If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   42 people now hold as much wealth as the poorest 3.7 billion in the world   ( theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Inequality gap, poorest | Inequality, The Guardian, Chris Martin, Poverty, wealth, Guardian, people  
•       •       •

655 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Jan 2018 at 11:56 PM (25 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-01-21 09:41:59 PM  
42.
That is the answer.
 
2018-01-21 09:48:39 PM  
Why is this posting in the Business tab?

It's a policy problem, internationally (i.e. the presence of laws that allowed this to happen, and the absence of laws preventing the same).

/not subby
 
2018-01-21 10:58:28 PM  
Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.
 
2018-01-21 11:05:01 PM  
Perhaps it's time for those 3.7 billion to turn on those 42.

It would make for great TV.
 
2018-01-21 11:08:09 PM  
Those 3.7 billion better get cracking and make more money for those 42 people.  They don't want their wealth to be stagnant.  Not in this economy.
 
2018-01-21 11:40:11 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.


Wealth is a static metric - it is literally a pie that is divided up.  You're conflating wealth with the wealth creation process (a dynamic, non-zero-sum metric).
 
2018-01-21 11:40:53 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.


You're correct. And it's probably useful to point out that the incidents of famine (as good a measurement of extreme poverty as any) are at historic lows, with 95% of famine deaths having taken place before 1980.

Now that said, if GDP growth of a nation is fairly minimal, but a higher concentration of wealth is occurring at the top of the class, then yes: It's perfectly sound to say that the pool of income is relatively stable, but it is being redistributed upwards. And this is precisely the trend in most industrialized nations.

In under industrialized countries with primarily agrarian economies, birth rates are falling, but not as quickly as the income redistribution is occurring.

TL;DR: Wealth is flowing upwards faster and we're minting new poor people faster. How anyone could believe that this is a sustainable trajectory that doesn't end in torches and pitchforks is beyond me.
 
2018-01-21 11:52:56 PM  

gameshowhost: Why is this posting in the Business tab?

It's a policy problem, internationally (i.e. the presence of laws that allowed this to happen, and the absence of laws preventing the same).

/not subby


Here's a crazy thought: I wonder if those 42 people (or their ancestors) had anything to do with the presence/absence of said laws....?
 
2018-01-21 11:59:59 PM  

unyon: Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.

You're correct. And it's probably useful to point out that the incidents of famine (as good a measurement of extreme poverty as any) are at historic lows, with 95% of famine deaths having taken place before 1980.

Now that said, if GDP growth of a nation is fairly minimal, but a higher concentration of wealth is occurring at the top of the class, then yes: It's perfectly sound to say that the pool of income is relatively stable, but it is being redistributed upwards. And this is precisely the trend in most industrialized nations.

In under industrialized countries with primarily agrarian economies, birth rates are falling, but not as quickly as the income redistribution is occurring.

TL;DR: Wealth is flowing upwards faster and we're minting new poor people faster. How anyone could believe that this is a sustainable trajectory that doesn't end in torches and pitchforks is beyond me.


I don't think it's economically sustainable, either. How long can the hyper-rich sell each other stuff while everyone else has to decide between rent, medicine and food?
 
2018-01-22 12:20:46 AM  
I wonder how many of those people have a net worth of less than zero.
 
2018-01-22 12:24:54 AM  
Lots of them have nothing. There are disconnected tribes and dirt eaters among that number that really skew it. That's why I hate this reduction nonsense.

Let's say that a billion people have a lifestyle they are happy with and own some rags and sticks. Now 42 people have as much as 2.7 billion people who are actually part of a global economy where that comparison makes sense.

And that includes having $50k left on the mortgage, $40k equity and 10k in cars. You're worth zero or close to it. Add in clothes and electronics? Fine 200k owed and $50k equity. It starts slowly you know. Lots of people doing well have zero savings and have a good middle class life but are zero or negative worth. Math is the easiest way to distort the truth.
 
2018-01-22 12:39:34 AM  

This text is now purple: I wonder how many of those people have a net worth of less than zero.


I'd imagine quite a few. Hell, probably several million in the US alone. If you have (conservatively) 2 Million in the US worth about negative $50K each and plenty more elsewhere, another few million Buddhists,etc., who have renounced all worldly goods, and a bunch of Middle Eastern folks who used to have some personal wealth before we blew it up, you can probably rack up quarter, maybe half a billion people and still be in the negative.

/ another billion to break even
// Those 47 probably only have the wealth of 1.5 maybe 2 billion, tops
/// wait, that still sucks
 
2018-01-22 12:43:38 AM  
Not really worth killing and eating them, but we probably should just on principle.
 
2018-01-22 12:52:59 AM  
| unyon
| TL;DR: Wealth is flowing upwards faster and we're minting new poor people faster. How
| anyone could believe that this is a sustainable trajectory that doesn't end in torches and
| pitchforks is beyond me.

exactly the bronze age didn't end on a happy note. History has been full of society's flipping the tables & ending the rigged games, usually w/ lots of blood. Which is why it is a good idea to not let these games of economics get too skewed.
 
2018-01-22 05:03:12 AM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.


That's like saying a pile of cash isn't "losing" money if it's earning zero (or 0.00001%) interest.  Some inequality is necessary of course, but excessive inequality is a horribly inefficient use of resources and ultimately bad for even most rich people in the long term.

I think it's possible even most corporations and rich people will realize this, the way they generally have with climate change, and support policies that redistribute wealth to curb (not eliminate) inequality.  They know we're all farked if nothing is done about it, but they need everyone to adhere to the same policies because volunteering would put a given firm at a competitive disadvantage.
 
2018-01-22 05:37:04 AM  
It's a problem with a simple solution. One side can only run up the score so much before the other side takes the ball and goes home.

get.whotrades.comView Full Size
 
2018-01-22 06:14:05 AM  

Therion: Not really worth killing and eating them, but we probably should just on principle.


We're gonna get fat eating all those poor people...
 
2018-01-22 06:15:23 AM  
Don't worry, it should start trickling down anytime now.
 
KIA
2018-01-22 06:36:43 AM  

unyon: Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.

You're correct. And it's probably useful to point out that the incidents of famine (as good a measurement of extreme poverty as any) are at historic lows, with 95% of famine deaths having taken place before 1980.

Now that said, if GDP growth of a nation is fairly minimal, but a higher concentration of wealth is occurring at the top of the class, then yes: It's perfectly sound to say that the pool of income is relatively stable, but it is being redistributed upwards. And this is precisely the trend in most industrialized nations.

In under industrialized countries with primarily agrarian economies, birth rates are falling, but not as quickly as the income redistribution is occurring.

TL;DR: Wealth is flowing upwards faster and we're minting new poor people faster. How anyone could believe that this is a sustainable trajectory that doesn't end in torches and pitchforks is beyond me.


It was one thing back in the day to take torches and pitchforks and go loot the estate / manor / castle of the rich and forcibly redistribute the looted wealth because it was physical.

Looting a post-modern mansion will yield little to no physical wealth which could be redistributed. It's not like they keep a couple of billion in cash in a back room.
 
2018-01-22 06:38:02 AM  

gameshowhost: Why is this posting in the Business tab?

It's a policy problem, internationally (i.e. the presence of laws that allowed this to happen, and the absence of laws preventing the same).

/not subby


Aint Crony Capitalism great!
 
2018-01-22 06:39:48 AM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.


GDP is. The pie is growing and the rich r taking a bigger slice of it over time.
Nice try though
 
2018-01-22 06:41:34 AM  

Demetrius: Perhaps it's time for those 3.7 billion to turn on those 42.

It would make for great TV.


Eventually they will. Its called Revolution. History has plenty of examples.
 
2018-01-22 08:19:24 AM  
Republicans in unison...
"Eeeeexcellent"
 
kab
2018-01-22 09:16:01 AM  
42?    That's quite a few folks, therefore trickle down works.

Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.


So I can print my own?  We're cool with that?

I can generate money from nothing based on an IOU via a loan.   Beyond that, yes, every time I pay for something, I now have less money (which is what we measure wealth in).
 
2018-01-22 09:26:35 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-22 10:29:46 AM  
I'm growing more certain we will have a World War in my lifetime. A Resource War brought on by forced migrations.
 
2018-01-22 11:08:28 AM  
I think there's an important part of the equation that I missing here.

There are different kinds of wealth.  There's wealth that's gold you keep in a vault, wealth that is investments, and wealth that is counted from the value of a business that is privately owned but may employ a large number of people.

So maybe we need to look at wealth a little differently instead of lumping it all together.
I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal by any stretch, but it beats the hell out of Maoist-style communism as well an many other forms of socialist government.

And stop talking about inequality and start talking about poverty.  The whole idea of "inequality" is for Proregressives to have a reason to hate on capitalism even when the number of poor is at an all-time low, so that as long as someone has more than you do, you should be unhappy and vote for liberals.  Well guess what, someone is always going to have more than you do, so you better get used to it.  The larger issue is that our government is going broke, which is why we are having these shutdowns.  I will listen to politicians that talk about poverty, but fark the SJWs that talk about inequality, it's not the same thing.
 
2018-01-22 11:15:32 AM  

HakunaMatata: gameshowhost: Why is this posting in the Business tab?

It's a policy problem, internationally (i.e. the presence of laws that allowed this to happen, and the absence of laws preventing the same).

/not subby

Here's a crazy thought: I wonder if those 42 people (or their ancestors) had anything to do with the presence/absence of said laws....?


Absolutely, at least some of them did.
 
2018-01-22 11:22:24 AM  

Animatronik: The whole idea of "inequality" is for Proregressives to have a reason to hate on capitalism


Pro regressive? You mean conservative?
 
2018-01-22 12:44:34 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.

That's like saying a pile of cash isn't "losing" money if it's earning zero (or 0.00001%) interest.  Some inequality is necessary of course, but excessive inequality is a horribly inefficient use of resources and ultimately bad for even most rich people in the long term.

I think it's possible even most corporations and rich people will realize this, the way they generally have with climate change, and support policies that redistribute wealth to curb (not eliminate) inequality.  They know we're all farked if nothing is done about it, but they need everyone to adhere to the same policies because volunteering would put a given firm at a competitive disadvantage.


The wealth owned by the rich isn't some dungeon full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. Their wealth is the companies they own, creating jobs, products and paying taxes, or even in a bank where that bank will use that to lend to businesses and individuals. Even the stock market benefits the vast majority of people. The biggest owners of stocks are millions of ordinary people through pensions, IRAs, 401Ks etc.

Linux_Yes: Carter Pewterschmidt: Worth pointing out that while wealth inequality is a big problem and should be addressed the fact that some people have a lot of money does not mean everyone else will have less. Wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie that is divided up.

GDP is. The pie is growing and the rich r taking a bigger slice of it over time.
Nice try though


if the pie is growing then it isn't a zero sum game. Thank you for proving me right.
 
2018-01-22 01:45:44 PM  
And I, personally, hold more wealth than the poorest 3.6 billion people in the world. Because their aggregate net worth is zero, and mine is at least a buck fifty.
 
2018-01-22 02:51:13 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: The wealth owned by the rich isn't some dungeon full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. Their wealth is the companies they own, creating jobs, products and paying taxes, or even in a bank where that bank will use that to lend to businesses and individuals. Even the stock market benefits the vast majority of people. The biggest owners of stocks are millions of ordinary people through pensions, IRAs, 401Ks etc.


This "technically correct, effectively wrong" argument gets trotted out every time.  It doesn't have to be "in some dungeon" to be way less productive than being spent or deployed in less concentrated ways. When Bill Gates donated a bunch of his wealth, a chunk of Microsoft didn't just suddenly disappear.
 
2018-01-22 05:41:37 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Carter Pewterschmidt: The wealth owned by the rich isn't some dungeon full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. Their wealth is the companies they own, creating jobs, products and paying taxes, or even in a bank where that bank will use that to lend to businesses and individuals. Even the stock market benefits the vast majority of people. The biggest owners of stocks are millions of ordinary people through pensions, IRAs, 401Ks etc.

This "technically correct, effectively wrong" argument gets trotted out every time.  It doesn't have to be "in some dungeon" to be way less productive than being spent or deployed in less concentrated ways. When Bill Gates donated a bunch of his wealth, a chunk of Microsoft didn't just suddenly disappear.


No, because he'd sold shares in MS and used that money for his good causes. Meaning others had to buy those shares, which means their money is now tied up in MS stock.
If a company issues stock it gets money it can spend on expansion, new equipment etc. If you buy stocks off someone else you are letting them free up cash, and helping the stock price, which again benefits ordinary people with pension funds, 401Ks, IRAs etc.  If you put money in a bank that bank can then use that to lend to people to buy a home or to a business to expand. If you buy a yacht or mansion you are creating huge numbers of jobs, taxable income, corporation tax etc. (It takes far far more people to build a Ferrari than to build a Ford Focus, and they're generally far better paid as well.)
It is actually quite hard to stop money being productive. Even stockpiling banknotes under your mattress is in actuality a free loan to the government.

So, going back to my original point, some people having a lot of money does not mean there is less for everyone else. Every person with a pension, every person getting a bank loan or a mortgage, every person who pays taxes, is benefiting from the wealth of the rich.

There is even a fantastic real world example. When the Russian revolution happened they got rid of all the wealthy.  And fifty years later the country, with huge natural resources, was bankrupt. The average working Russian had a far far lower standard of living than the average American, even though some Americans were staggeringly rich.  The wealth inequality was far less in Russia, but the average Russian was far poorer.

Those seeking to take away wealth from the super rich are guilty of the exact same "stigginit" as Trump supporters. They're happy to see the rich bought down even though they will end up worse off. That's what happened in Russia.

So which would you prefer?

To earn $40k a year while billionaires have billions?
Or to earn $20k a year and no billionaires?

Because people like Lenin thought that by getting rid of billionaires everyone else would get better off. History proves they didn't. They ended up far worse off.
 
2018-01-22 07:22:41 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I'm growing more certain we will have a World War in my lifetime. A Resource War brought on by forced migrations.


Robin Williams - Water
Youtube fktiuIv62gg


"This shiat is gonna be more precious than oil..."
 
2018-01-22 08:10:28 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Yankees Team Gynecologist: Carter Pewterschmidt: The wealth owned by the rich isn't some dungeon full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. Their wealth is the companies they own, creating jobs, products and paying taxes, or even in a bank where that bank will use that to lend to businesses and individuals. Even the stock market benefits the vast majority of people. The biggest owners of stocks are millions of ordinary people through pensions, IRAs, 401Ks etc.

This "technically correct, effectively wrong" argument gets trotted out every time.  It doesn't have to be "in some dungeon" to be way less productive than being spent or deployed in less concentrated ways. When Bill Gates donated a bunch of his wealth, a chunk of Microsoft didn't just suddenly disappear.

No, because he'd sold shares in MS and used that money for his good causes. Meaning others had to buy those shares, which means their money is now tied up in MS stock.
If a company issues stock it gets money it can spend on expansion, new equipment etc. If you buy stocks off someone else you are letting them free up cash, and helping the stock price, which again benefits ordinary people with pension funds, 401Ks, IRAs etc.  If you put money in a bank that bank can then use that to lend to people to buy a home or to a business to expand. If you buy a yacht or mansion you are creating huge numbers of jobs, taxable income, corporation tax etc. (It takes far far more people to build a Ferrari than to build a Ford Focus, and they're generally far better paid as well.)
It is actually quite hard to stop money being productive. Even stockpiling banknotes under your mattress is in actuality a free loan to the government.

So, going back to my original point, some people having a lot of money does not mean there is less for everyone else. Every person with a pension, every person getting a bank loan or a mortgage, every person who pays taxes, is benefiting from the wealth of the rich.

There is even a fantastic real wor ...


There's nothing wrong with MS stock existing, or being held.  The point is that Bill Gates' $80-100th billion has more utility to the economy in another person's, group's, or firm's possession than in his on top of his first $0-80B.

You're still in Econ 101 mode, spouting the obvious without realizing nobody's actually refuting it, that's just what it sounded like to you.  Hence the technically correct, effectively wrong.  It's the economics equivalent of taking high school physics and then thinking everything happens in a vacuum, and it happens over and over on this tab.  The appeal-to-extremes Russia fallacy doesn't help your case either.
 
2018-01-22 08:32:27 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: There's nothing wrong with MS stock existing, or being held.  The point is that Bill Gates' $80-100th billion has more utility to the economy in another person's, group's, or firm's possession than in his on top of his first $0-80B.

You're still in Econ 101 mode, spouting the obvious without realizing nobody's actually refuting it, that's just what it sounded like to you.  Hence the technically correct, effectively wrong.  It's the economics equivalent of taking high school physics and then thinking everything happens in a vacuum, and it happens over and over on this tab.  The appeal-to-extremes Russia fallacy doesn't help your case either.


How?

Firstly, in what way is that wealth of his not being used now?  In what form do you think his wealth is now?
 
2018-01-23 02:56:08 AM  

Cache: Republicans in unison...
"Eeeeexcellent"


img.fark.netView Full Size

Even a LOSER makes more money than you.
 
2018-01-23 06:22:43 AM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: Yankees Team Gynecologist: There's nothing wrong with MS stock existing, or being held.  The point is that Bill Gates' $80-100th billion has more utility to the economy in another person's, group's, or firm's possession than in his on top of his first $0-80B.

You're still in Econ 101 mode, spouting the obvious without realizing nobody's actually refuting it, that's just what it sounded like to you.  Hence the technically correct, effectively wrong.  It's the economics equivalent of taking high school physics and then thinking everything happens in a vacuum, and it happens over and over on this tab.  The appeal-to-extremes Russia fallacy doesn't help your case either.

How?

Firstly, in what way is that wealth of his not being used now?  In what form do you think his wealth is now?


Really, you can't think this one through?

His actual foundation is probably as good an example as any, but imagine that $20B MSFT being the endowment for a university.  An entire school is made possible versus if it had just been in his account. He would never have done the personal spending equivalent into the economy with that wealth.

But it doesn't need to be philanthropic.  If it had instead been distributed as extra compensation to the bottom 20,000 Microsoft employees over the last 20 years, they would've been more secure in their 401ks and more likely to buy more houses, cars, boats, vacations, etc. thus adding to GDP in ways that would never happen as the $20B on top of Bill Gates' $100B pile.

This is why trickle down doesn't work, only trickle up does.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report