According to Oxfam:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101348398

Struggling to get my head around this. Mainly because wealth is measured in US$ which is pretty abstract for many of those 3.5 billion.
For example – because I own a house in UK, I’m instantly richer (according to these figures) than someone with a similar sized house in half the world.

But even so – still a completely bizarre stat.

200 people own more than half the land area of Scotland.

That’s what the SNP should be dealing with, not who their head of state happens to be.

Problem is those 200/350 people aren’t stupid and make generous donations to the powers that be to maintain the status quo….

Do both these things not neatly for in with Pareto as per everything in life?

200 people own more than half the land area of Scotland.

There’s nothing in it and anyone can use it. Why does it matter?

wwaswas – that statistic isn’t actually correct. 200 people own half the PRIVATELY OWNED land area of Scotland. Nonetheless, it’s something that needs looked at. Thing is, there are some very good/benevolent land owners and some very poor ones. Surprisingly, Al Fayed is considered one if the good guys and you’ll rarely hear a bad word against him. Of course, one of the main mechanisms for controlling land ownership is the tax system (a reserved matter)

legend – Member
Do both these things not neatly for in with Pareto as per everything in life?

I think people are reasonably happy with 80/20 – it’s how massively removed it is from that, that staggers people.

96/4 is nearer the mark for the US population.
But this Oxfam stat suggests globally that it’s much worse.

5thelefant – do you think it’s natural that “there’s nothing in it”? Do you think it was always like that?

5thelefant – do you think it’s natural that “there’s nothing in it”? Do you think it was always like that?

What exactly do you want to build on it?

I don’t know a huge amount about the history of Scottish land ownership but even I know the Highland clearances were, effectively, designed to create the uninhabited wilderness areas that are there now to make hunting a nicer experience for the land owners.

Who knows what would be in these areas now if the indigenous population had remained?

One wonders why folk start threads considering they get derailed at the first post with another one on Scotland which has nothing to do with the original post not even tenuously – have we not got enough threads on the west lothian question?

This is what capitalism delivers
Forget all the striver BS and the trickle down stuff what it dies is concentrate the finite resources of the entire planet into the hands of the few [ be it countries or people] resulting in much suffering [ starvation, death, sweats hops shanty towns , no education or healthcare etc]for the majority of the planet

They then tell us it is natural and unavoidable when it is indefensible and amoral

Worse still despite most of being in the losers camp [ country wise if not planet wise] we continue to vote for leaders/aprties who deliver this
It is like turkeys voting for xmas

Re Scotland what 5th Elephant said, large tracts of farmland, estates, forestry which most people wouldn’t have the inclination or ability to own/manage. If Salmond / SNP want to address that they can buy the land for the state but I’d imagine it wouldn’t make financial sense and the Scottish government has better things to do with public funds. Most individuals choose to buy property/land close to centres of employment, this means small area in a city. Looking a land ownership on an area basis is very misleading

As for the headline statistic that makes complete sense, the worlds population is expanding very quickly and at the fastest rate in the very poorest countries. 70 years ago there where 300 million people in India now there is 1,200 million, more than a four fold increase. India has more millionaires than does the UK, understandable given the size of the country. China hasn’t seen the same increase in population as they had a policy to control population growth but they have a huge disparity in incomes and wealth.

The wealth disparity top/bottom in developed countries like the UK is relatively static, the big changes have been in Asia and interestingly Russia.

This is news how? ‘cos the numbers are big? The human race has always been pyramid shaped. That however tells you little about how far advanced as humans we are compared to 200, 100, 50 years ago.

dragon – Member

This is news how? ‘cos the numbers are big? The human race has always been pyramid shaped. That however tells you little about how far advanced as humans we are compared to 200, 100, 50 years ago.

Define ‘advanced’.

sorry, I didn;t mean to hijack the whole thing. It did, to me, seem like another illustration of the same issue – huge amounts of wealth/power in the hands of the few.

This is what capitalism delivers

@Junkyard Capitalism has proven the most successful system by far, pretty much every attempt at anything else has been a dismal failure. We in the UK live in a very successful and rich and egalitarian country on a global basis. See my post above re India and China for example.

That’s how I took it wwaswas.
Some people will be shocked by these stats, so I thought maybe we should be more familiar with what’s happening. These things creep up without alarm.

Advanced; well where to begin:- clean water, electricity, transport, medicine, computers, air travel, food, communications etc.

Define ‘advanced’.

Not eating your neighbours?

@waswas – you are associating owning large amounts Scotish land with wealth, you’d be more wealthy just owning a house in central London. If this land wasn’t estates it would either be commercial forestry (not native and destroys the natural species and environment) or subsistence farming (a very hard life).

Instead of area you need to look at the value of private property in Scotland. There is no philosophical or economic reason why all people should own the same or similar amounts of property or anything else. All we can do is provide a (relatively) equal opportunity.

All we can do is provide a (relatively) equal opportunity.

Oh goodie when are we going to start doing that then?

dragon – Member

Advanced; well where to begin:- clean water, electricity, transport, medicine, computers, air travel, food, communications etc.

And you think the availability of these things is not influenced by the distribution of wealth?

5thElefant – Member

Define ‘advanced’.

Not eating your neighbours?

I don’t have a problem with cannibalism.
If you’re going to all the trouble of killing someone, the least you can do is dispose of the body in an environmentally friendly manner.

Has anyone got a toothpick?

Humans have been around for thousands of years, we’ve lived with capitalism for about 200 years and its done more to **** up the world. ( god I sound like my Ex)

you are associating owning large amounts Scotish land with wealth, you’d be more wealthy just owning a house in central London.

You’re associating owning a house in central London with wealth, you’d be more wealthy owning a skyscraper in Japan.

This has never been satisfactorly answered to me:

What do those rich people do with all that money? Presumably it gets spent at some point?

Humans have been around for thousands of years, we’ve lived with capitalism for about 200 years and its done more to **** up the world.

Hmm.. the world is actually far LESS **** up than it used to be I suspect. I suspect the gap between rich and poor in the developed world is much less than it was 200 years ago.

We’ve also had capitalism for a very long time, more than 200 years.

They spend it on desolate insect infested wasteland in Scotland.

The human race has always been pyramid shaped

Another for one for the its inevitable but it is a great big lie
When we lived in small communities with kinship and the environment could kill us we did not horde we shared
It is still what communities do

only when we develop complex interrelated societies do we advance in to greed and then do we argue its inevitable as if we have no control over the laws that govern our world or how these resources are spread..it is is not inevitable it is what we choose to do/allow to happen

Imagine we are trapped on a island and then one day their is a ship wreck and one person finds it would the
1. Share it with everyone else there
2. horde it tell them its inevitable to have a pyramid and then watch others starve as they hoard?

It is not natural at all Its not true to claim it is
It is what we allow to happen

Presumably it gets spent at some point?

No if they spent it they would be poor

they bank it – one could argue it gets invested and used but really could you spend £6 billion and have no assets [ wealth] to show?

Has anyone got a toothpick?

I have a nice Chianti

Utter crap. We killed or enslaved anyone we encountered.

I like this one, 1% of the population of Uk pays 26% of the tax!

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOJ93tAbPP0[/video]

This is what capitalism delivers
Forget all the striver BS and the trickle down stuff what it dies is concentrate the finite resources of the entire planet into the hands of the few [ be it countries or people] resulting in much suffering [ starvation, death, sweats hops shanty towns , no education or healthcare etc]for the majority of the planet

They then tell us it is natural and unavoidable when it is indefensible and amoral

Worse still despite most of being in the losers camp [ country wise if not planet wise] we continue to vote for leaders/aprties who deliver this
It is like turkeys voting for xmas

+1

Junkyard, you’re not Will Hutton are you?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/19/inequality-threat-recovery-poverty-pay

Imagine we are trapped on a island and then one day their is a ship wreck and one person finds it would the
1. Share it with everyone else there
2. horde it tell them its inevitable to have a pyramid and then watch others starve as they hoard?

Haha. Depends on the people!

Humans have two modes of behaviour. When dealing with people they KNOW, they will often be kind and altruistic, sharing and caring.

When it’s people they don’t know, they are far less so and find it easy to come up with lines like ‘it’s not our business’ or ‘it’s their own fault’ etc.

No if they spent it they would be poor
they bank it – one could argue it gets invested and used but really could you spend £6 billion and have no assets

But they tend to also have big houses, yachts etc etc no?

If you’re going to all the trouble of killing someone, the least you can do is dispose of the body in an environmentally friendly manner.

aye the fickleness of human’s diets never ceases to amaze.

What do those rich people do with all that money? Presumably it gets spent at some point?

See the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

Humans have been around for thousands of years, we’ve lived with capitalism for about 200 years and its done more to **** up the world.

Utter twaddle, the world ain’t perfect by a long shot but if you want to go back and live 200 years ago feel free. AN eara where your life expectancy was 40 and a working week of ~70 hours, no health and safety legislation etc.

When dealing with people they KNOW, they will often be kind and altruistic, sharing and caring.

Often might be pushing it. Sometimes maybe. Usually there’s a struggle for dominance.

Utter crap. We killed or enslaved anyone we encountered.

Is this just designed to get a reaction

you are free to disagree with me but i can think of no reason why anyone would claim that scenario was true

What do those rich people do with all that money? Presumably it gets spent at some point?

Generally they use it to generate even more money for themselves.

you are free to disagree with me but i can think of no reason why anyone would claim that scenario was true

Really?

Look back in history. Are there any civilisations that didn’t devote their spare time to killing and enslaving their neighbours?

Every empire was based on it.

It’s only since the invention of capitalism that slavery came to an end.

AN eara where your life expectancy was 40 and a working week of ~70 hours, no health and safety legislation etc

Are you claiming capitalism gave us H & S, reduced working weeks, protection and the NHS

Brilliant – really how can anyone thingk that as it is at odds with the reality of the struggle to get improved working conditions from the dark satanic mines

Look it is repeated it is inevitable we will have capitalism* and it is great

* it is not universally bad either but the iniquitous spread of resources and all that entails is bad. it is what capitalism does it takes from the many and gives to the few

It’s only since the invention of capitalism that slavery came to an end.

yep they figured out minimum wage was cheaper than buying/housing/feeding/policing slaves 😉