7 ms·

Do you know that 8 people in the world have as much wealth as 3.6 BILLION people. That inequality is STAGGERING. Where do you think the problem lies?

ojbrien 9y ago
I find the use of this statistic really frustrating, if you're say an average westerner with $10,000 of debt and $2,000 savings - your net wealth is -$8,000. If on the other hand you sift through garbage somewhere in Africa and earn 50c per day your net wealth is ~$0. By this metric the garbage site worker is wealthier than the Westerner fresh from university.
- anfilt 9y ago
  Well they are more wealthier till that debt is paid off. However, the metric does not include cash flow. The westerner has a greater cash flow than the person in Africa. However, what happen if that person looses their job? Suddenly, their quality life will probably drop. They might even end homeless unable to pay rent. However, the westerner is probably better off overall.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    It's all the wealth around you including the infrastructure that you can partially take advantage of that the African probably lacks.
    - anfilt 9y ago
      Henceforth, why I said probably better off.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Perhaps the first derivative of net wealth is a better metric?
  - barrkel 9y ago
    First derivative of wealth would be income or spending. I think it's better to go the other way: consider the integral of cash flows over time (i.e. net present value). It would still be pretty uncertain.
    - ComputerGuru 9y ago
      Yes and no. I purposely chose the mathematical notation rather than the more common economical terms to convey a different idea. If you look at the instantaneous\* derivative, it's not the fact that you owe the federal government $2M for that MD that counts but rather your monthly obligation. Debt doesn't matter, required repayment per unit of time does - so almost like cash-basis accounting. Finding a $100 on the street or borrowing $100 from a friend are the same in terms of their addition to your instantaneous wealth, it's the fact that one needs to be repaid that detracts from your "actual" wealth, and the repayment period matters. Compare the lifestyle of two neighbors working at the same institution making the same amount of money that each took out $500k mortgages to buy their identical houses, only one took it out for 15 years and the other for 30. On day 1, they both take the same hit to their net worth, but that doesn't change their wealth derivative in and of itself, it's the rate of paying it back that you should be counting. That explains why one college educated individual can get a loan for $1000 from the bank and at time 0 they are, under this metric, better off than someone that needed to hit up a payday loans place for the same loan but at a higher interest rate. They both "earned" the same amount of money, and may even "spend" it on the same thing at the same rate, but when you take the repayment period into account (let's say 1 year vs 2 weeks, respectively) you can see why the graduate student is measurably better off. Just like stocks you hold aren't actually contributing to your day-to-day wealth (and as such aren't taxed) but it's when you cash out that you've either made or lost money. \* let's define an "instant" as a month, just to make things easier.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    I think the point is that there are things that aren't captured by looking at wealth alone. Having a college degree, being inserted in a society that ensures peace, safety and well-being, all that has value.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Sure; it's not counting human capital, or basically the net present value of future income streams available to someone. In this respect, having debt is a positive sign, because banks evaluate loans based on expected ability to repay, i.e. future income streams.
throwanem 9y ago
Well, using figures from http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/ http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/, if we take the top eight, sum their fortunes (conveniently expressed in billions), and divide by 3.6, we find that a maximally equitable redistribution would allocate, to each of the lucky recipients, the princely sum of $165.38 US. So, I'm going to guess the problem may lie somewhere other than with eight really rich people. But we don't really need to do the math on this one, do we? It doesn't even pass the sniff test - "these eight people are LITERALLY THE WORST" is just far too uncomplicated a proposition to accurately reflect the reality of a human world which, though many things, is never simple.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  You're not extrapolating. Thats just the top 8 people...Take the sum of the rest of the the global 1% or even 10% and do your math... OH nm, the math has already been done. 280 trillion in global wealth / 6 billion people = 46k per person And the top 10% has 86% percent of it, and the inequality is just growing exponentially. I'm not advocating that wealth should be equally distributed OR that capitalism is all bad..however, that in-equality is STAGGERING....unregulated capitalism with no income redistribution is a one way ticket to a third world PLANET. https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/global-wealth-report-2017-201711.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and...
  - throwanem 9y ago
    It's not terribly controversial that anarchocapitalism is a bad idea. It's also an entirely different proposition from the one you previously advanced.
    - nickthemagicman 9y ago
      What idea did I 'previously advance'?
  - patmorgan23 9y ago
    Unregulated capitalism is not what's causing the massive inequality we see today. It's the financial and monetary policies. I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations but the ones we have are centralizing wealth into the biggest corporations. If you look this modern massive growth of inequality doesn't really start until the 1970's after we whet off the gold standard and theirs an uptick in inequality every time the fed decides it needs to pump a bunch of money into the economy.
ForRealsies 9y ago
Exploiting cheap labor under the guise of free trade is a good start.
ciocan42 9y ago
I think this view of inequality is misleading. It put emphasis that the top richest should be not rich, or they are not good people. It's a defeating viewpoint that blames other for not having success. When in fact top 10% richest helped much more people along the way than all average combined. And the consequence is being rich. Instead of complaining about inequality (aka making the rich poorer), better to think about how to make the poor richer.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  But, when those extremely rich are siphoning money away from others (via paying for laws that favor them, exploiting workers, etc.), it absolutely makes sense to say, 'Hey, you don't need all that. You need to share more than you are.'
  - coolaliasbro 9y ago
    I completely agree with the drift of your comment, but would nitpick the notion of "sharing" in this context: since, as has been explained above, the system is effectively gamed to legitimize the capturing of value by those that already have most of it from those that produce it and do not, the current situation is tantamount to legalized theft by one class from another. I don't follow that a thief can share something he stole with the person from which he stole it.
- bbctol 9y ago
  I appreciate how much the rich have helped other people along their way to, uh, being Sam Walton's kid.
- andrepd 9y ago
  > top 10% richest helped much more people along the way than all average combined That's complete bullshit. That's maybe how you wish things were. But it's not. I'm in the top 10%, and I've done nothing for it other than having been born in a wealthy country to middle-class parents, with my every need attended to by society. Had I been born somewhere else, I certainly would not be successful as I am now. Instead of being a physicist, maybe I would be boxing cheap plastic gadgets in a factory in Asia. I was born into the top rung on the current global economic arrangement, instead of on the bottom. To put it this way: if hard work led to wealth every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. In fact the top 10% keep the statu quo as it is because it benefits them. It benefits them that global economy is arranged in such a way that they are in the center, reaping the benefits of it, and keeping the "periphery" down and in their place, feeding them and their high standard of living. This means everything from stacking "democratic" governments with plutocratic cronies, to simply being a middle-class voter interested in maintaining things just as they are.
desireco42 9y ago
I don't have the problem with people being rich, poor are the ones that are fairly easy to help, yet we are not doing it. And most likely not taxing the rich enough or the right way.
coolaliasbro 9y ago
> Do you know that 8 people in the world have as much wealth as 3.6 BILLION people. That inequality is STAGGERING. This. This is the root of the issue in its entirety. As a civilized species (civilized in the sense that we "have" civilization) we should ban as a practice and ostracize those that propone the privatization of capital gains and the socialization of capital losses. Period. The figure posted by parent speaks volumes of the flaws of the currently dominant economic paradigm. I hate to get too tangential and throw shade in a generically, but I've always felt like those of us that aspire to be millionaires, etc., are doing it wrong.

ojbrien 9y ago

I find the use of this statistic really frustrating, if you're say an average westerner with $10,000 of debt and $2,000 savings - your net wealth is -$8,000. If on the other hand you sift through garbage somewhere in Africa and earn 50c per day your net wealth is ~$0. By this metric the garbage site worker is wealthier than the Westerner fresh from university.

anfilt 9y ago
Well they are more wealthier till that debt is paid off. However, the metric does not include cash flow. The westerner has a greater cash flow than the person in Africa. However, what happen if that person looses their job? Suddenly, their quality life will probably drop. They might even end homeless unable to pay rent. However, the westerner is probably better off overall.
- goatlover 9y ago
  It's all the wealth around you including the infrastructure that you can partially take advantage of that the African probably lacks.
  - anfilt 9y ago
    Henceforth, why I said probably better off.
ComputerGuru 9y ago
Perhaps the first derivative of net wealth is a better metric?
- barrkel 9y ago
  First derivative of wealth would be income or spending. I think it's better to go the other way: consider the integral of cash flows over time (i.e. net present value). It would still be pretty uncertain.
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    Yes and no. I purposely chose the mathematical notation rather than the more common economical terms to convey a different idea. If you look at the instantaneous\* derivative, it's not the fact that you owe the federal government $2M for that MD that counts but rather your monthly obligation. Debt doesn't matter, required repayment per unit of time does - so almost like cash-basis accounting. Finding a $100 on the street or borrowing $100 from a friend are the same in terms of their addition to your instantaneous wealth, it's the fact that one needs to be repaid that detracts from your "actual" wealth, and the repayment period matters. Compare the lifestyle of two neighbors working at the same institution making the same amount of money that each took out $500k mortgages to buy their identical houses, only one took it out for 15 years and the other for 30. On day 1, they both take the same hit to their net worth, but that doesn't change their wealth derivative in and of itself, it's the rate of paying it back that you should be counting. That explains why one college educated individual can get a loan for $1000 from the bank and at time 0 they are, under this metric, better off than someone that needed to hit up a payday loans place for the same loan but at a higher interest rate. They both "earned" the same amount of money, and may even "spend" it on the same thing at the same rate, but when you take the repayment period into account (let's say 1 year vs 2 weeks, respectively) you can see why the graduate student is measurably better off. Just like stocks you hold aren't actually contributing to your day-to-day wealth (and as such aren't taxed) but it's when you cash out that you've either made or lost money. \* let's define an "instant" as a month, just to make things easier.
- andrepd 9y ago
  I think the point is that there are things that aren't captured by looking at wealth alone. Having a college degree, being inserted in a society that ensures peace, safety and well-being, all that has value.
barrkel 9y ago
Sure; it's not counting human capital, or basically the net present value of future income streams available to someone. In this respect, having debt is a positive sign, because banks evaluate loans based on expected ability to repay, i.e. future income streams.

throwanem 9y ago

Well, using figures from http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/ http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/, if we take the top eight, sum their fortunes (conveniently expressed in billions), and divide by 3.6, we find that a maximally equitable redistribution would allocate, to each of the lucky recipients, the princely sum of $165.38 US. So, I'm going to guess the problem may lie somewhere other than with eight really rich people. But we don't really need to do the math on this one, do we? It doesn't even pass the sniff test - "these eight people are LITERALLY THE WORST" is just far too uncomplicated a proposition to accurately reflect the reality of a human world which, though many things, is never simple.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
You're not extrapolating. Thats just the top 8 people...Take the sum of the rest of the the global 1% or even 10% and do your math... OH nm, the math has already been done. 280 trillion in global wealth / 6 billion people = 46k per person And the top 10% has 86% percent of it, and the inequality is just growing exponentially. I'm not advocating that wealth should be equally distributed OR that capitalism is all bad..however, that in-equality is STAGGERING....unregulated capitalism with no income redistribution is a one way ticket to a third world PLANET. https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/global-wealth-report-2017-201711.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and...
- throwanem 9y ago
  It's not terribly controversial that anarchocapitalism is a bad idea. It's also an entirely different proposition from the one you previously advanced.
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    What idea did I 'previously advance'?
- patmorgan23 9y ago
  Unregulated capitalism is not what's causing the massive inequality we see today. It's the financial and monetary policies. I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations but the ones we have are centralizing wealth into the biggest corporations. If you look this modern massive growth of inequality doesn't really start until the 1970's after we whet off the gold standard and theirs an uptick in inequality every time the fed decides it needs to pump a bunch of money into the economy.

ForRealsies 9y ago

Exploiting cheap labor under the guise of free trade is a good start.

ciocan42 9y ago

I think this view of inequality is misleading. It put emphasis that the top richest should be not rich, or they are not good people. It's a defeating viewpoint that blames other for not having success. When in fact top 10% richest helped much more people along the way than all average combined. And the consequence is being rich. Instead of complaining about inequality (aka making the rich poorer), better to think about how to make the poor richer.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
But, when those extremely rich are siphoning money away from others (via paying for laws that favor them, exploiting workers, etc.), it absolutely makes sense to say, 'Hey, you don't need all that. You need to share more than you are.'
- coolaliasbro 9y ago
  I completely agree with the drift of your comment, but would nitpick the notion of "sharing" in this context: since, as has been explained above, the system is effectively gamed to legitimize the capturing of value by those that already have most of it from those that produce it and do not, the current situation is tantamount to legalized theft by one class from another. I don't follow that a thief can share something he stole with the person from which he stole it.
bbctol 9y ago
I appreciate how much the rich have helped other people along their way to, uh, being Sam Walton's kid.
andrepd 9y ago
> top 10% richest helped much more people along the way than all average combined That's complete bullshit. That's maybe how you wish things were. But it's not. I'm in the top 10%, and I've done nothing for it other than having been born in a wealthy country to middle-class parents, with my every need attended to by society. Had I been born somewhere else, I certainly would not be successful as I am now. Instead of being a physicist, maybe I would be boxing cheap plastic gadgets in a factory in Asia. I was born into the top rung on the current global economic arrangement, instead of on the bottom. To put it this way: if hard work led to wealth every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. In fact the top 10% keep the statu quo as it is because it benefits them. It benefits them that global economy is arranged in such a way that they are in the center, reaping the benefits of it, and keeping the "periphery" down and in their place, feeding them and their high standard of living. This means everything from stacking "democratic" governments with plutocratic cronies, to simply being a middle-class voter interested in maintaining things just as they are.

desireco42 9y ago

I don't have the problem with people being rich, poor are the ones that are fairly easy to help, yet we are not doing it. And most likely not taxing the rich enough or the right way.

coolaliasbro 9y ago

> Do you know that 8 people in the world have as much wealth as 3.6 BILLION people. That inequality is STAGGERING. This. This is the root of the issue in its entirety. As a civilized species (civilized in the sense that we "have" civilization) we should ban as a practice and ostracize those that propone the privatization of capital gains and the socialization of capital losses. Period. The figure posted by parent speaks volumes of the flaws of the currently dominant economic paradigm. I hate to get too tangential and throw shade in a generically, but I've always felt like those of us that aspire to be millionaires, etc., are doing it wrong.