4 ms·

In some contexts we have nearly removed all the people in this equation already. 85 people own as much as about half the world's population [1]. So, capitalism

In some contexts we have nearly removed all the people in this equation already. 85 people own as much as about half the world's population [1]. So, capitalism in the form we have it today, which includes companies, are simply a way to concentrate wealth among the few. Some of these few use the money IMO vicely, but a more equitable system would probably work better. I say this after having lived and worked in the US and the UK (less equal) compared to Sweden and Netherlands (more equal). [1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-ric... Edit: clearer argument

icebraining 11y ago
Well, Norway, a country with a population of the size of Colorado, also has more money than half of the world. Does the fact that their society is more equal in itself actually help with the problem you're describe regard worldwide inequality? I don't see the mechanism.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
oldmanjay 11y ago
You seem to be using a definition of equality that you haven't fully explained. Do you mean more equal in terms of ownership? If so, how is that valuable?
- bjelkeman-again 11y ago
  The way I think of it is more equal access to: schooling, healthcare, basic income, nature, and things like: equality between the sexes, less racial or other discrimination, functional democratic political system, practical equality when confronted with the law.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt. I personally have more wealth than about half the world in my wallet - I've got about $150 in there, and billions of people have negative net worth. Global inequality is actually declining, by the way, so can't modern capitalism get some credit for that? http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
- phaemon 11y ago
  No, you don't. The report makes clear that you need wealth of USD 3,650 to be in the top 50% in the world, and USD 77,000 to be in the top 10%. https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    You are missing the point. Let me make a mathematical example. Suppose the population distribution is $[-100000 (1M people), 100000 (1M people), 200000 (1 person)]. Then anyone with $1 in net assets has more wealth than the bottom 2/3. In particular, the top person also has more wealth than the bottom 2/3. All this fact says is that a bunch of assets minus a bunch of debts adds up to small numbers. (Also note that I said "about half the world" - I don't claim to know the exact cutoff.)
    - phaemon 11y ago
      Your point appears to be that if enough people have debt, you don't need to have much to be above them. In short, you're trying to argue that there aren't many actual poor people and that there aren't a small number of super rich people (as the report suggests). Your point is wrong. Most people are not in debt, as illustrated by the fact that you require USD 3,650 to have more wealth than 50% of people. If most people were in debt then USD 1 would be more than required. Your figure of USD 150 is ludicrously inaccurate. That's nowhere near half the world. That's my point.
snowwrestler 11y ago
The legal control of a certain amount of wealth says nothing about the extent to which people have been removed from anything. For example Warren Buffett controls tens of billions of dollars worth of economic value, but that value is stored in companies that employ hundreds of thousands of humans.

icebraining 11y ago

Well, Norway, a country with a population of the size of Colorado, also has more money than half of the world. Does the fact that their society is more equal in itself actually help with the problem you're describe regard worldwide inequality? I don't see the mechanism.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

oldmanjay 11y ago

You seem to be using a definition of equality that you haven't fully explained. Do you mean more equal in terms of ownership? If so, how is that valuable?

bjelkeman-again 11y ago
The way I think of it is more equal access to: schooling, healthcare, basic income, nature, and things like: equality between the sexes, less racial or other discrimination, functional democratic political system, practical equality when confronted with the law.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt. I personally have more wealth than about half the world in my wallet - I've got about $150 in there, and billions of people have negative net worth. Global inequality is actually declining, by the way, so can't modern capitalism get some credit for that? http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...

phaemon 11y ago
No, you don't. The report makes clear that you need wealth of USD 3,650 to be in the top 50% in the world, and USD 77,000 to be in the top 10%. https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You are missing the point. Let me make a mathematical example. Suppose the population distribution is $[-100000 (1M people), 100000 (1M people), 200000 (1 person)]. Then anyone with $1 in net assets has more wealth than the bottom 2/3. In particular, the top person also has more wealth than the bottom 2/3. All this fact says is that a bunch of assets minus a bunch of debts adds up to small numbers. (Also note that I said "about half the world" - I don't claim to know the exact cutoff.)
  - phaemon 11y ago
    Your point appears to be that if enough people have debt, you don't need to have much to be above them. In short, you're trying to argue that there aren't many actual poor people and that there aren't a small number of super rich people (as the report suggests). Your point is wrong. Most people are not in debt, as illustrated by the fact that you require USD 3,650 to have more wealth than 50% of people. If most people were in debt then USD 1 would be more than required. Your figure of USD 150 is ludicrously inaccurate. That's nowhere near half the world. That's my point.

snowwrestler 11y ago

The legal control of a certain amount of wealth says nothing about the extent to which people have been removed from anything. For example Warren Buffett controls tens of billions of dollars worth of economic value, but that value is stored in companies that employ hundreds of thousands of humans.