Wealth inequality grows.

[crankedup]

The global wealth gap continues to grow at a rate which could see the top 1% exceeding the total wealth ownership of the remaining 99%. More startling is this may occur within our lifetimes or a few decades time.
Marx prediction that just a few giant Corporations will fuel and supply and own the World needs isn't that fanciful it seems.

uk.news.yahoo.com/top-1-richer-rest-world-031552893

[crankedup]

The study was under the auspices of Oxfam, when the President of USA and other World leaders begin to publicly discuss their concerns regarding the issue you can be sure its not an imaginary situation. Unfortunately the World leaders are only talking, likely fearful of backlash from the wealthy hitting their politics. We can forget the references to those earning 42k + this report concerns the Global wealth inequality.
It will be interesting to hear what comes out from the Leaders chin-wag this week.

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

Who cares?

As ever, it's using a relative metric to denote the position of the few that bears very little influence on the absolute position of the remainder. Emotive bks.

With respect :

Alternately its called 'bury your head in the sand'. If you have children and Grandchildren, like myself, you should be aware and have some concern over the issue, if only for your siblings. I say that with respect that most posters in here do have an interest and sensibility over major issues. The 'little influence' to which you refer is naive, who do you believe controls major Global assets, it is this that is of concern.

[crankedup]

McWigglebum4th said:

crankedup said:

The study was under the auspices of Oxfam, when the President of USA and other World leaders begin to publicly discuss their concerns regarding the issue you can be sure its not an imaginary situation. Unfortunately the World leaders are only talking, likely fearful of backlash from the wealthy hitting their politics. We can forget the references to those earning 42k + this report concerns the Global wealth inequality.
It will be interesting to hear what comes out from the Leaders chin-wag this week.

Do you earn over £42K?

I really hope you don't

Can you explain to me what you mean by that comment and what on earth brought you to post it!

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

crankedup said:

With respect :

Alternately its called 'bury your head in the sand'. If you have children and Grandchildren, like myself, you should be aware and have some concern over the issue, if only for your siblings. I say that with respect that most posters in here do have an interest and sensibility over major issues. The 'little influence' to which you refer is naive, who do you believe controls major Global assets, it is this that is of concern.

Random capitalisation notwithstanding, I'll do my bit by providing my children and grandchildren with the skills and abilities I myself was equipped with from a young age. They'll be just fine, without any artificial and ultimately entirely arbitrary wealth transfer from the 1% to the 99%.

Again, using relatives rather than absolutes in this regard is emotive bks.

Your perhaps missing the broader point, we all provide for our families, of course we do our best for them. The point about the wealth inequality is the fact that wealth = power, it is as much the power transfer as it is the money. A small example within recent years was Branson taking on other airlines or wishing to be responsible for the National Lottery. Both examples his Company sought to betterment of working people but could easily have gone an opposite ethos. There is nothing emotive in raising reality to further public attention and, imo, Oxfam have made a worthy contribution.

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

crankedup said:

With respect :

Alternately its called 'bury your head in the sand'. If you have children and Grandchildren, like myself, you should be aware and have some concern over the issue, if only for your siblings. I say that with respect that most posters in here do have an interest and sensibility over major issues. The 'little influence' to which you refer is naive, who do you believe controls major Global assets, it is this that is of concern.

Random capitalisation notwithstanding, I'll do my bit by providing my children and grandchildren with the skills and abilities I myself was equipped with from a young age. They'll be just fine, without any artificial and ultimately entirely arbitrary wealth transfer from the 1% to the 99%.

Again, using relatives rather than absolutes in this regard is emotive bks.

ETA: I see your concern doesn't actually lie with wealth disparity then, but with those directly controlling the nebulously termed 'global assets'. Can you elucidate?

Edited by iphonedyou on Monday 19th January 17:00

Wealth brings power and dominance, it is up to each individual how they may, or may not, wish to use these three powerful criteria. For example, Murdock and his use of money,power and dominance, multiply that up as the wealth continues to be on its upward pyramid trajectory.
This has nothing to do with people earning wages or people who run SME business, its the uber rich, those who can pay twenty million + pounds for a London Penthouse from what for them is small change. As these peoples wealth increases so they have the 'need' to purchase ever more assets to grow more wealth.
Very small example is the London(City)property market, as overseas buyers have entered this market it has pushed up prices to an extent that fewer people are able to consider, out of financial reach, to purchase. This has led to the phenomenon of multi-million pound homes which are exclusively for investment only and never lived in as a home. This situation can be transferred into almost any asset you may wish to consider, but mainly it will be money making assets and that means multinational Corporations.

[crankedup]

pork911 said:

crankedup said:

Wealth brings power and dominance, it is up to each individual how they may, or may not, wish to use these three powerful criteria. For example, Murdock and his use of money,power and dominance, multiply that up as the wealth continues to be on its upward pyramid trajectory.
This has nothing to do with people earning wages or people who run SME business, its the uber rich, those who can pay twenty million + pounds for a London Penthouse from what for them is small change. As these peoples wealth increases so they have the 'need' to purchase ever more assets to grow more wealth.
Very small example is the London(City)property market, as overseas buyers have entered this market it has pushed up prices to an extent that fewer people are able to consider, out of financial reach, to purchase. This has led to the phenomenon of multi-million pound homes which are exclusively for investment only and never lived in as a home. This situation can be transferred into almost any asset you may wish to consider, but mainly it will be money making assets and that means multinational Corporations.

do you earn over £26k p.a.? what have you done with your power and dominance?

Always one, always one

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

Boiled down, this amounts to "People have money. We want some of it. It's fair that way."

Idiot.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Idiot.

I can't compete against debate of that quality.

You perhaps need to leave the cupboard, join the real World and try listening then. If you have nothing to contribute then by all means %&^@ off.

[crankedup]

MrCarPark said:

Tim Worstall nails it IMHO:

"As to why Oxfam is leaping aboard the latest piece of bien pensant whataboutery, consider what the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief was set up to do (the clue is there if you look for it). Now that we know that modern famine is a result of idiot governments and that, thankfully, there’s fewer of those around, the aid bureaucracy decided to concentrate on poverty. And there’s a certain amount of running out of that to deal with, as the last 30 years have seen the greatest reduction in absolute poverty in the history of our entire species. Billions have moved from peasant destitution to the global middle class, and the major beneficiaries of globalisation have been the poor. Even sub-Saharan Africa is showing decent signs of the people in general getting richer. As a result, global income inequality is falling.

"As C Northcote Parkinson pointed out, a bureaucracy that has solved its problem will not gracefully fade away. It will search, desperately, for a new task to justify its continued existence. As long as there’s something to shout about, the donations will continue to roll in.

"Oxfam is just trying to survive, but it doesn’t mean we need to pay them any attention."

Source: http://www.cityam.com/207441/why-we-should-beware-...

Is this dipstick aware that we have recently suffered a seismic financial global crash I wonder. Wonder what caused that to happen, wealth built upon sand maybe!

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Idiot.

I can't compete against debate of that quality.

You perhaps need to leave the cupboard, join the real World and try listening then. If you have nothing to contribute then by all means %&^@ off.

Would calling you an idiot be classed as a contribution?

I stick with what I said- the wealth inequality figures are based on the politics of envy and will be a justification for some to further tax those who have succeeded.

You insulted me with a very down at heel jibe from the outset whilst I was looking for a moderated debate. Even I sometimes succumb to the lowest from of dialogue when presented with your initial response.
Yes I was a little OTT and for once I apologise for that. Still I strongly disagree with you especially as you have not provided any substantive information, politics of envy?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

FredClogs said:

What do you mean? I think it might be a zero sum game, don't you? Or are you going to be buried with your loot for use in the next life?

And the idea that people "make" money is also a nonsense, money is never "made" by private enterprise, the amount of money available is only ever increased by two means, inflationary growth and governments printing/borrowing money. The last 10 years has seen more money printed (borrowed) than in almost any time in human history (coinciding with western governments trying very hard to control inflation) and yet during that same time the wealth gap has widened, there is only one conclusion we can draw from this isn't there?

I'm sure there is only one conclusion that YOU can draw - doesn't mean that it is the correct one.

At the same time that wealth inequality has (apparently) increased, absolute poverty has declined, what conclusion do you draw from that?

Absolute poverty has indeed decreased, thanks to the U.K. benefits system and a vast array of charitable organisations who's business it is to care for those at the bottom of the ladder.
For the vast majority (U.K.) middle England have become less wealthy during the past 6/7 years due to wage freezes/job losses/shorter working hours due to pressure from Global competition and the U.K. job market becoming much more competitive as well.
However, whilst all this has been going on those at the top of the middle classes have done rather well, for example the average pay for Directorships has risen 21% during the past 12 months. This in itself is not particularly connected with my thread though, that is concerned with the uber wealthy as I have mentioned already on several occasions.

[crankedup]

otolith said:

FredClogs said:

The man who is starving is wealthier than the man who is starving and has malaria.

Good point, clearly we need to give the other man malaria too.

Identifies the differences well, imo the starving man should assist the other guy who is worse off than himself. Good parallel with treating those abroad with ebola, we had no such problem here in the U.K. until folk went out to care for those less well off. But the bigger picture is of course defeating the disease before it becomes a Global epidemic. So, as an individual what would you choose to do, go help out as best you could and risk catching the disease yourself or do nothing and hope others will save your skin?

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

scherzkeks said:

Try posting a substantive question and we'll go from there.

Substantive question- how does it negatively affect someone if someone else earns a larger amount? You only have one swimming pool, I have a thousand. You can still swim.

The person with one thousand pools can hire out his pools at a lesser rate than his competitor and of course make more money. In doing so the 1000 pools person can buy even more pools and hire them out even more cheaply, and still make more money. repeat and rinse until eventually everyone uses the 1000 pools person and one pool man goes out of business. Now competitor has gone 1000 pools man can charge double the hire price, some people will say 'I don't want to swim' but most will moan about price increase but stump up the money.
Hence my early remarks about money = power= more money.As we witness the wealth forecast of 99% of wealth belonging to 1% of the population it is crystal clear that the growing wealth gap must be moderated, likely by taxation.

[crankedup]

Bodo said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk said:

scherzkeks said:

Try posting a substantive question and we'll go from there.

Substantive question- how does it negatively affect someone if someone else earns a larger amount? You only have one swimming pool, I have a thousand. You can still swim.

The person with one thousand pools can hire out his pools at a lesser rate than his competitor and of course make more money. In doing so the 1000 pools person can buy even more pools and hire them out even more cheaply, and still make more money. repeat and rinse until eventually everyone uses the 1000 pools person and one pool man goes out of business. Now competitor has gone 1000 pools man can charge double the hire price, some people will say 'I don't want to swim' but most will moan about price increase but stump up the money.
Hence my early remarks about money = power= more money.As we witness the wealth forecast of 99% of wealth belonging to 1% of the population it is crystal clear that the growing wealth gap must be moderated, likely by taxation.

Why? Why do you think wealth inequality is a bad thing?

Wealth inequality that is moderate is not a bad thing, I have never suggested it as being not so. Indeed moderate wealth inequality is a good thing, as a driver or incentive to everyone that achievement and success can bring reward. What I am saying, or attempting to say is that the extreme Global wealth is going into fewer and fewer pockets, and I have given a few examples earlier in the thread of that and why that is not good for long term Social and economic reasons, which some other posters have offered also.

Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 21st January 16:22

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

Not actually talking about hiring pools- I'm talking about having a standard of living. If one person has something, it doesn't negatively effect me if someone else has more.

I used the 'pools' as a very simple example of why the percentage of Global wealth being sucked into the top of a pyramid is bad for Social and economic reasons. The asset, in this case 'pools' could just as easily be production factories or cattle farms, it makes no difference to the outcome.
It can affect everybody who likes to have a daily swim or always purchases the manufactured item from the factory or just enjoys eating beef. The more wealth going into fewer hands means less competition for those uber wealthy and the equally damaging effect of their higher or stronger buying power (Small example Tesco and its suppliers).

[crankedup]

scherzkeks said:

Bodo said:

Why? Why do you think wealth inequality is a bad thing?

Assuming this is not a wind-up: The issue is that disproportionate, high concentrations wealth and excessive levels of inequality can have disasterous results on social mobility and cohesion and realization of individual economic potential. A basic rundown of some effects can be found here under "Effects":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#E...

Thank you, you are able to express this much more eloquently than I. It is precisely the problem that is being recognised by an ever growing number of Governments. We need only look at Greece for an example.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Bodo said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk said:

scherzkeks said:

Try posting a substantive question and we'll go from there.

Substantive question- how does it negatively affect someone if someone else earns a larger amount? You only have one swimming pool, I have a thousand. You can still swim.

The person with one thousand pools can hire out his pools at a lesser rate than his competitor and of course make more money. In doing so the 1000 pools person can buy even more pools and hire them out even more cheaply, and still make more money. repeat and rinse until eventually everyone uses the 1000 pools person and one pool man goes out of business. Now competitor has gone 1000 pools man can charge double the hire price, some people will say 'I don't want to swim' but most will moan about price increase but stump up the money.
Hence my early remarks about money = power= more money.As we witness the wealth forecast of 99% of wealth belonging to 1% of the population it is crystal clear that the growing wealth gap must be moderated, likely by taxation.

Why? Why do you think wealth inequality is a bad thing?

Wealth inequality that is moderate is not a bad thing, I have never suggested it as being so. Indeed moderate wealth inequality is a good thing, as a driver or incentive to everyone that achievement and success can bring reward. What I am saying, or attempting to say is that the extreme Global wealth is going into fewer and fewer pockets, and I have given a few examples earlier in the thread of that and why that is not good for long term Social and economic reasons, which some other posters have offered also.

And as other PHers have shown, they don't stack up.

Going back to the above (unworkable) 'moderate' measure, what is it / who decides / how will it be implemented / how will it be enforced?

There's a hint in brackets.

These are points you raise that I have already alluded to.
'How would it be measured' much the same way as any tax system is measured.
'Who decides" elected Governments.
'How will it be implemented' through Government taxation systems.
'How will it be enforced' ditto above.

Of course whether Governments will wish to implement such changes and when is another question. For an indication on the answer we can look at the political agenda in Greece for a clue to the future perhaps. Its not a future I want to see or take part in.

A question for yourself, did you read my example earlier in the thread regarding wealth = power. My example of the Murdock empire as a simple illustration of wealth inequality leading to, what some may suggest, power corruption, depending on ones POV?

[crankedup]

Dr Jekyll said:

crankedup said:

I used the 'pools' as a very simple example of why the percentage of Global wealth being sucked into the top of a pyramid is bad for Social and economic reasons. The asset, in this case 'pools' could just as easily be production factories or cattle farms, it makes no difference to the outcome.
It can affect everybody who likes to have a daily swim or always purchases the manufactured item from the factory or just enjoys eating beef. The more wealth going into fewer hands means less competition for those uber wealthy and the equally damaging effect of their higher or stronger buying power (Small example Tesco and its suppliers).

This is exactly the point. Global wealth is not a fixed sum to be distributed by Those Who Know Best, it is being continually created. If someone manages to create a lot of it, then good for them, it doesn't make anyone else worse off.

That is precisely the 'black/white' answer and to a point I agree, but would need to include the term 'moderation'. It can make people worse off by fewer people controlling assets which leads to less competition. Do you think the big 6 energy firms are offering good value for instance?
I have already mentioned that Governments are the controlling factors through taxation.

[crankedup]

Nobody has convinced me that extreme wealth in just a few hands is a good thing, and that extreme wealth is growing within those same few hands. Nobody can see a problem with that, except a couple of other posters.