Status
Not open for further replies.

Copper

Banned
Nov 13, 2017
666
Repeat with me : free global market.

But you're a fascist and probably a racist as well if u say that. Meanwhile the only economy that manager to create a significant middle classe in the last 20 years was a protectionist one: china. India which has followed the IMF indications on liberalizing their markets? It has no middle class despite their economic growth.
But continue voting for free market capitalists, i'm sure that when your job has no value the 1% will treat you well because you followed their leads.
Genocidal criminals, that's what the 1% are.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
How anyone can say with a straight face capitalism had worked is beyond me. You cannot have truly democratic societi with that kind of inequality.

Because you're living in a functioning society and democracy right now. Unless you live under an actual dictatorship/theocracy. You know, the places usually fighting and protesting for what most of us have, whilst we update our Twitter bios to state how unhappy we are with McDonalds, Facebook and Google.
 

NIcktendo86

Member
Nov 2, 2017
10
It's more complicated than that. When they look at wealth, they include debt. This makes sense, but it also means that an engineer earning $70k a year but who still has $100k student debt from their time at MIT is considered poorer than a Chinese peasant with $20 hidden in their pillow. Strictly speaking it's not incorrect, but in any meaningful way the MIT-graduate engineer is going to enjoy opportunities and prosperity far beyond that of the peasant, even during the time in which they still have more debt than money. This also applies to anyone with a mortgage larger than their savings, which is a significant number of people. Finally, the richest people's value is typically held in shares rather than liquid assets. Sometimes these shares aren't publicly traded and so their value cannot be determined other than by guessing what they might be worth were they publicly traded. But also those shares are only worth something when you sell them. Over the course of 20 years a businesses value can double, then quarter, then go up by ten times, then fall to 1% of what it was and during all this time a person owning their shares' wealth would ping pong all over the place, yet the money they have wouldn't change at all. As such, trying to work out how much X% have version some other measure of people is very difficult and can be stacked to look more or less however you want. Because Oxfam basically want your money, they stack it to make inequality look as stark as possible.
Yep, exactly. They manipulate the figures for their own ends. Highly cynical and far too political organisation.
 

Rangerx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,561
Dangleberry
Because you're living in a functioning society and democracy right now. Unless you live under an actual dictatorship/theocracy. You know, the places usually fighting and protesting for what most of us have, whilst we update our Twitter bios to state how unhappy we are with McDonalds, Facebook and Google.

Then you have a very shallow understanding of how democracies are supposed to work. There was a report done by amnesty which found that 70% of the American population's views don't factor into government decisions at all. Its been long understood by governments that force only gets you so far and that controling attitudes and opinions is much more effective. Certainly in my own country policy decisions are geared toward big business and private power, exactly like in the states.Just because your not being bashed over the head doesn't mean your living in a real democracy. Its more than pressing a button every couple of years.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Then you have a very shallow understanding of how democracies are supposed to work. There was a report done by amnesty which found that 70% of the American population's views don't factor into government decisions at all. Its been long understood by governments that force only gets you so far and that control attitudes and opinions is much more effective. Certainly in my own country policy decisions are geared toward big business and private power, exactly like in the states.Just because your not being bashed over the head doesn't mean your living in a real democracy. Its more than pressing a button every couple of years.

What is a real democracy to you? How do we achieve it? Can you list the examples in other countries that right now have a real democracy?

I hold no illusions my concept of democracy is fairly light, mostly based around me having the legal right to vote, the freedom to choose whoever I want and a small determination on who is elected, both locally, and at the highest levels of Government in my country. I can campaign, protest and politically satitize/criticise without being thrown in jail for dissent as well. Some places in the world don't even have that. They wish they did. We can focus on continuing to influence and change the countries we live in without a Tumblr-like "activist campaign" to tear our countries down because "I'm unhappy". If anything that is a shallow attempt at understanding just how complex it really is to construct pseudo-democracies where vast majorities are able to contribute, work, take part, receive and be supported.

There is no outright eradication of inequality or top-balanced wealth, just a constant political focus to attempt to make sure the framework of countries are as supportive and productive as can be for literally tens if not hundreds of millions of citizens. There is always going to be a top percentile that manage to achieve ludicrous wealth. Just the way it is going to go to prop up and support a society where you can enjoy and do many of the things you can. The Government can still attempt to construct as fair a society as possible, whilst millionaires/billionaires still roam around.

Anger, frustration and resentment for rich people, or people richer than you, is drinking the poison in life for you to live an unhappy, depressed and empty life. Focus on yourself, do the best you can, try and achieve a comfortable life where you can pay your bills and have a 50 inch TV and 3 games consoles, and most importantly, seek out friendships and possibly companionship. You're afforded those abilities in most of our democracies if you can work on yourself and attempt to achieve a small slice of personal success. Be happy with what you've got, and yes, if you are disabled, sick, really poor or in need, hopefully you can vote in a Government who will care enough to support you a bit. The Twitter/blog activists believing eradicating Capitalism is the hipster way to solve the world is mind-numbing. It's a never-ending self-fufilling prophecy that will mostly just result in you being severely unhappy and depressed for most of your living life. When the change/revolution comes about, THEN I can be happy and live my life!!!
 
Last edited:

Psycho_Mantis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,965
I wonder how much of this wealth is also being used as investments to start future business and industries though. For instance the flying car startups seems to be getting hundreds of millions from these investors.

Them earning the money is not the sad thing, as these people often own massive companies, its what they do with it.
 

Expy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,886
The majority of the wealth of the world will always be owned by a small minority.

At least until the day the Earth is destroyed.
 

Foffy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,400
As long as poor aren't getting poorer, i don't really see the problem.

Precarity is rising.

So people are getting poorer.

Absolute poverty is declining, but relative poverty is rising. To give you an example of this, Africa is improving by the year, but America is getting worse by the year. The conflict between the sustainability of Capitalism always falls between absolute and relative poverty figures: people who like it cite the rise of Africa, but people who dislike it show the fall in America, to run with the earlier example.
 

ccbfan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,501
The funniest things about these topics are users that don't know that they themselves are probably part of this 1 percent.
 

Azraes

Member
Oct 28, 2017
997
London
Firstly, if the wealth distribution ratio reaches Egyptian civilization times we'll be due a slave revolt/rebellion because it happens (unless you reach a dystopia where individual will is largely crushed and brute force of a few can crush incredibly large numbers).

Secondly, 1% includes 72 Million people approx so when you say the rich get richer it's a bit of an ambiguous statement. A quick google search shows that there are 15 million millionaires in the world. I mean it's probably grown but that still means there are 50million plus wealthy who are non-millionaires and a lot of these people earn in the 60-150k range.

When you speak about wealth you need to speak about relative 'purchasing power'. Otherwise it's an arbitrary value of yeah all these people earn but does that mean their money is worth much in the area they earn. Perhaps we can argue that the quality of life in the areas where these people live is a lot better. There are far too many factors to speak of rather than the net worth of an individual. You can very well have individuals who earn in the common bracket with minimal purchasing power due to the area they live in and unable to reap the benefits entirely of the area they live in as well. The statistic can only be determined within a nation or places that have similar economic conditions.

All this brings to mind is that the human mind cannot picture numbers greater than 100.
 

mintzilla

Member
Nov 6, 2017
582
Canada
Here's an interesting question for some of you:

If in let's say the United States universal free healthcare was a thing and the first 4 years of post secondary was free, would you have as much of a problem with income inequality?
 
Oct 27, 2017
43,045
Here's an interesting question for some of you:

If in let's say the United States universal free healthcare was a thing and the first 4 years of post secondary was free, would you have as much of a problem with income inequality?

There's no way those things would be the case and income inequality would be at the level it is right now. It would be lower (at least in the US). Healthcare and education are significant financial burdens
 

Zing

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,771
The world we live in is disgusting. The rich get richer. And do not come here with the bs of "they worked hard for it", so do other millions of poor people just to earn enough money to buy simple food.
Rich people literally do not work for their income. We reached a point years ago where capital generates more income than labor. In other words, money makes money faster than work makes money. Work is for poor people.
 

ronaldthump

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,439
the ultra rich could afford to do more good. The fact that a lot of them dont... yeah.
 

Lime

Banned for use of an alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,266
giphy2jo7u.gif
 

Bung Hole

Banned
Jan 9, 2018
2,169
Auckland, New Zealand
This isn't about the desires of the rich but rather the outcome: that money sitting in a bank account is how people get mortgages to buy their own homes, or get business loans to start a new business or invest further in one they already have, or a person gets a loan to buy a car they need or to redecorate their kitchen. Banks make money on these, and that's why our billionaire here gets his interest payment, but all that only happens because people want to borrow the money to do something with. As I said above, this isn't the desire of the billionaire - the interest is - but it is nontheless the oil that keeps the economy flowing. Even without intending to, that billionaire's money is helping to start businesses and buy homes and whatnot.
Appreciate the response friend. I guess its just a little frustration on my end. The slew of bad news is getting to me.
 

Phrozenflame500

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
2,132
It's more complicated than that. When they look at wealth, they include debt. This makes sense, but it also means that an engineer earning $70k a year but who still has $100k student debt from their time at MIT is considered poorer than a Chinese peasant with $20 hidden in their pillow. Strictly speaking it's not incorrect, but in any meaningful way the MIT-graduate engineer is going to enjoy opportunities and prosperity far beyond that of the peasant, even during the time in which they still have more debt than money. This also applies to anyone with a mortgage larger than their savings, which is a significant number of people. Finally, the richest people's value is typically held in shares rather than liquid assets. Sometimes these shares aren't publicly traded and so their value cannot be determined other than by guessing what they might be worth were they publicly traded. But also those shares are only worth something when you sell them. Over the course of 20 years a businesses value can double, then quarter, then go up by ten times, then fall to 1% of what it was and during all this time a person owning their shares' wealth would ping pong all over the place, yet the money they have wouldn't change at all. As such, trying to work out how much X% have version some other measure of people is very difficult and can be stacked to look more or less however you want. Because Oxfam basically want your money, they stack it to make inequality look as stark as possible.
Yeah I recall reading about this, I'm not sure these specific numbers have any real informational value even if you want to argue that global inequality is an issue.
 

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,120
So if 42 individuals have the same wealth as the poorest 3.7B humans, shouldn't that be the bigger focal point than the whole 1% having 82% of the wealth? You can't even make the argument that most people in the West would be considered rich compared to most of the world in this case. This is 42 individuals with the same wealth as 3.7B combined.
 

take_marsh

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,364
~760,00,000 (1% of 7.6 billion) have 82% of the world's wealth. That isn't that big of a surprise when there are only so many countries that have huge amounts of capital and the wealth distribution in those places are STILL extremely wonky. Sitting on billions of dollars isn't helping (looking at you, Google, Apple, etc.).
 

xbhaskarx

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,143
NorCal
That's not enough though, that's why Republicans just gave the ultra-wealthy a massive tax cut at the expense of Millennials.
 

Deleted member 4247

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,896
It's pretty incredible, really. This small group of people (ok, something like 70 million) have more than they could ever do anything useful with and just keep grabbing more, while billions of people have practically nothing, many of them literally dying as a direct result of it.

So if 42 individuals have the same wealth as the poorest 3.7B humans, shouldn't that be the bigger focal point than the whole 1% having 82% of the wealth? You can't even make the argument that most people in the West would be considered rich compared to most of the world in this case. This is 42 individuals with the same wealth as 3.7B combined.

Yeah, that's the even crazier number, of course.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,898
Finland
In case you don't frequent Reddit..please note the 1% being talked about in this article refers to worldwide population, of which the 1% is anyone making above something like 34k USD annually. Essentially, probably most people here. You are the 1%.
Hah not me!
It's pretty incredible, really. This small group of people (ok, something like 70 million) have more than they could ever do anything useful with and just keep grabbing more, while billions of people have practically nothing, many of them literally dying as a direct result of it.
All this talk about Wahlberg's and Williams' salaries has mostly made me think that people in showbusiness make way too much money. There should be some initiative that just transfers a chunk of those huge salaries and profits to help the people in most need instead of funding another private jet.
 

jon bones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,219
NYC
I've since abandoned the idea that this inequality can be fixed.

The idea now is: how to make it from the 5% to the 1% before I retire.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,727
Rich people literally do not work for their income. We reached a point years ago where capital generates more income than labor. In other words, money makes money faster than work makes money. Work is for poor people.
"Successful" people usually work more than the average Joe.

Not talking about some rich kids who inherited wealth.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,756
"Successful" people usually work more than the average Joe.

Not talking about some rich kids who inherited wealth.

Agreed with gist of your statement but there are millions of people that work incredibly hard as well and have little to show for it. That said the folks who succeed in many high paying fields are putting in long hours.
 
Last edited:

Lime

Banned for use of an alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,266
"Successful" people usually work more than the average Joe.

Not talking about some rich kids who inherited wealth.

That's some bullshit. Jeff Bezos didn't put in labor equivalent to $100 million dollars during Black Friday. All these billionaires are just exploiting others to accrue wealth (aka it's the nature of capitalism) that do not have worked for.
 
Last edited:

Crocks

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
963
That's some bullshit. Jeff Bezos didn't put in labor equivalent to $100 billion dollars during Black Friday. All these billionaires are just exploiting others to accrue wealth (aka it's the nature of capitalism) that do not have worked for.
Did Jeff Bezos earn $100bn on Black Friday?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.