6 ms·

Yesterday I read the Oxfam report that 85 people own half of the world's wealth. http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/rigged-rules-mean-eco

Yesterday I read the Oxfam report that 85 people own half of the world's wealth. http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/rigged-rules-mean-economic-growth-increasingly-winner-takes-all-for-rich-elites http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/ri... Now this is amazing and simple fact. This shows we have completely failed at distribution of wealth. If we could fix this many many problem will vanish. Now instead of what Gates has written this extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor.

Kiro 13y ago
> this extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor How so?
- agarwlGaurav 13y ago
  Lets say we distribute this wealth in a more equitable way. That will mean a little more dollars in the hand of poor and a little less in the hand of super rich. Now if we assume(reasonable as far as I can see) that if you are feed and have home you will spend next dollars into healthcare and education. So poor people with little more dollars would attract more workforce towards providing education and healthcare to their kids (instead of writing code for Bill Gates and make him rich) and thus making this world more peaceful and beautiful for all.
  - TimJRobinson 13y ago
    Every action has a reaction, while redistributing wealth seems like it would create a utopian world there are consequences and problems it would also create. These billions of dollars aren't simply sitting around in bank accounts doing nothing, they're being invested in companies which are (should be) providing some form of value to the world thus increasing the wealth of the world as a whole. If that money was taken and given to those less well off it could be squandered and then we're in a worse off position than now. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it seems fantastic, but there are always consequences and the reason we have capitalism is because so far it's proven itself as the best method of improving the wealth of everyone (through technology and cheaper goods.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it seems fantastic, but there are always consequences and the reason we have capitalism is because so far it's proven itself as the best method of improving the wealth of everyone That's not the reason we have capitalism, since we, generally, don't -- the places that had the system for which the label "capitalism" was created have all since adopted a substantial portion of the redistributive program of some of that systems most strident opponents (such as Marx and Engels) to create the modern dominant "mixed economy", for the precise reason that capitalism was an incredibly bad system and improving conditions for anyone but a very narrow class. And when we do take steps back toward capitalism, we see that what aggregate gains there are get more narrowly concentrated, and the system gets worse at "improving the wealth of everyone".
spikels 13y ago
You misquote the OXFAM claim. They actually say: The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.[1](p2 bottom) See the difference? The richest 85 people have about $1.7 trillion in wealth[2]. To put that in perspective the world stock market capitalization is $63 trillion[3], world bond market capitalization is around $100 trillion[4], world investment grade real estate $26 trillion[5]. That already $189 trillion of world wealth and ignores most real estate, commodities, durables, government owned assets, etc. So the richest 85 people actually own much less than 1% of the world's wealth. The problem is that the bottom 50% also own much less than 1% of the world's wealth. You will have a very hard time solving the world's problems if you can't even get basic facts straight. Gates, the world's second richest man, could give his entire fortune away to the bottom 50% and they would only get $19.00 each (=$67B/3.5B). Of course he would then have to shut down the Gates Foundation. [1] http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-fo... [2] http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/wfe-world-stock-market-capitalization-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/wfe-world-stock-market-capita... [4] http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1212h.pdf http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1212h.pdf [5] http://www.investmentmanagement.prudential.com/documents/pimusa/Birds_Eye_View_2012_PRU.pdf http://www.investmentmanagement.prudential.com/documents/pim...
- agarwlGaurav 13y ago
  Agreed, I made a mistake. But I appreciate that you agree that we have failed miserable at distribution of wealth and I quote you "The problem is that the bottom 50% also own much less than 1% of the world's wealth."
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Note that a newly graduated doctor from Harvard Medical School most likely has sufficient debt to put her very deeply in that bottom 50%, but she's still in an extremely enviable position. Current wealth isn't nearly as important as potential future earnings.
  - 13y ago
ZachPruckowski 13y ago
That's not what that article says. It says that those 85 people own as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people. The article and accompanying paper say that the world's richest one percent own 46% of the world's wealth - the 71M people who make more than $35K or so.
- agarwlGaurav 13y ago
  Agreed, I made a mistake and misunderstood the fact but my point that we have failed miserably at distribution of wealth remains.

Kiro 13y ago

> this extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor How so?

agarwlGaurav 13y ago
Lets say we distribute this wealth in a more equitable way. That will mean a little more dollars in the hand of poor and a little less in the hand of super rich. Now if we assume(reasonable as far as I can see) that if you are feed and have home you will spend next dollars into healthcare and education. So poor people with little more dollars would attract more workforce towards providing education and healthcare to their kids (instead of writing code for Bill Gates and make him rich) and thus making this world more peaceful and beautiful for all.
- TimJRobinson 13y ago
  Every action has a reaction, while redistributing wealth seems like it would create a utopian world there are consequences and problems it would also create. These billions of dollars aren't simply sitting around in bank accounts doing nothing, they're being invested in companies which are (should be) providing some form of value to the world thus increasing the wealth of the world as a whole. If that money was taken and given to those less well off it could be squandered and then we're in a worse off position than now. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it seems fantastic, but there are always consequences and the reason we have capitalism is because so far it's proven itself as the best method of improving the wealth of everyone (through technology and cheaper goods.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it seems fantastic, but there are always consequences and the reason we have capitalism is because so far it's proven itself as the best method of improving the wealth of everyone That's not the reason we have capitalism, since we, generally, don't -- the places that had the system for which the label "capitalism" was created have all since adopted a substantial portion of the redistributive program of some of that systems most strident opponents (such as Marx and Engels) to create the modern dominant "mixed economy", for the precise reason that capitalism was an incredibly bad system and improving conditions for anyone but a very narrow class. And when we do take steps back toward capitalism, we see that what aggregate gains there are get more narrowly concentrated, and the system gets worse at "improving the wealth of everyone".

spikels 13y ago

You misquote the OXFAM claim. They actually say: The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.[1](p2 bottom) See the difference? The richest 85 people have about $1.7 trillion in wealth[2]. To put that in perspective the world stock market capitalization is $63 trillion[3], world bond market capitalization is around $100 trillion[4], world investment grade real estate $26 trillion[5]. That already $189 trillion of world wealth and ignores most real estate, commodities, durables, government owned assets, etc. So the richest 85 people actually own much less than 1% of the world's wealth. The problem is that the bottom 50% also own much less than 1% of the world's wealth. You will have a very hard time solving the world's problems if you can't even get basic facts straight. Gates, the world's second richest man, could give his entire fortune away to the bottom 50% and they would only get $19.00 each (=$67B/3.5B). Of course he would then have to shut down the Gates Foundation. [1] http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-fo... [2] http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/wfe-world-stock-market-capitalization-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/wfe-world-stock-market-capita... [4] http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1212h.pdf http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1212h.pdf [5] http://www.investmentmanagement.prudential.com/documents/pimusa/Birds_Eye_View_2012_PRU.pdf http://www.investmentmanagement.prudential.com/documents/pim...

agarwlGaurav 13y ago
Agreed, I made a mistake. But I appreciate that you agree that we have failed miserable at distribution of wealth and I quote you "The problem is that the bottom 50% also own much less than 1% of the world's wealth."
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Note that a newly graduated doctor from Harvard Medical School most likely has sufficient debt to put her very deeply in that bottom 50%, but she's still in an extremely enviable position. Current wealth isn't nearly as important as potential future earnings.
- 13y ago

ZachPruckowski 13y ago

That's not what that article says. It says that those 85 people own as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people. The article and accompanying paper say that the world's richest one percent own 46% of the world's wealth - the 71M people who make more than $35K or so.

agarwlGaurav 13y ago
Agreed, I made a mistake and misunderstood the fact but my point that we have failed miserably at distribution of wealth remains.