That’s the kind of thing that makes the “85 people have more wealth than the bottom 3.5 billion” statement kind of silly.
It’s probably just as accurate to say (numbers pulled out of my ass) that “The top 100 million people have more wealth than the bottom 3 billion”.
The point isn’t so much that the top 85 people are so ridiculously wealthy, but rather that the bottom 3.5 billion are SO absolutely poor.
Hell, a person making $15,000 per year (roughly minimum wage) is in the richest 7.91% of people in the world. After a little playing, $1300 USD annually puts a person at the 50% percentage.
Which means that a panhandler making about 3.50 a day is better off than half of the rest of the world.
This isn’t to say that so much wealth being concentrated in just a few hands is a good thing. I can certainly see problems in it. But trying to compare the richest few in the world, to the poorest in the world isn’t the best place to start the conversation.
They’d be better off if it weren’t for the 85 stealing from them what’s rightfully theirs while contributing nothing to society in return. We all would.
Why is it rightfully theirs? Can’t speak to them contributing nothing in other countries, but at a minimum in the US they contribute taxes, so ‘we’ all wouldn’t be actually.
Other than that, your drive by rant is spot on and I think you’ll have them lining up to get your news letter.
*A healthy appetite is good for one and all
And I should be at peace with the world baby, but still I want some more
A larger slice of pie, a bigger set of wheels
A million sets of human eyes staring right at me…
Is it enough? NO! Is it enough? NO! Is it? NO! Is it? NO! Is it? NO!
I want more!!!*
It seems the basic problem is that the system works the way it does because so many people have been brainwashed into believing in the system
One thing I find so curiously telling about European culture is that double-entry accounting is 700 years old. Older than Shakespeare.
But in high schools all over the United States 4 years of English literature is required but how many kids get a course in accounting? But they are supposed to get jobs and make money and then have to decide what to do with it.
Alternate histories are staples of science fiction. How would the United States be different if double-entry accounting had been mandatory since the 1950s? How many countries would have done the same thing because the US did it? But with all of the controversy about education in the US how many high school graduates can explain what NET WORTH is?
Well, at first I thought the figures in the thread title were shocking, but then I thankfully got my perspective adjusted by the contributors to this thread, whose capacity to rationalize them is so much more shocking that the original shock pales in comparison.
If you think the distribution of wealth is fair, if a genie were to approach you with the offer of exchanging your life now with that of any random person on the planet, you should accept (or at least, not care either way). Will you?
“Checkbook Math” is worlds away from double-entry accounting. One helps you with your day-to-day life, the other prepares you for the life of an accountant.
We already have this on a voluntary basis. People like Bill Gates not only give more money than could ever be reasonable taxed but it’s done in a way that demands results.
So if Bill Gates gives away his fortune, he has to sell his stock. So someone has to buy it. So now someone else has that stock, but is missing an equivalent amount of money. I suppose Gates could then give away all of that money, but then what are the poor going to do with it? How will they trade it for food if their neighbor is also trying to trade it for food? Where does the extra food come from?
You could liquidate the wealth of the entire top 1% and get $110 trillion. That’s 70 million people you’re Robin Hood-ing, but let’s just say they’re perfectly cool with it. That’s enough for everyone in the bottom 3 billion to get $36,000. That’ll last them, oh, about four years, I guess. They’ll have to give it to the people that actually make stuff, so then they have all the money again.
So I guess we just keep redistributing by force every five years or so? Twice a decade, you have to start your life over again?
Nonsense; all of those 85 could drop dead without the loss of much if any jobs. Them dropping dead might well increase the amount of available jobs due to their money being distributed around some more. It’s the people on the bottom who do the actual work and create most of the demand that keeps the economy running and produces jobs; overwhelmingly, the wealthy are parasites.
[QUOTE=Half Man Half Wit]
Well, at first I thought the figures in the thread title were shocking, but then I thankfully got my perspective adjusted by the contributors to this thread, whose capacity to rationalize them is so much more shocking that the original shock pales in comparison.
[/QUOTE]
My first thought was ‘oh boy, we are really going to get some whacky left winger rants from THIS subject!’. I’m shocked that it’s been so relatively mild and less whacky than I figured. Of course, ‘relatively mild and less whacky’ still has the qualifier…
But, you see, I don’t believe ANY sort of distribution of wealth, and don’t think any of them would or could be ‘fair’, so your little test here is sort of silly. What I do notice is that, while it’s true that there are a relatively few folks with ‘obscene wealth’, as a percentage of the population there are a hell of a lot fewer folks living in REAL abject poverty, and most of those don’t live in capitalist countries…and most of the countries they do live in don’t have the same levels of ‘obscene wealth’ or that nasty wealth gap that folks around here wring their hands about. Seems to me that countries that DO have extreme gaps between their super wealthy and the relatively poor folks at the bottom are those where those relatively poor folks at the bottom are actually better off then most of the rest of the worlds population…and that it’s those countries where there wealthy are getting to obscene levels (say in China or India in the next few decades) we are also seeing their levels of poverty shift so that in absolute terms, instead of the relative terms folks here seem to want to focus on, their poverty is going down overall.
Or, to put it a different way in terms of your little quiz there, I’d rather be randomly part of the population today than 10 years ago…or 20, or 100, or 1000 or 10,000, because odds are that I’d be better off even at the bottom today than I’d be anywhere but the very top in the past.
Because each individual is entitled, by the mere fact of hir existence, to an equal share of social wealth. This is a necessary precondition to a free and individualist society, so that no one is forced to subordinate oneself to another (be it the boss, the shareholder, or the customer) simply in order to obtain the material requirements of survival.
Obviously you are using ‘entitled’ to mean ‘in my own fantasy world view’, since the reality has never been close to this. The irony, to me, is that while you and others wring your hands over this horrible injustice the reality is that the plight of poor people world wide has gotten better and that while in absolute terms there is a large gap between some rich and the majority of poor in relative terms the poor are much better off than at any other time in our history…and (here’s where the irony comes in) it’s due to that nasty, horrible wealth.
Um, no actually…most of the poorest people don’t live in even nominally capitalist countries, and their plight has little or nothing to do with capitalism or other, wealthier capitalist nations chewing them or spitting them out.
It’s not a fantasy–it’s a logically necessary precondition of a free and just society.
I’m not sure how that’s an objection, unless you’re taking the position that we should never try to improve the world from where it is.
Indeed, it has.
Yes, having more wealth around means there is more wealth. I’m not sure why you seem to think this would be a point of contention.
The point isn’t that people aren’t better off than they were–they clearly are. The point is that by wrongfully concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, it’s kept the mass of people from being as much better off as they could be, with no justification for it continuing to be that way.
[QUOTE=Steely Dan Fan]
It’s not a fantasy–it’s a logically necessary precondition of a free and just society.
[/QUOTE]
It IS a fantasy since there is no mechanism in place to bring about this fiat ‘entitlement’, so it’s just dreams and feathers until there is. Unless you are talking about specific nations and not a natural condition of humanity of course.
I don’t feel it would be an improvement, for one thing. The point, of course, is that when you toss around ‘Because each individual is entitled, by the mere fact of hir existence, to an equal share of social wealth’ I’m merely pointing out that this is YOUR fiat assertion and that the reality is that it’s not now and has never been an actual entitlement except in a few specific nations.
Ok.
I disagree. I think that the fact that there is more wealth today is no accident, and it’s the mechanism that generates the wealth that is responsible for making the great strides we’ve made in combating absolute poverty world wide. And IMHO we are at the beginning of the great upward trajectory that will bring about further large scale reductions in absolute poverty.
Or, to put it another way, I’m perfectly cool with 85 people having the same wealth as 3.5 billion, as the majority of those 3.5 billion are relatively better off than they were a decade ago…or a century…or a millennium. And as long as that continues to happen and perhaps even escalates, I think that’s a good thing overall, and personally I’d rather not fuck with the goose laying golden eggs at this point when it seems to be working, if not as fast as some folks would like. Personally, if it’s not broke I don’t want left winger types to break it in the name of helping the poor.
