https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50

Interesting the link being drawn to Trump, Brexit and more. So what do you think? An inevitable consequence of the Western economic model and a portend of revolution to come…

Depends what they do with that wealth – use it to give others a chance, or stockpile or squander it. (I’m guessing the latter)

Surely what really matters is whether 100% of us have enough to eat/drink and are safe with a roof over our heads, far more important IMO.

What happened to the other 54 last year?

Kerrrrrching!!

Depends what they do with that wealth – use it to give others a chance, or stockpile or squander it. (I’m guessing the latter)

Bill Gates has given $28 billion to charity.

You may well argue he should never have had that much to give but he had it and he gave it away.

What happened to the other 54 last year?

The report authors discovered that wealth in China and India had been overstated, and the poorest people were actually much poorer than previously thought.

Surely what really matters is whether 100% of us have enough to eat/drink and are safe with a roof over our heads, far more important IMO.

Yes but that’s not even true for the “5th largest economy in the world”.

An inevitable consequence of the Western economic model

THIS

you cannot have winners without losers and we have massive winners whilst the vast majority lose out

Not morally justifiable and the reality is the inequity means extreme poverty for many of the citizens of the world- we have millions struggling to eat because of this distribution model.

No one should be comfortable with the inevitable consequences of our model

you cannot have winners without losers and we have massive winners whilst the vast majority lose out

Actually you can, you’re thinking of zero-sum games and the economy isn’t exactly that, as technological advance can mean we all win.

Capitalism inevitable distributes the wealth/income in this inequitable manner its unarguable

The point you make is that capitalism can make us all wealthier – there is some merit in this argument but it does not negate my point- even when it drags people out of poverty – which i believe is the correct term for billionaires exploiting labour and wage conditions in impoverished nations to make even more money for themselves than they could hefe – its a side effect rather an aim.

TBH if capitalism really did this – and clearly we have the wealth in the world to eradicate extreme poverty – or at least reduce it considerably from what it is now – then we would not be having this chat we would be admiring capitalism for feeding the world
we are not and we never will as it has winners and losers

we may all be slightly better off we cannot all win and many lose terribly as the figure shows and a tiny minority win massively

Its what is happening

Examples like gates and musk do change some of the perspectives the gates foundation and tesla are things that we all wish governments would do. Some of the great steps forward have come from philanthropy rather than politics. The flip side is the likes of Trump

The very first paragraph in that article states that the 8 of them are worth a combined £350bn. Divide that figure by the 3.6bn people that are the lowest 50% and… You get slightly less than £100 per person…

We do NOT have enough money to rid the world of poverty, despite what the illuminati and the tin foil hat wearers think!

Yes for those 3.6bn people, £100 in their hands right here and now would changeanu things, but it’s not going to elevate them from poverty. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry as a wise book once stated!

Also good to note of the top 8, at least 2 are huge philanthropists. Targeting their money through various charities aimed at bringing people out of poverty and creating better lives for them is arguably much better than just walking down the street handing out wads of cash I’d argue…

Junkyard

No one should be comfortable with the inevitable consequences of our model

Far more comfortable with them than the inevitable consequences of Marxism.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry as a wise book once stated!

And in a great example of not getting that, somebody (trying not to derail the thread) wants to cut immigration to his rich country by decimating the industry of his neighbour and source of illegal immigration.

Looking at that list, both Gates and Zuckenberg made their fortunes without exploiting anyone.

No sweatshops, no hazardous working conditions, no exposure to nasty shit etc.

Why should they be criticised?

And in a great example of not getting that, somebody (trying not to derail the thread) wants to cut immigration to his rich country by decimating the industry of his neighbour and source of illegal immigration.

Maybe that will work out well for said country, with keeping there industrious citizens in the country where there can channel their energies into making there own country better rather than simply a brain/talent drain to the richer neighbour and maintaining the status quo?

Maybe that will work out well for said country, with keeping there industrious citizens in the country

Exactly my point, if you rip the heart out of the Mexican auto industry you remove the incentive for people to stay in Mexico

if you rip the heart out of the Mexican auto industry you remove the incentive for people to stay in Mexico

Have you worked in Mexico?

It’s a mess.

Very unbalanced, corrupt and a deliberate effort to keep the poor, as poor and ignorant as possible.

The US is not the problem. Mexico is the problem.

So removing investment and industry is a good thing? The US has been very good down there until now. (the software company we sell for pays for the Mexico distribution work to get on with improving things) if places like the uk/us have not worked out how to make money without low skill manufacturing then its us in the shit. Protectionism is the cheating way out of being uncompetitive

Junkyard – lazarus

Capitalism inevitable distributes the wealth/income in this inequitable manner its unarguable

That’s not entirely true. And claiming this is inevitable under present conditions certainly serves the interests of the ruling elite…….“well that’s capitalism for you, what can you do” is what they would like you to think.

See this graph :

Britain was without doubt a capitalist country in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Despite what both Trotskyites and Tories might tell you huge and growing income inequality is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of capitalism, much can be done to reduce it without the need for revolution.

What the last 35 years has shown us is the remarkable success of neo-liberalism in making the very wealthy wealthier, which after all is its primary objective.

It’s not very hard to figure out roughly where Ronald Reagan became president in the US in this graph :

Or where Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in the UK in this graph :

Growing income inequality is the direct result of government policy, and not due to inevitability outside our control.

Protectionism is the cheating way out of being uncompetitive

The Mexican oil industry is a prime example.

7th biggest oil producer in the World but stuck with outdated technology, outdated working practices, poor H&S with regular fatalities and one of the highest production costs per barrel.

The Government has made it too difficult and expensive for contractors to work there, so they are stuck in 1982.

Looking at that list, both Gates and Zuckenberg made their fortunes without exploiting anyone.

Most of the top 8 are tech guys, which tells you more about how once a product takes hold in the tech world, then because of connectivity people all want to be using the same thing, which results in vast profits for the seller.

I was at a meeting at work where one of the finance blokes said efficiency is the only way for wealth to increase now , the problem I see with this is with increasing technology you can make tons of money but never really employ to many people , zuckerberg as far as I know made his cash without using sweatshops or screwing over little guys but in the past to make that kind of fortune you would of employed a whole town in your factory . Add in robots and the jobs they will take and you wonder what the average bloke in the street will be able to do to earn a living in 20 years time

So what do you think? An inevitable consequence of the Western economic model and a portend of revolution to come…

Yes, as other have said – winners and losers, since we’ve had a civilisation and an economy there have been people whose wealth is disproportional to the rest, but in recent years it really has become so vast a gulf between Them, Us and the poor it beggars belief.

The only good thing about these super rich people is that aside from a small proportion who ‘do good’ with it, they mostly cling onto it, or try to grow it – because greed is like that – by and large these Billionaires money is removed from the wider economy – they’re not buying up the world’s supply of food to drive up prices, or securing water supplies (yet anyway).

It might not last forever though, the circumstances that mean they can make these obscene amounts of money haven’t been around long in terms of history. These super, super rich people have only been able to do, what they do since 1975, when we (Humans, not Brits) first allowed a financial organisation run our lives.

As for a revolution, maybe, but I doubt it.

I don’t believe in this Illuminati Theory, there is no single organisation that rules the rest of us in secret, but Bilderberg Meetings do happen, every year and it’s not completely unique – when some of the most powerful people in the world meet up and discuss ‘current affairs’ without ever reviling the topics, the outcomes, the minutes, who attended, who spoke and what was said. They claim (when they admit it even happens) that they meet for the good of the world – but human nature being what it is – and frankly most powerful people believe whole heartedly that what happens to be good for them, is good for everyone by default.
Collectively these people own and control the media, you only have to look at Brexit to see how a single, very rich, very powerful man can convince huge amounts of people to vote for something that anyone who understands economics and politics says is going to be bad for them.
Equally, since the French Revolution the Rich and Powerful have learned that being too greedy and too vulgar in your display of wealth – can cost you everything, including your head – but if you work to ensure the ‘peoples’ leaders are one of you, so they make polices that mean the man on the street has something, anything to lose – they won’t risk it and better still if you divide and conquer, turn them on each other – they won’t look at you.

Consider the people of Britain at the moment – the link states that 8 people have 50% of the worlds wealth and at the other end – people starve. We have children living in poverty in families who survive on £600 a month a few miles away from People who live in flat’s that cost £1,000,000 and it’s even wider than that in the extreme. Are the poor families poor because they’re stupid, or they’re lazy? Are the people in the £1m flats there because they’re super talented or super hard working? More often than not it’s a complete accident of birth. Are we up in arms about it? No, because we’re too busy arguing between ourselves.
Taxation is another good example – in the western world we tax income, we tax when you spend, we tax when you save. A slice, and a fairly big one at that is taken from us every time money moves. The ruling class ensure that our attention is kept firmly arguing about who amongst us should pay more or less – the ‘fair’ rate of income tax to keep us all in Warheads and Hospitals – been going on since the dawn of society – we never talk about taxing wealth – we even allow very rich people who avoid inherence tax with sneaky little estate tax loop holes.

Make no mistake, we won’t have a revolution because whilst all these ‘billionaires’ aren’t part of a big club, what’s good for Trump is what’s good for Murdoch so they control our opinions because the control the press, and the media, they control our government (two choices, left or right, both belong to them) and they control the economy so you can have a 4k flat screen and a bike/car/boat/whatever just enough to make you feel wealthy, without you ever getting to a position of power – the ‘middle class’ invented so working class people can be easier controlled to vote for policies to benefit rich people.

Add in robots and the jobs they will take and you wonder what the average bloke in the street will be able to do to earn a living in 20 years time

It shocked a colleagues nephew a few years back that the people cleaning the office and emptying bins were 20 something blokes. What is the problem is that when a very well funded education system can’t work out how to educate the next generations the country has failed not the successful people

Population growth, for example India’s population has grown from 350m to over a billion in 70 years

Not everyone can be Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, ther will always be disparity and technology has created the means to make huge wealth very quickly.

Capitalism has created the conditions for huge global population growth and significant improvement in the standard of living for all. We’ve seen before that assets of £500k pit you in the top 1% globally, a house and a state pension pot add up to more than that.

Whilst we have significant wealth in terms of asset value imo the disparity wasf ar greater 100 or 200 years ago in terms of lifestyle and what that money woukd buy at the top and the reality of living at the bottom with no housing, little food and a very low lif expectancy.

Neither income nor wealth inequality have risen recently

In historic terms, neither are at “abnormal levels” – the period that was abnormal was the mid 20 century. That is not to say it is good or bad, just important to know the context

We already have a very progressive tax system that redistributes income (pretty effectively)

The so-called western model has lifted many out of poverty at an increasing rate

Inequalities are not exclusive to one particular model – in a capitalist model, they depend on the relative balance of ownership between the main factors of production.

There is not moral absolute about inequality of outcome.

Looking at that list, both Gates and Zuckenberg made their fortunes without exploiting anyone.

Possibly not, but Microsoft did repeatedly use anti-competitive business practices to remove as much of their competition as possible and create as uneven a playing field, in their favour, as they could.

wwaswas – Member 
Bill Gates has given $28 billion to charity.
You may well argue he should never have had that much to give but he had it and he gave it away.

And had he not made all that money to give away, those charities wouldn’t have got that money. Or to put it another way, spread out the money from these rich people to everyone in the world and we all end up with a couple of quid extra, most still living to their limits and few giving to those charities. i.e. A person with a lot of excess has a lot more to give to charity than a person with nothing left at the end of the month.

And then there’s investments in business, enterprises, the employment that it brings.

verses – Member 
Possibly not, but Microsoft did repeatedly use anti-competitive business practices to remove as much of their competition as possible and create as uneven a playing field, in their favour, as they could.

Always find it funny this argument about Microsoft and the anti-trust case against them and yet Apple can do no wrong, doing exactly the same thing, or worse. Bundled applications including browser, exactly like Microsoft, but no wrist slapped for that. Restrictive practices preventing others from making computers that can run their software and limit what you can run – no problem, but Microsoft let anyone build computers to run their software and install anything you like, but are slapped with fines because they bundled crappy IE in the box.

Anyway, as soon as stuff about how much the richest or the bloody “1%” (hate that term) earn comes out, it’s all about jealousy. Heard it yet again on the radio the other day with a sob story from some bloke saying it’s unfair that he’s got crap all and this successful enterprising boss has loads. Boo hoo.

What’s the solution? Communism. Let’s all have equally crap all and be miserable.

Although if you can pull it off, you get… Star Trek. Or the Federation at least. If you look at it, it’s really communism. No one earns money and everyone works for the betterment of themselves and society, and the state looks after everyone. Yes, communism that works. Total science fiction pipedream though.

mboy – Member 
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry as a wise book once stated!

“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring” – Desmond Tutu (attribution by The Internet, so obviously it’s a genuine quote 😉 ).

Should add – whole pile of tongue in cheek in this post 😛

teamhurtmore – Member

Neither income nor wealth inequality have risen recently

In historic terms, neither are at “abnormal levels” – the period that was abnormal was the mid 20 century.

I’m loving this bit “the period that was abnormal was the mid 20 century”. Yes it was “abnormal” compared to Victorian times or Anglo-Saxon times! All this low level of inequality isn’t normal!!! 😆

It’s true that in 2010 inequality fell slightly in the UK and has remained fairly stable since then. But it’s also true that today inequality is way higher than it was in 1979.

What, pray, is the Gini Co-efficient? It’s a pretty useless graph unless you explain it…

Well you could google it 🙂

” a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality”

Yes, communism that works. Total science fiction pipedream though.

Well if you are going to dream why not dream of a model that is at least based on fairness rather than dreaming of a capitalist model?

You are correct Ernie. II is higher than in 1079 when you poster girl came to power. We agree

Abnormal is, as I noted, making no reference to being a good or bad outcome. It is simply noting that the mid 20c is not normal in relation to historic trends as your slightly longer term graph also shows

No ! Required

No Roth3childs ?

Ernie it’s worth noting that your Danny Dorling graph conveniently finishes at 2005 and the dotted lines go straight up whereas in reality it goes straight down from 2006 and the financial crises.

As Mrs Thatcher famously said herself an obsession with inequality ignores the fact everyone is better off.

As Mrs Thatcher famously said herself an obsession with inequality ignores the fact everyone is better off.

better off than what (the poor victorian) – that approach just tries to ignore inequality

jambalaya – Member

Ernie it’s worth noting that your Danny Dorling graph conveniently finishes at 2005 and the dotted lines go straight up whereas in reality it goes straight down from 2006 and the financial crises.

You mean like in this graph which I also posted but you chose to ignore?

It’s very clear that the top one percent has a far greater income share than they had back in 1979.

The primary role of the Tories is to make the very wealthiest in society even wealthier. As you can see they have been hugely successful, helped obviously along the way by New Labour. And of course the former New Labour leader did very well for himself too!

.

As Mrs Thatcher famously said herself an obsession with inequality ignores the fact everyone is better off.

Ah yes of course, “trickle-down economics” ……. it’s been a while since we’ve heard of that.

Well 100 years ago over 90% of the worlds population lived in poverty. Now it’s less than 20% so the trickle down effect does seem to have trickled down.

Things have gone a bit crazy in the last 20 years ago with pay for big bosses though and the trickle down effect does seem to be tricking less than it did.

However, I’ve got no issues with somebody who creates their own successful company paying them what they want. It’s their company, their risk, their entrepreneurialism. It’s their company, their profit they can do with it what they want within the bounds of the law.