namelesstavern.net

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

The poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

And its doin wonders for the country isnt it.

Richest in the WORLD not USA

USA has high income dispersion but not as high as that. This study is skewed more b/c there is such high disparity country to country in addition to the disparity within each country.

Phlegm wrote:

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

The poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

So what's the problem?

Yeah, do you expect them to disperse their wealth to the world?

That would create far more problems than it would solve.

The problem is that when this sort of thing happens, it means the middle class is disappearing. So, you're saying having a tiny rich class, no middle class, and everyone else be poor is acceptible or RIGHT?

Bullshit.

Tax the fuckers and use the income to give breaks to the middle and lower classes, who NEED it.

-Arlos

[smiley poster=grandpa]Vote Arlos![/smiley]

arlos wrote:The problem is that when this sort of thing happens, it means the middle class is disappearing. So, you're saying having a tiny rich class, no middle class, and everyone else be poor is acceptible or RIGHT?

Bullshit.

Tax the fuckers and use the income to give breaks to the middle and lower classes, who NEED it.

-Arlos

A world-wide tax system? /shiver

I'd agree if it didn't scare the shittles out of me.

Not necessarily saying world-wide, but we're rapidly approaching that kind of wealth distribution here in the US too.

The middle class has been shrinking for decades now, really. It happened back in the early part of the century too, but politicians then were actually concerned about it, and enacted laws to level the playing field, enhance the middle class and bring down the wealthy a peg or two.

Nowadays, all the politicians (or nearly all) ARE the uber-rich class, or are owned by them, so I don't see it happening. I'm really despondent when I look into the future and think about what the middle class is going to be in 20 years. Non-existant, basically.

-Arlos

It wont go on long before the masses do something about it, even if it has to be extreme. People will not stand by holding onto the American Dream fantasy while being exploited into poverty by an incredibly small minority. I could see things getting quite messy.

bitch whatch u know bout poverty?

i dont be liking how u usez da word minority either... racist mofo.

What are you doing here, boy? You lost? Can't you read, or do you need someone to show you where the colored facilities are? You're lucky I'm not one of those racists, or you'd have gotten yourself in some real trouble.

bitch whatca gonna do?

dats right bitch

arlos wrote:Not necessarily saying world-wide, but we're rapidly approaching that kind of wealth distribution here in the US too.

The middle class has been shrinking for decades now, really. It happened back in the early part of the century too, but politicians then were actually concerned about it, and enacted laws to level the playing field, enhance the middle class and bring down the wealthy a peg or two.

Nowadays, all the politicians (or nearly all) ARE the uber-rich class, or are owned by them, so I don't see it happening. I'm really despondent when I look into the future and think about what the middle class is going to be in 20 years. Non-existant, basically.

-Arlos

I know how we can fix it, we'll use old philosophy of: "Take all the money from the rich and divide to all poor"

lol kainne..ain't that thr truth

Gargamellow wrote:lol kainne..ain't that thr truth

Only if they gang up on you.

Hey guys, what exactly is wealth and how can someone own it?

assets

Wealth = Rims and ice on your gold grillz

Is wealth something that can neither be created nor destroyed?

No, you can create or destroy it. Your wealth is more of less your net worth. If you sold everything you owned, you'd have all your wealth in the form of money. Forms of wealth can include currencies, properties, stocks, antiques, cars, etc. Anything that is worth something. Even if that something is a liability and is costing you money, as long as it has value, that value adds to your wealth.

You could also think of wealth as equity. Obviously, you can become very wealthy if you're good at managing debt, but your actual wealth is only the amount of equity you have in the things you own. If you factor debts into it, many people that you would classify as "wealthy" are actually negative by millions of dollars.

So how can the richest 2% own "half the wealth"?

They created/inherited half the wealth.

This "finding" is so bogus that it makes me giggle to think anybody would take it serious.

10sun wrote:Hey guys, what exactly is wealth and how can someone own it?

/not really answering this over-analytical blog on:

My definition = physical property.

Virtual (or intellectual, or whatever you want to call it) property (ie, money, stocks, ect) = a representation of wealth, or purchasing power.

If you use the definition of physical goods, wealth as a concept is basically something that is created, limitless and - in good conditions - increases on a daily basis as more goods are produced.

I think a big problem with the leftist side of economics is their basic premise that wealth is static. Their premise is that since there is a limited number of paper moneys, and a small percent of people own most of the paper moneys, that those small number of people are hoarders, "robber barons," greedy, and/or unethical in having so much when others have so little.

If you look at wealth as physical property though, dollar bills and corporate stocks have no value, no meaning, and definitely no survival value outside of the artificial ones we impose on them for the sake of convenience. Ie, see how long anyone could survive or do anything on an empty/isolated desert island with nothing but 1 million dollars worth of cash (besides burn it to keep warm or build a shabby little paper fort :P).

Wealth as physical property means that every time a company or individual makes physical goods, they are increasing the available wealth in the world by that much.

-

I'd pin economic problems in third world nations on their repressive and/or unstable governments that make long range business too risky or impossible (and politicians who hoard unearned wealth that they didn't produce) - and most first world economic problems for the lower class on issues such as inflation, ect --- far moreso than inequality in who has the most paper money.

Numerous problems aside, if you look at the bulk of the poorest percentile of society in various areas (aka, below poverty) - there is a huge difference in standard of living between the wealthy nations and the unwealthy ones. Most of the people below the line of poverty in the US have a TV, have stable/sturdy shelter, electricity, indoor plumbing, and a readily available supply of food. That lends support to the whole concept of currency not really being the issue, but the supply and creation of physical goods in the area that determines the standard of living for the general populace.

It's not to say that there aren't major economic issues for the lower/middle class, or that there are a number of people with a lot of money (ie, inheritance) that probably don't really deserve it. But currency itself isn't the heart of economic disparity, is what I'm getting at.

-

That was my answer to a question I hope yall enjoyed it.