11 ms·

Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

141 points by Excluse 11y ago

fiatmoney 11y ago
If you simply conflate "richest" with "most powerful", this is already the case, and has been for most of human history. It's unclear why we should care about monetary wealth specifically more than other dimensions of power.
- chiaro 11y ago
  Probably because it's very easy to measure, and correlates with other dimensions through well known adjustments like Purchasing Power.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  Money and assets are more easily measured, taken, and transferred.
- dkarapetyan 11y ago
  It's easily measurable and since everything pretty much correlates with everything else when it comes to complicated systems like the world economy putting in some corrective feedback is a worthwhile effort. As it is I think things are stuck in a positive feedback loop (rich getting richer) and that's not healthy from either social or systems perspective.
ekianjo 11y ago
Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations: http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Global-Income-Distribution-2011 http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob... Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda. EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates globally: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/GMR_2014_Full_Report.pdf http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  "Absolute" poverty, yes.
  - iofj 11y ago
    When it comes to food on the table, or material wealth in general, that's the only kind that matters.
- ximeng 11y ago
  Not quite sure the point of your comment. This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? The report you link to agrees with what they say is a problem (e.g. "In high-income countries, the rising concern about shared prosperity is a reaction to income inequality that has reached levels unprecedented in the post-war period.") There is no contradiction between the top 1% getting richer and more global equality within the remaining 99%. Oxfam no doubt have a political agenda, we could probably debate how clear it is and what exactly it is, but their political agenda doesn't particularly influence whether this article is correct, nor do your links seem to contradict it.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? They are saying the inequalities are growing, whereas the world bank report says the inequalities in income are shrinking progressively. That's a very different view.
    - ximeng 11y ago
      I've skimmed the report you linked to, and I really don't see the contradiction. E.g. look at the quote below, taken from several on inequality: "The second WBG goal of boosting shared prosperity is new and opportune. It shifts the focus in evaluating economic development from average income growth to income growth of the bottom 40 percent. Indicators proxying the socioeconomic status of the bottom 40 percent of the population, have shown little improvement, even though the growth of incomes of the bottom 40 percent of the population has not been slower than that of the general population in many countries. This growing inequality in basic living standards is worrisome". I don't see anything that contradicts the Oxfam report, while there are some comments that seem broadly in line with it. Overall, the broad thrust of both seem in roughly the same direction, although they do take different views. Again the inequalities in income shrinking progressively shown in the interactive presentation is between countries. It looks at incomes below 100k USD, which is not particularly relevant to a debate on the top global 1%. I'm sure there's a debate to be had on how much inequality restricts growth. Perhaps it's not correct when Oxfam says that reducing inequality could improve the overall size of the pie. But I see little in your links to contradict that at first glance. Maybe you could point out more specific grounds for your views?
monochromatic 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be&t=53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be... Rising inequality on its own is not a problem.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  It is a problem if only because of the huge power differential it creates and the segregation it leads to. It doesn't result in healthy societies.
  - sitkack 11y ago
    The inequality is also bad for the rich since they end up getting eaten.
    - vixen99 11y ago
      They'll be touched by your concern.
  - br_smartass 11y ago
    The kind of argument the OP is trying to make makes no sense to me, the only reason I see for us to "trust the market/system" is because it promises the most efficient allocation of resources, fairest compensation for value provided and opportunity and development for all. If it fails, it fails. I don't see how obcene inequality and all the problems of human misery that comes with it(which goes from insecurity to violence to even wars) isn't an instance of economics failling its own proposition(I will admit it does like 1% of it, tho). The most efficient society would be one where money and resources goes where it's needed and that it would create virtuous cycles(e.g.: take people out of misery -> they become economic agents -> everyone's work serves needs of someone else -> development -> world GDP increases -> humankind is able to do more things -> society gets star-wars-like capabilities -> more people more happy)
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  You would have to define "hoard" here. But there is a more interesting question which is that when Bill Gates is worth 54 billion a lot of that is stock in Microsoft, not fungible cash. When you have a millionaire who is "rich" because they own their house (no mortgage) and the house is worth more than a million dollars, they might still be living paycheck to paycheck. The difference being they could leverage their house if they needed money on short notice. That said, it would be interesting to see what shooting down rent-seeking taxes would do here. If for example you allowed copyrights to expire in a reasonable time, then you could have people put on a play and keep the profits. Something they can't do today.
- refurb 11y ago
  What do they do with it then? The only way they could hold money and it not have a positive impact is if it's sitting in cash. If they invest it or hell, even put it in a savings account, the money is having a positive impact on the economy. If they buy a ridiculous $50M yacht? That money flows to the company that built it.
  - skybrian 11y ago
    That's not necessarily so. If you invest in real estate (and many do), wealth and income can grow even without any physical improvements, just due to supply and demand. National income will grow (since it includes rent) but it doesn't create any new jobs. Here's an analysis showing that capital is earning more than labor mostly due to housing prices: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/land-prices-evolution-capitals-share http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/lan...
  - onion2k 11y ago
    That's true, but it'd be true if all that money were divided between 1000 people's bank accounts or if 50 people bought $1m yachts too. And that way there'd be more people enjoying the wealth rather than just one. Some people think that's better.
chiaro 11y ago
This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards largely in relation to how this system is established. Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to these profits in the first place. That said, with regards to the article, appealing to businesses as moral actors is only so effective. A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with the law, rather than the business.
- MacsHeadroom 11y ago
  >One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to these profits in the first place. True. Obviously a laissez-faire capitalists would say they're both unnatural- as they would say most, if not all, concepts created via legislative action are also "unnatural." Of course, people don't typically expend effort fighting "unnatural" injustice that benefits them- especially when money is on the line, and even more so state protected stock holder money. >A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with the law, Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality?
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    > Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality Our laws are a constantly shifting mirror of our ethics (through the prism of "everyone" and "political reality") Look at divorce, abortion, women's property rights, environmental obligations etc etc The GP is well placed to say if a company is acting legally but unethically changing the law is often fastest and simpler fix -most eapecially for whole industries (hello banking)
bobby_9x 11y ago
What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other startups combined? Unicorns like Uber and Airbnb should take their profits and spread them around to startups that failed! Yes, there is inequality, but I don't necessarily a bad thing. It's the natural form of most free marketplaces and systems.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fsloth 11y ago
  Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception. Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments. Inheritance -> heavily taxed about everywhere. rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it. Interests on investment exist to allow your money to be useful to other people trying new things and building their businesses. So it's a positive enabler. Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate.
    - xshift 11y ago
      > rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it. think he may have meant to refer to rent-seeking in general and not specifically property rentals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking either way, your response indicates that you seem to be missing the point...
rboyd 11y ago
Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality. (FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable."
- iofj 11y ago
  Not really. The rich are far more invested than anyone else in "the system" (that made and keeps them rich) being "inclusive, equitable and sustainable". Especially the sustainable part. That effectively means "keeping themselves rich". The poor are not very invested in the system (they should be, of course, since without an economy their fate would be far worse, but human nature means you're not going to be happy having less than everyone else, even if destroying the system would make sure you have much less). This is the basis of Marxism, and of course it's true. In a way jealousy gets in the way of rational thought. This is one of the really good parts of capitalism. It concentrates power with people who want and need the system to succeed and who have very little power to use force to secure specific outcomes. You may agree to this to varying extents, but just compare China's attempts to stabilize it's currency with the US ones. China : 208 people in the financial industry (and counting) "disappeared", a lot of them with reports of the police asking for them right before their disappearance. US: so far 1 person arrested, and a lot of people agree that it's for a good reason, not just the government. You might say "but the US gave boatloads of money to the banks/rich !". Well, yes. But there's no difference there, so did Europe, so did China ... [1] [1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4568598e-8731-11e2-9dd7-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4568598e-8731-11e2-9dd7-00144...
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  You may have heard of Amartya Sen, welfare economist specialising especially in inequality and poverty. His wife, I learned recently, is Emma Georgina Rothschild. So: not all that improbable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen
- binarray2000 11y ago
jqm 11y ago
2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world. I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative. I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  1% is just tugging at heart strings, marketing. If you further divide that 1% you'll find it like you suggest is much worse than that. 0.001% seems more likely.
  - br_smartass 11y ago
    It's very clearly an exponential curve, 0.001% probably has a disproportional share of 1% and so on.
- AKifer 11y ago
  Among the 1% I bet the top 1% are weighting a lot too and so on. IMO the issue is pointless, it's just a statistical mirage, discussing about that won't make you richer or poorer, just time wasting. AND among the 1%, the majority of them would think about the same injustice back in the days they worked hard to earn, until they got the "chance" of being rich themselves.
- asuffield 11y ago
  Where did you find that 2.7m number? The most recent data is the Credit Suisse 2015 set, which you can see here: https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-us/research/research-institute/news-and-videos/articles/news-and-expertise/2015/10/en/global-wealth-in-2015-underlying-trends-remain-positive.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-us/research/resear... They put the 1% line at $760k, and that's net worth: include the value of your home, subtract your debts. I'm pretty unhappy about this oxfam article. It talks about "the richest 1%" and "the billionaires" alongside each other as if these groups were even remotely similar. This is furthering the myth of some kind of group of "shady rich people" who are behind the global financial conspiracy. Reality check: if you're reading this, you're almost certainly in the top 10% ($68,845 in total assets). According to the same data set, the median wealth in the US is $50k, so about half the population is in the top ten percent. You are the rich people this article is talking about. Comparing the "richest 80 billionaires" to the bottom 50% is similarly misleading, because the bottom 50% has about 0.5% of the global wealth (which I think roughly answers your question about the top 0.001%). If you lined up the top 80 billionaires, shot them all, and redistributed all their wealth to the bottom 50%, then those people would still be in extreme poverty. There are serious global wealth inequality problems, and this oxfam article doesn't really talk about them at all, and instead tries to perpetuate a popular meme. I strongly suggest that people skip it and read the Credit Suisse report instead - the data tells a much more interesting story. Here are the numbers which the oxfam article doesn't mention, and should: 85.65% of the global wealth is held by the top 10% of the population, which is 477m people, of which 113m are in the US, with second place going to Japan at 58m. 32.3% of global wealth is held by the middle class (defined as $50k to $500k wealth); 92.4% is held by the middle class or above. 37% is in the US. Africa, India, and Latin America together represent about 4%.
brandonmenc 11y ago
> Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014. I know plenty of people in their 60s who simply busted their asses at middle-class jobs while saving their pennies who are members of this "global elite."
- mahyarm 11y ago
  And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too. Still as far as 60 year olds go, that is actually pretty good. There are many 60 year olds who did not pinch pennies or did and had some medical disaster wipe their savings.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too. Yes, something I like pointing out to my friends who never worked in a factory complaining that there are no more good factory jobs. Global poverty is declining in part because that work left America.
- onion2k 11y ago
  I don't think you do. The median income in the USA is $52,000. Assuming that a middle-class job pays 3* that amount, and that someone can reasonably save 30% of their salary for the last 20 years they work, that amounts to about $1m saved. Probably a lot less because a person's salary isn't at it's peak for much of their career. Even factoring for a household with 2 incomes at that level you don't get to $2.7m. I imagine the people you know are members of the elite as you say, but they got there by by having elite jobs and by investing their elite incomes. If you think they're in the "middle-class" you have a somewhat distorted view of the world.
  - hkmurakami 11y ago
    I think GP does know some people like this, because the boomer generation experienced tremendous asset appreciation across all sectors (public equities and real estate in particular) during their earning years.
ps4fanboy 11y ago
The global economy is in a transitional period, computerization has made inequality rise, but also Women working has led to higher inequality among families, Robotics and further automation of current industries will make things much worse for the people currently alive. There isnt a clear solution, what will ultimately happen is people working less and a higher percentage working in higher skilled jobs.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
"The existence of a billionaire is a clear indicator of one or more market failures" I have been banging this around my head for a while since PG's infamous essay. There are plenty of reasons to see wildly successful people as talented, special etc. But nowhere near enough to believe them to be superhuman. Nor as rare as might be expected. Becoming a billionaire (or member of top 1% or what have you) is not something that can only be achieved by a certain fraction of the population, like being over 6'6' There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the markup on Amazon books. Maybe PG is right and we need thousands more entrepreneurs out for themselves, and we shall see the inequalities of the world sort themselves out through "market" action. Which would mean still we need politicos action (why not more female entrepreneurs? What about highly regulated industries?)
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  I would take a close look at feedback loops from wealth. The very poor is to poor to change anything, while the very rich can change laws and dictate world wide sentiments. In the end the inequalities of power destroys any linear correlation between skill and income that might otherwise manifest. Traditionally we've been looking at the lower end of the power distribution to mitigate this (unions, minimum wage, micro loans and so forth) it might be prudent to look at the other end (property laws, corporations, finance and so forth) with similar intentions.
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    I dont disagree - market distortions can be found anywhere. And ending them will both end billionaires and likely increase equality (less billionaires means more money to spread between everyone else)
- Qwertious 11y ago
  >There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the markup on Amazon books. Network effects. Microsoft being a textbook example of a company built on them.
hkmurakami 11y ago
Well the richest 1% have definitely lost more than the rest (proportionally) over the last 2 weeks as well...
T2_t2 11y ago
So I assume everyone downloaded the PDF AND the excel? Good, so lets get to the numbers: My problems: 1. Percentages: the article talks in percentages, as if something tangible was lost from 50-45%. Here is the table of wealth by year in total vs the bottom 50%: year Total($bil) 50% ($bn) 2000 $117,052.00 $702.31 2001 $113,390.00 $793.73 2002 $122,757.00 $859.30 2003 $147,566.00 $1,032.96 2004 $166,018.00 $1,162.13 2005 $171,182.00 $1,198.27 2006 $195,941.00 $1,763.47 2007 $220,043.00 $2,200.43 2008 $189,877.00 $1,708.89 2009 $205,656.00 $1,850.90 2010 $216,084.00 $2,593.01 2011 $224,382.00 $2,243.82 2012 $238,089.00 $2,142.80 2013 $255,620.00 $1,789.34 2014 $263,242.00 $1,842.69 +224.89% +262.38% The wealth of the bottom 50% had tripled by 2010, even 2012, and has fallen off in the years since 2010. Taking the 2014 reduced numbers, that is still a 262% increase in 14 years. In contrast, the TOTAL economy has grown 224.89% since 2000. Why is THAT not the story? "Global share of bottom 50% growing faster than the world economy" doesn't fit the narrative perchance? Besides which, isn't that F^$%^&$ing amazing! That the bottom 50% areover 2 and a half times richer. That is world changing for the people it affects, surely? Yet the story is the rich have more. Really, "Rich have more" is the story? I can't wait for "water is wet" as installment 2. More importantly, why is the story not the drop from 2010 to 2014? What was that? So I sought out the source: https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi... and it appears that the wealth in the bottom 50% is made up mostly of mostly of two things (see figure 8, page 12): 1. Poor nations - e.g. Africa and, largest of all, India which accounts "... for over a quarter of people in the bottom half of the distribution". 2. Ruch Americans in debt - the tail seems skewed that way, to me at least. If we take just India, they had a massive currency exchange problem vs the USD since 2010. In 2010, it was 46.21 rupee to the dollar, in December 2014 it was 62.8 (http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&year=2014 http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&yea...). That is a drop of about a third in value. That is likely at least part of the reason for the wealth drop. 2. The percentage projection carries on from what looks like an historical anomaly between 2010 and 2014. If the currency exchange reverses course, and India claws back even 10% of the gap, the percentage to the 1% will likely reverse to some degree. 3. The data set for the rich changes dramatically. The minimum to be top 80 in 2014, would be top 15 in 2004. Zuckerberg appears out of nowhere in 2011, adding a few billion (his wealth versus the 81st position) to the total from nowhere. If Wallmart's founder had survived, we'd have a top 80 with 4 more billionaires in it, making it an even larger a total. That's not really indicative of anything (other than rich people can die too). Look, I get Oxfam's political agenda, but I think a +262.38% increase in wealth for the bottom 50% - even after what looks like a currency disaster since 2010 - is amazing in and of itself, and any comparison to an arbitrary set of extremely wealthy is just political machinations.
jevgeni 11y ago
Let me rephrase the title using absolute values: "Richest 73 Million People Will Own More Than All The Rest by 2016"
- djsumdog 11y ago
  That's less than the population of Germany having more wealth than the other 7 billion. I've mentioned this before, but if you want to know why this is, read Debt: the First 5000 Years. It's life changing
  - jevgeni 11y ago
    Yeah. It's somewhere between France and Turkey. But in my opinion the whole 99-vs-1 narrative is bonkers. EDIT: Let me clarify to the downvoting PC frat boys: 99% vs 1% is a shit metric that doesn't address the issue of inequality. The only thing it enables is moronic populism. Imagine if we take all the wealth of the 1% and distribute it uniformly among the rest of the 99%. Do you really think this will lead to an equal distribution of income?
srgseg 11y ago
I feel the serious point Oxfam are looking to make is let down by a definition of wealth that is very distorted. Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts." Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every stage of their lives. But one is 18 and has just started working, the other is 65 and has just retired. Is the 65 year old really 1000x richer than the 18 year old, because the 18 year old has saved $100 so far and the 65 year old has had time to save $100,000? Is this really 1000x inequality? For the purposes of determining inequality, these people should be considered equal, because it's simply the case that one person is older and has had more time to save. A fair assessment of a person's wealth, at least when determining fairness and inequality, should include more than this. It should include an estimate of their future earnings potential plus the social security/welfare state entitlements and state pensions that they are entitled to. Otherwise you have hundreds of millions of people in the West with negative "wealth" who in reality will enjoy a far wealthier life than someone in the developing world with small positive financial assets and no debt. Someone with $100 in assets and no debt does not get to claim that they are single handedly "richer" than the combined net worth of tens of millions of university graduates that each have a total career earnings potential of millions of dollars, but who each still have outstanding student debt and thus negative net worth. Also see this article on the "the wealthy living paycheck to paycheck" [2] which points out that people that will enjoy very wealthy lifestyles are spending rather than saving their income, and therefore really are rich yet will be written off as being far "poorer" than others in terms of financial assets. [1] http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=C26E3824-E868-56E0-CCA04D4BB9B9ADD5 http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/inde... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-income-paying-bills http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-amer...
- netcan 11y ago
  Any simple definition is distorted, inevitably. Income, consumption or utility have a case. That said, wealth by this definition is most relevant in certain contexts. If you're worried about political consequences, for example. When the majority of property-wealth belongs to a small minority the majority have less reason to preserve property rights, for example.
mercer 11y ago
So, I know this is a complicated issue that has been discussion with a lot of emotion and even anger. I find it very difficult to make any sense of it all, because it strikes me that in every discussion some crucial things are mixed up so much that the entire discussion strikes me as unproductive most of the time. In single back and forth's, we mix up: - the meaning of words - the specificity of the argument (say, actor income versus a country versus the global economy) - the ethical assumptions underlying our argument - the actual facts Personally I've been raised, developed my thoughts and occupy an environment that can be considered strongly on 'the left' of the spectrum (yes, also vague). That said, I really try to properly understand the 'other' side(s). But it's difficult, considering that my entire world view is built on assumptions, arguments, lines of reasoning that are built on 'facts' and 'knowledge' that is 'leftist'. My left-wing viewpoint is like a realist painting while my right-wing viewpoint is more like a crude child's drawing. So obviously I'm more likely to reject the latter, and judge its proponents harshly, because it seems so stupid and primitive. So I guess my question is... How would I best go about developing a more nuanced picture of the 'other' side(s) so that I can try to find 'truth' that is not conveniently aligned with my upbringing and current viewpoints, however difficult (or impossible) that might be? I've been trying to subscribe to blogs that don't align with my views. I've also been trying to look into philosophical views that seem to further this, but I find it difficult because I don't really know what axioms underly these views so alien to me. So I don't always know where to look. I've been trying to respectfully read economic or social arguments (including pg's recent essay) that I have some fundamental issues with, but it all falls apart through sheer complexity and ambiguity (see: the discussions here where half the time people seem to discuss what pg actually said). And whenever some discussion does go into 'facts', I'd really have to read the sources where half the time I would need to study that particular field to even understand the abstract, not to mention that I can't really check the accuracy of these facts in the first place (and we all know that the further we get from the 'natural' sciences, the more ambiguous and slanted these facts become). Here's the thing. I was raised an Evangelical Christian, and now I'm (basically) an atheist. The difference between these two paradigms is huge. I've believed both these sides with full conviction, so I know in quite a bit of detail how to defend many beliefs from either side. I feel that as a result, I can often pinpoint at which point in an argument things diverge, and I also feel I can reasonably choose in which direction to go. It also feels a bit schizophrenic and uncomfortable. But the only reason I can do this is that I've basically studied theology and I've been immersed in this now-alien point of view for about 25 years, not counting the period of overlap where I was very confused about matters. Obviously I cannot do that with an issue such as this. So what can I do, aside from try to assume that the viewpoint alien to my own is probably not as stupid or superficial as it seems? How can I assess a commenter's viewpoint when I don't have any knowledge of their background, honestly, or expertise as a person (which I do feel is important. we need to take shortcuts at some point). It's incredibly frustrating, but I don't want to get stuck in convictions that I just happen to have chanced into, basically.
tokenadult 11y ago
A good response to this[1] was posted here on Hacker News, but so far it languishes unread, with too few upvotes to promote it from the new submissions page. Take a look for a specific response to the article kindly submitted to open this active thread. [1] "What Oxfam won’t tell you about capitalism and poverty" http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-capitalism-and-poverty/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-yo...
Paradigma11 11y ago
On the other hand every single person of the richest 90% owns at least as much as the whole poorest one-third does. Heck, even i do. So i own as much as 2 400 000 000 people do in total. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-data-wealth-having-all-wanting-more-190115-en.xlsx https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachm... At least a court helped the poorest person on earth last year: "In March 2014, a French high court upheld Kerviel's prison sentence but ruled he would not have to repay €4.9bn" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel So there is still hope left.

141 points by Excluse 11y ago

If you simply conflate "richest" with "most powerful", this is already the case, and has been for most of human history. It's unclear why we should care about monetary wealth specifically more than other dimensions of power.

chiaro 11y ago
Probably because it's very easy to measure, and correlates with other dimensions through well known adjustments like Purchasing Power.
jessriedel 11y ago
Money and assets are more easily measured, taken, and transferred.
dkarapetyan 11y ago
It's easily measurable and since everything pretty much correlates with everything else when it comes to complicated systems like the world economy putting in some corrective feedback is a worthwhile effort. As it is I think things are stuck in a positive feedback loop (rich getting richer) and that's not healthy from either social or systems perspective.

ekianjo 11y ago

Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations: http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Global-Income-Distribution-2011 http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob... Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda. EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates globally: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/GMR_2014_Full_Report.pdf http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
"Absolute" poverty, yes.
- iofj 11y ago
  When it comes to food on the table, or material wealth in general, that's the only kind that matters.
ximeng 11y ago
Not quite sure the point of your comment. This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? The report you link to agrees with what they say is a problem (e.g. "In high-income countries, the rising concern about shared prosperity is a reaction to income inequality that has reached levels unprecedented in the post-war period.") There is no contradiction between the top 1% getting richer and more global equality within the remaining 99%. Oxfam no doubt have a political agenda, we could probably debate how clear it is and what exactly it is, but their political agenda doesn't particularly influence whether this article is correct, nor do your links seem to contradict it.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? They are saying the inequalities are growing, whereas the world bank report says the inequalities in income are shrinking progressively. That's a very different view.
  - ximeng 11y ago
    I've skimmed the report you linked to, and I really don't see the contradiction. E.g. look at the quote below, taken from several on inequality: "The second WBG goal of boosting shared prosperity is new and opportune. It shifts the focus in evaluating economic development from average income growth to income growth of the bottom 40 percent. Indicators proxying the socioeconomic status of the bottom 40 percent of the population, have shown little improvement, even though the growth of incomes of the bottom 40 percent of the population has not been slower than that of the general population in many countries. This growing inequality in basic living standards is worrisome". I don't see anything that contradicts the Oxfam report, while there are some comments that seem broadly in line with it. Overall, the broad thrust of both seem in roughly the same direction, although they do take different views. Again the inequalities in income shrinking progressively shown in the interactive presentation is between countries. It looks at incomes below 100k USD, which is not particularly relevant to a debate on the top global 1%. I'm sure there's a debate to be had on how much inequality restricts growth. Perhaps it's not correct when Oxfam says that reducing inequality could improve the overall size of the pie. But I see little in your links to contradict that at first glance. Maybe you could point out more specific grounds for your views?

monochromatic 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be&t=53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be... Rising inequality on its own is not a problem.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
It is a problem if only because of the huge power differential it creates and the segregation it leads to. It doesn't result in healthy societies.
- sitkack 11y ago
  The inequality is also bad for the rich since they end up getting eaten.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    They'll be touched by your concern.
- br_smartass 11y ago
  The kind of argument the OP is trying to make makes no sense to me, the only reason I see for us to "trust the market/system" is because it promises the most efficient allocation of resources, fairest compensation for value provided and opportunity and development for all. If it fails, it fails. I don't see how obcene inequality and all the problems of human misery that comes with it(which goes from insecurity to violence to even wars) isn't an instance of economics failling its own proposition(I will admit it does like 1% of it, tho). The most efficient society would be one where money and resources goes where it's needed and that it would create virtuous cycles(e.g.: take people out of misery -> they become economic agents -> everyone's work serves needs of someone else -> development -> world GDP increases -> humankind is able to do more things -> society gets star-wars-like capabilities -> more people more happy)

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
You would have to define "hoard" here. But there is a more interesting question which is that when Bill Gates is worth 54 billion a lot of that is stock in Microsoft, not fungible cash. When you have a millionaire who is "rich" because they own their house (no mortgage) and the house is worth more than a million dollars, they might still be living paycheck to paycheck. The difference being they could leverage their house if they needed money on short notice. That said, it would be interesting to see what shooting down rent-seeking taxes would do here. If for example you allowed copyrights to expire in a reasonable time, then you could have people put on a play and keep the profits. Something they can't do today.
refurb 11y ago
What do they do with it then? The only way they could hold money and it not have a positive impact is if it's sitting in cash. If they invest it or hell, even put it in a savings account, the money is having a positive impact on the economy. If they buy a ridiculous $50M yacht? That money flows to the company that built it.
- skybrian 11y ago
  That's not necessarily so. If you invest in real estate (and many do), wealth and income can grow even without any physical improvements, just due to supply and demand. National income will grow (since it includes rent) but it doesn't create any new jobs. Here's an analysis showing that capital is earning more than labor mostly due to housing prices: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/land-prices-evolution-capitals-share http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/lan...
- onion2k 11y ago
  That's true, but it'd be true if all that money were divided between 1000 people's bank accounts or if 50 people bought $1m yachts too. And that way there'd be more people enjoying the wealth rather than just one. Some people think that's better.

chiaro 11y ago

This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards largely in relation to how this system is established. Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to these profits in the first place. That said, with regards to the article, appealing to businesses as moral actors is only so effective. A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with the law, rather than the business.

MacsHeadroom 11y ago
>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to these profits in the first place. True. Obviously a laissez-faire capitalists would say they're both unnatural- as they would say most, if not all, concepts created via legislative action are also "unnatural." Of course, people don't typically expend effort fighting "unnatural" injustice that benefits them- especially when money is on the line, and even more so state protected stock holder money. >A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with the law, Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality?
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  > Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality Our laws are a constantly shifting mirror of our ethics (through the prism of "everyone" and "political reality") Look at divorce, abortion, women's property rights, environmental obligations etc etc The GP is well placed to say if a company is acting legally but unethically changing the law is often fastest and simpler fix -most eapecially for whole industries (hello banking)

bobby_9x 11y ago

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other startups combined? Unicorns like Uber and Airbnb should take their profits and spread them around to startups that failed! Yes, there is inequality, but I don't necessarily a bad thing. It's the natural form of most free marketplaces and systems.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 11y ago
Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception. Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments. Inheritance -> heavily taxed about everywhere. rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it. Interests on investment exist to allow your money to be useful to other people trying new things and building their businesses. So it's a positive enabler. Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate.
  - xshift 11y ago
    > rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it. think he may have meant to refer to rent-seeking in general and not specifically property rentals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking either way, your response indicates that you seem to be missing the point...

rboyd 11y ago

Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality. (FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable."

iofj 11y ago
Not really. The rich are far more invested than anyone else in "the system" (that made and keeps them rich) being "inclusive, equitable and sustainable". Especially the sustainable part. That effectively means "keeping themselves rich". The poor are not very invested in the system (they should be, of course, since without an economy their fate would be far worse, but human nature means you're not going to be happy having less than everyone else, even if destroying the system would make sure you have much less). This is the basis of Marxism, and of course it's true. In a way jealousy gets in the way of rational thought. This is one of the really good parts of capitalism. It concentrates power with people who want and need the system to succeed and who have very little power to use force to secure specific outcomes. You may agree to this to varying extents, but just compare China's attempts to stabilize it's currency with the US ones. China : 208 people in the financial industry (and counting) "disappeared", a lot of them with reports of the police asking for them right before their disappearance. US: so far 1 person arrested, and a lot of people agree that it's for a good reason, not just the government. You might say "but the US gave boatloads of money to the banks/rich !". Well, yes. But there's no difference there, so did Europe, so did China ... [1] [1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4568598e-8731-11e2-9dd7-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4568598e-8731-11e2-9dd7-00144...
dredmorbius 11y ago
You may have heard of Amartya Sen, welfare economist specialising especially in inequality and poverty. His wife, I learned recently, is Emma Georgina Rothschild. So: not all that improbable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen
binarray2000 11y ago

jqm 11y ago

2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world. I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative. I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.

ps4fanboy 11y ago
1% is just tugging at heart strings, marketing. If you further divide that 1% you'll find it like you suggest is much worse than that. 0.001% seems more likely.
- br_smartass 11y ago
  It's very clearly an exponential curve, 0.001% probably has a disproportional share of 1% and so on.
AKifer 11y ago
Among the 1% I bet the top 1% are weighting a lot too and so on. IMO the issue is pointless, it's just a statistical mirage, discussing about that won't make you richer or poorer, just time wasting. AND among the 1%, the majority of them would think about the same injustice back in the days they worked hard to earn, until they got the "chance" of being rich themselves.
asuffield 11y ago
Where did you find that 2.7m number? The most recent data is the Credit Suisse 2015 set, which you can see here: https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-us/research/research-institute/news-and-videos/articles/news-and-expertise/2015/10/en/global-wealth-in-2015-underlying-trends-remain-positive.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-us/research/resear... They put the 1% line at $760k, and that's net worth: include the value of your home, subtract your debts. I'm pretty unhappy about this oxfam article. It talks about "the richest 1%" and "the billionaires" alongside each other as if these groups were even remotely similar. This is furthering the myth of some kind of group of "shady rich people" who are behind the global financial conspiracy. Reality check: if you're reading this, you're almost certainly in the top 10% ($68,845 in total assets). According to the same data set, the median wealth in the US is $50k, so about half the population is in the top ten percent. You are the rich people this article is talking about. Comparing the "richest 80 billionaires" to the bottom 50% is similarly misleading, because the bottom 50% has about 0.5% of the global wealth (which I think roughly answers your question about the top 0.001%). If you lined up the top 80 billionaires, shot them all, and redistributed all their wealth to the bottom 50%, then those people would still be in extreme poverty. There are serious global wealth inequality problems, and this oxfam article doesn't really talk about them at all, and instead tries to perpetuate a popular meme. I strongly suggest that people skip it and read the Credit Suisse report instead - the data tells a much more interesting story. Here are the numbers which the oxfam article doesn't mention, and should: 85.65% of the global wealth is held by the top 10% of the population, which is 477m people, of which 113m are in the US, with second place going to Japan at 58m. 32.3% of global wealth is held by the middle class (defined as $50k to $500k wealth); 92.4% is held by the middle class or above. 37% is in the US. Africa, India, and Latin America together represent about 4%.

brandonmenc 11y ago

> Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014. I know plenty of people in their 60s who simply busted their asses at middle-class jobs while saving their pennies who are members of this "global elite."

mahyarm 11y ago
And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too. Still as far as 60 year olds go, that is actually pretty good. There are many 60 year olds who did not pinch pennies or did and had some medical disaster wipe their savings.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > And all of the poor of the USA is relatively wealthy to the population of the rest of the world too. Yes, something I like pointing out to my friends who never worked in a factory complaining that there are no more good factory jobs. Global poverty is declining in part because that work left America.
onion2k 11y ago
I don't think you do. The median income in the USA is $52,000. Assuming that a middle-class job pays 3* that amount, and that someone can reasonably save 30% of their salary for the last 20 years they work, that amounts to about $1m saved. Probably a lot less because a person's salary isn't at it's peak for much of their career. Even factoring for a household with 2 incomes at that level you don't get to $2.7m. I imagine the people you know are members of the elite as you say, but they got there by by having elite jobs and by investing their elite incomes. If you think they're in the "middle-class" you have a somewhat distorted view of the world.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  I think GP does know some people like this, because the boomer generation experienced tremendous asset appreciation across all sectors (public equities and real estate in particular) during their earning years.

ps4fanboy 11y ago

The global economy is in a transitional period, computerization has made inequality rise, but also Women working has led to higher inequality among families, Robotics and further automation of current industries will make things much worse for the people currently alive. There isnt a clear solution, what will ultimately happen is people working less and a higher percentage working in higher skilled jobs.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

"The existence of a billionaire is a clear indicator of one or more market failures" I have been banging this around my head for a while since PG's infamous essay. There are plenty of reasons to see wildly successful people as talented, special etc. But nowhere near enough to believe them to be superhuman. Nor as rare as might be expected. Becoming a billionaire (or member of top 1% or what have you) is not something that can only be achieved by a certain fraction of the population, like being over 6'6' There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the markup on Amazon books. Maybe PG is right and we need thousands more entrepreneurs out for themselves, and we shall see the inequalities of the world sort themselves out through "market" action. Which would mean still we need politicos action (why not more female entrepreneurs? What about highly regulated industries?)

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
I would take a close look at feedback loops from wealth. The very poor is to poor to change anything, while the very rich can change laws and dictate world wide sentiments. In the end the inequalities of power destroys any linear correlation between skill and income that might otherwise manifest. Traditionally we've been looking at the lower end of the power distribution to mitigate this (unions, minimum wage, micro loans and so forth) it might be prudent to look at the other end (property laws, corporations, finance and so forth) with similar intentions.
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  I dont disagree - market distortions can be found anywhere. And ending them will both end billionaires and likely increase equality (less billionaires means more money to spread between everyone else)
Qwertious 11y ago
>There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the markup on Amazon books. Network effects. Microsoft being a textbook example of a company built on them.

hkmurakami 11y ago

Well the richest 1% have definitely lost more than the rest (proportionally) over the last 2 weeks as well...

T2_t2 11y ago

So I assume everyone downloaded the PDF AND the excel? Good, so lets get to the numbers: My problems: 1. Percentages: the article talks in percentages, as if something tangible was lost from 50-45%. Here is the table of wealth by year in total vs the bottom 50%: year Total($bil) 50% ($bn) 2000 $117,052.00 $702.31 2001 $113,390.00 $793.73 2002 $122,757.00 $859.30 2003 $147,566.00 $1,032.96 2004 $166,018.00 $1,162.13 2005 $171,182.00 $1,198.27 2006 $195,941.00 $1,763.47 2007 $220,043.00 $2,200.43 2008 $189,877.00 $1,708.89 2009 $205,656.00 $1,850.90 2010 $216,084.00 $2,593.01 2011 $224,382.00 $2,243.82 2012 $238,089.00 $2,142.80 2013 $255,620.00 $1,789.34 2014 $263,242.00 $1,842.69 +224.89% +262.38% The wealth of the bottom 50% had tripled by 2010, even 2012, and has fallen off in the years since 2010. Taking the 2014 reduced numbers, that is still a 262% increase in 14 years. In contrast, the TOTAL economy has grown 224.89% since 2000. Why is THAT not the story? "Global share of bottom 50% growing faster than the world economy" doesn't fit the narrative perchance? Besides which, isn't that F^$%^&$ing amazing! That the bottom 50% areover 2 and a half times richer. That is world changing for the people it affects, surely? Yet the story is the rich have more. Really, "Rich have more" is the story? I can't wait for "water is wet" as installment 2. More importantly, why is the story not the drop from 2010 to 2014? What was that? So I sought out the source: https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi... and it appears that the wealth in the bottom 50% is made up mostly of mostly of two things (see figure 8, page 12): 1. Poor nations - e.g. Africa and, largest of all, India which accounts "... for over a quarter of people in the bottom half of the distribution". 2. Ruch Americans in debt - the tail seems skewed that way, to me at least. If we take just India, they had a massive currency exchange problem vs the USD since 2010. In 2010, it was 46.21 rupee to the dollar, in December 2014 it was 62.8 (http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&year=2014 http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&yea...). That is a drop of about a third in value. That is likely at least part of the reason for the wealth drop. 2. The percentage projection carries on from what looks like an historical anomaly between 2010 and 2014. If the currency exchange reverses course, and India claws back even 10% of the gap, the percentage to the 1% will likely reverse to some degree. 3. The data set for the rich changes dramatically. The minimum to be top 80 in 2014, would be top 15 in 2004. Zuckerberg appears out of nowhere in 2011, adding a few billion (his wealth versus the 81st position) to the total from nowhere. If Wallmart's founder had survived, we'd have a top 80 with 4 more billionaires in it, making it an even larger a total. That's not really indicative of anything (other than rich people can die too). Look, I get Oxfam's political agenda, but I think a +262.38% increase in wealth for the bottom 50% - even after what looks like a currency disaster since 2010 - is amazing in and of itself, and any comparison to an arbitrary set of extremely wealthy is just political machinations.

jevgeni 11y ago

Let me rephrase the title using absolute values: "Richest 73 Million People Will Own More Than All The Rest by 2016"

djsumdog 11y ago
That's less than the population of Germany having more wealth than the other 7 billion. I've mentioned this before, but if you want to know why this is, read Debt: the First 5000 Years. It's life changing
- jevgeni 11y ago
  Yeah. It's somewhere between France and Turkey. But in my opinion the whole 99-vs-1 narrative is bonkers. EDIT: Let me clarify to the downvoting PC frat boys: 99% vs 1% is a shit metric that doesn't address the issue of inequality. The only thing it enables is moronic populism. Imagine if we take all the wealth of the 1% and distribute it uniformly among the rest of the 99%. Do you really think this will lead to an equal distribution of income?

srgseg 11y ago

I feel the serious point Oxfam are looking to make is let down by a definition of wealth that is very distorted. Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts." Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every stage of their lives. But one is 18 and has just started working, the other is 65 and has just retired. Is the 65 year old really 1000x richer than the 18 year old, because the 18 year old has saved $100 so far and the 65 year old has had time to save $100,000? Is this really 1000x inequality? For the purposes of determining inequality, these people should be considered equal, because it's simply the case that one person is older and has had more time to save. A fair assessment of a person's wealth, at least when determining fairness and inequality, should include more than this. It should include an estimate of their future earnings potential plus the social security/welfare state entitlements and state pensions that they are entitled to. Otherwise you have hundreds of millions of people in the West with negative "wealth" who in reality will enjoy a far wealthier life than someone in the developing world with small positive financial assets and no debt. Someone with $100 in assets and no debt does not get to claim that they are single handedly "richer" than the combined net worth of tens of millions of university graduates that each have a total career earnings potential of millions of dollars, but who each still have outstanding student debt and thus negative net worth. Also see this article on the "the wealthy living paycheck to paycheck" [2] which points out that people that will enjoy very wealthy lifestyles are spending rather than saving their income, and therefore really are rich yet will be written off as being far "poorer" than others in terms of financial assets. [1] http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=C26E3824-E868-56E0-CCA04D4BB9B9ADD5 http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/inde... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-income-paying-bills http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-amer...

netcan 11y ago
Any simple definition is distorted, inevitably. Income, consumption or utility have a case. That said, wealth by this definition is most relevant in certain contexts. If you're worried about political consequences, for example. When the majority of property-wealth belongs to a small minority the majority have less reason to preserve property rights, for example.

mercer 11y ago

So, I know this is a complicated issue that has been discussion with a lot of emotion and even anger. I find it very difficult to make any sense of it all, because it strikes me that in every discussion some crucial things are mixed up so much that the entire discussion strikes me as unproductive most of the time. In single back and forth's, we mix up: - the meaning of words - the specificity of the argument (say, actor income versus a country versus the global economy) - the ethical assumptions underlying our argument - the actual facts Personally I've been raised, developed my thoughts and occupy an environment that can be considered strongly on 'the left' of the spectrum (yes, also vague). That said, I really try to properly understand the 'other' side(s). But it's difficult, considering that my entire world view is built on assumptions, arguments, lines of reasoning that are built on 'facts' and 'knowledge' that is 'leftist'. My left-wing viewpoint is like a realist painting while my right-wing viewpoint is more like a crude child's drawing. So obviously I'm more likely to reject the latter, and judge its proponents harshly, because it seems so stupid and primitive. So I guess my question is... How would I best go about developing a more nuanced picture of the 'other' side(s) so that I can try to find 'truth' that is not conveniently aligned with my upbringing and current viewpoints, however difficult (or impossible) that might be? I've been trying to subscribe to blogs that don't align with my views. I've also been trying to look into philosophical views that seem to further this, but I find it difficult because I don't really know what axioms underly these views so alien to me. So I don't always know where to look. I've been trying to respectfully read economic or social arguments (including pg's recent essay) that I have some fundamental issues with, but it all falls apart through sheer complexity and ambiguity (see: the discussions here where half the time people seem to discuss what pg actually said). And whenever some discussion does go into 'facts', I'd really have to read the sources where half the time I would need to study that particular field to even understand the abstract, not to mention that I can't really check the accuracy of these facts in the first place (and we all know that the further we get from the 'natural' sciences, the more ambiguous and slanted these facts become). Here's the thing. I was raised an Evangelical Christian, and now I'm (basically) an atheist. The difference between these two paradigms is huge. I've believed both these sides with full conviction, so I know in quite a bit of detail how to defend many beliefs from either side. I feel that as a result, I can often pinpoint at which point in an argument things diverge, and I also feel I can reasonably choose in which direction to go. It also feels a bit schizophrenic and uncomfortable. But the only reason I can do this is that I've basically studied theology and I've been immersed in this now-alien point of view for about 25 years, not counting the period of overlap where I was very confused about matters. Obviously I cannot do that with an issue such as this. So what can I do, aside from try to assume that the viewpoint alien to my own is probably not as stupid or superficial as it seems? How can I assess a commenter's viewpoint when I don't have any knowledge of their background, honestly, or expertise as a person (which I do feel is important. we need to take shortcuts at some point). It's incredibly frustrating, but I don't want to get stuck in convictions that I just happen to have chanced into, basically.

tokenadult 11y ago

A good response to this[1] was posted here on Hacker News, but so far it languishes unread, with too few upvotes to promote it from the new submissions page. Take a look for a specific response to the article kindly submitted to open this active thread. [1] "What Oxfam won’t tell you about capitalism and poverty" http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-capitalism-and-poverty/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-yo...

Paradigma11 11y ago

On the other hand every single person of the richest 90% owns at least as much as the whole poorest one-third does. Heck, even i do. So i own as much as 2 400 000 000 people do in total. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-data-wealth-having-all-wanting-more-190115-en.xlsx https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachm... At least a court helped the poorest person on earth last year: "In March 2014, a French high court upheld Kerviel's prison sentence but ruled he would not have to repay €4.9bn" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel So there is still hope left.