's not them, it's the fact that they have so much and so many have so little, so the gap between rich and poor is the issue. However, if people earn massive wealth through hard work, smart investments and a bit of luck, so what? I don't see why there is ever an objection to private enterprise generating high earnings: I think the focus should be where people in public office and in publicly-funded positions rake in large sums courtesy of the tax payer. Moral indignation and economic realities are different beasts.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

How tedious...... what is your point????

In reply to Indy:

More "Waily-Waily-Waily" SJW posturing, a point, let alone a solution, is not on the horizon as of yet.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':


In the first instance it doesn't count for jack. What counts is if the 50% have enough for quality of life. They don't. That is not affected by the 8 people having wealth, it makes naff fall difference if it's redistributed, especially as cashing it all in would show much of it to be illusory. On the other had at least one of those 8 has done more for the 50% than I suspect you or I ever could.

Or reading your text literally, each of them own 440 million people.,,


Sounds like a case of self-loathing-bullshit-itus to me. Nature is full of beastly behaviour that's far, far worse.

Edit: personal best for "fastest dislike earned". I must be of the species "ridiculous humans"

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

A pretty good post there.

My own feelings are that I am not really bothered how much someone has in relation to someone else. The only things that concern me are if someone is using wealth to aquire power and avoid responsibilities to the detriment of others. Not because this is "unfair" as such but because it undermines the fabric of the society they live in. People who work hard deserve their reward but in garnering more resources (ie money and all that goes with it) to themselves they aquire additional responsibility to those around them. For instance you want people to buy your product and this works best in stable society (arms dealers may work to a different dynamic here), a healthy society means lower risk of infections to yourself, less crime, better infrastructure and a pleasent place to live in.

Additionally. In some cases people are poor because we don't want to pay to whack for our various products and they are not in a good negotiating position to say otherwise. So we get cheap t-shirts because someone in Taiwan gets a few pence for each one they make, we get cheap mobile phones because miners who get the raw materials for them work without safety for very little reward. This does not make it the result of people being rich but the result of everyone not wanting to pay for their stuff. And quite frankly it is damn near impossible to look into everything you buy (especially complex electronics) and decide if someone is not being exploited somewhere down the line. Do what you can if you like, give to charity, buy green or ethically, protest about corruption, whatever. But by placing the blame at foot of just a few people we are somewhat missing the point

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Maybe not. But they might be if these people didn't spend so much effort avoiding corporation tax in order to garner their billions.

I did get a bit pissed off the other day when looking to buy something, and Amazon asked me if I'd like to donate to charity. No, Mr. Bezos; I'd like you to pay your f*cking share of tax.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Have a really big like for that.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Sorry, don't buy that; they can only avoid paying corporation tax by using the legal processes available to them. There's no point in having these legal "loopholes" and then moaning because people are making use of them.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/oxfam-wont-tell-capitalism-poverty/

In reply to captain paranoia:

That's why I bypass Amazon and the coffee lot as well.
I too liked your reply.

In reply to poppydog:

Oh FFS we all get that now. It's the loopholes and these c+nts deliberately cynically exploiting them that's frustrating and really f*cking annoying.

In reply to aln:

So, close the loopholes. Don't blame what you call the c*nts!

In reply to Oceanrower:

It's amazing all these tax loophole experts we have on here, aren't out there making big bucks from their knowledge.

In reply to poppydog:


Why do you think these loopholes exist? The super rich now how enough money and influence to buy those who make legislation on a global scale. Do you really like unaccountable oligarchs making the decisions for national governments?

In reply to Chive Talkin\':



Eh?

In reply to poppydog:

legal loopholes put in place by rich folk to help rich folk. Don't get me wrong I don't blame people for exploiting the system let's face it most people will try and pay as little tax as they can, hence folk who accept cash for services and goods. However this is what I am on about when you have a system that services the well off at the expense of the society they live in. You can't dodge paying into a system and then wring your hands because it is struggling.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


That's overly cynical I think. Actually, it's usually unintended consequences of tax rules intended to help somewhere else. It's quite hard to come up with system that only does exactly what a government intended and isn't capable of being abused. Of course, the most egregious abuses are gradually prevented by amending the rules but then you end up with a highly complicated tax code of the sort Gordon Brown was credited with creating.

There are simpler tax models based on the value of property and assets owned, but oddly nobody seems to want to do it that way.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I get what people are saying about tax loop holes etc, end of the day if you don't like the system blame the government as any major company is pretty much legally obliged to pay as little ta as possible. But I don't see what this has to do with helping the poorest 50% or less of people because they don't live in the UK, or the USA etc. Big companies paying more tax might improve our public finances a little but Starbuck's tax isnt going to be much use to the guy in Ethiopia with no food.

In reply to aln:


The 'loop holes' exist because its deemed favourable to people to encourage the presence of the corporations. People like buying from Amazon. They like (apparently) drinking at Starbucks. They like companies like Nissan building cars here.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

While I agree that many tax rules are intended to help my long time subscription to Private Eye has polished up my cynicism

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Well quite. But I was painting with a broad brush. So those poorest who don't live in the UK are subject to the effects of their governments.
It is easy to blame governments but then we are also responsible for our own actions

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Hmmmmm..... Bill Gates one of the richest person in the world has given around $30 billion to charities via his Gates Foundation. Huge amounts of money have gone to help eradicate diseases such as Polio ($92 million), Malaria ($1.6 Billion), tuberculosis ($280 million) Education ($375 million/yr). The list of global beneficiaries that benefit humanity as a whole just goes on and on.

How much does an African slum dweller or a Peruvian subsistence farmer living on a $/day contribute to the lofty goals of disease eradication or ensuring access to education etc?

This is yet again the politics of envy.

In reply to aln:

Say what you mean, mate, don't sugar coat it.

In reply to Ridge:



Well, I really don't have your inside knowledge, so . . .

In reply to Indy:


Is that all it is?

In reply to Chive Talkin\':




I don't think it's really relevant to anything much, just figures. Even if the headline was 80 men (presume women are allowed to play as well) own a quarter of the worlds wealth I bet the same people would make an issue of it.
Forget it.

In reply to Indy:

Bill and Melinda have given away billions, yes. Others haven't.


No; it's the politics of rationalism; other than giving to charity, what are you going to do with your money after you get past the first billion? Either you end up in a Blofeld-style attempt to take over the world (fluffy white cats only cost a few quid), or it's just silly money.

In reply to Chive Talkin\':

Interesting studies that suggest that inequality reduces happiness and satisfaction. The distribution suggests for all not just the poorest

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/the-inequality-of-happin...

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/12/income-inequality-makes-people-unha...

plenty others these are just a couple

In reply to Indy:


Again that was answered earlier when I suggested my OP was highlighting inequality.

I suspect your aim is to come across on most posts as unpleasant and obnoxious for the sake of it .

You can always read another thread . One that doesn't highlight concern for the global society and others less fortunate than yourself.

I hope you have a amazing 2017

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Ah he didn't though. The concept was developed years before Gates/Microsoft, at Stanford if I remember correctly. Even I produced an implementation of the concept 2 years before the first Microsft Windows OS was launched, although mine only ran on teletype computer terminals (don't ask!) and didn't net me quite as much dosh as Gates attempt

Not that this negates your argument in any way.

In reply to Indy:


No it isn't. You're just trotting out a tired old cliche which you think is relevant, but isn't.

People aren't envious of the world's top earners - they have no idea what it would be like to be in their shoes. Also, the people who you accuse of envy aren't the people low down this distribution wanting to get a higher place. You don't understand what you're talking about. People are looking at the stats and saying that this isn't the way they believe wealth should be distributed, for moral reasons, not because they believe that they personally deserve more.

You're well out of your depth.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You talk about wealth as though its a fixed resource. The issue isn't one of distribution, its one of making sure the lot of the ones at the bottom is improved. That might actually require more self made multibillionaires in the Bill Gates mould rather than fewer.

In reply to GrahamD:


No I don't. I talk about it as a resource which has a current distribution amongst the world's population. There is no implication that over time the total quantity remains static.


Yes it is. To improve the lot of those at the bottom, the distribution must change. The curve could - as you vaguely imply, all be shifted to the right (higher amounts of wealth per person). Or it could be changed in all kinds of other ways that would be a lot more efficient at improving the lot of those at the bottom, because they would use both growth (increase in total amount of resource) *and* redistribution.


I agree. The problem is that while capitalism is efficient at increasing the total amount of wealth, the grotesquely skewed distribution means that it's staggeringly inefficient at generating useful outcomes with the wealth created. That's why we need policies that harness the wealth-creating power of capitalism rather than stifling economic activity, but which vastly increase the efficiency with which that wealth is used to generate useful outcomes for people.