85 People Have as Much Money as Half the World

So HuffPo wants government to confiscate all of it and make the whole cotton-pickin' world into equality nirvana - something that looks a lot like Cuba or NorK.

 

This isn't really surprising since half of the world's population has essentially 0 net worth. I wonder how they even claim to have calculated such a thing? Usually people need to have some money in the bank or assets other than a llama or alpaca before these kinds of figures start popping up.

I'm going to guess that they have set a value upon how much a llama is worth and then went from there.

 

When we are out of oil we are out of oil. There is no changing that. It doesn't matter if oil costs $1 or $1T when that last drop is extracted.

 

Let's get some basic facts straight...

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann11.pdf

1) Low income households in the US have an average income of $17,563 and spend $24,806. Some of that expenditure is in the form of food stamps and other such programs, but over half of their total income goes to housing alone. In other words, they spend 100% they get (which still isn't much).

2) Average households (middle class) in the US have an average income of $63,685 and spend $49,705. This means they spend around 80% of their income. As a point of interest, transportation tends to be the biggest expense, at 17% of their total expenditures.

3) The average "wealthy" household in the US has an average income of $247,261 and spends $123,056. This means they spend less than 50% of their income, a significant portion of which is spent overseas.

So, if the government has a $1billion or so laying around that it wants to use to bolster the economy... Why does it make sense to hand it to the people who are going to pocket half of it, rather than the people who will actually spend it?
If the wealthy can save an amount of money each year equal to double the total income of the average household, why is it so surprising that the gap between them and everyone else is growing so quickly?

The money isn't "trickling down". That system is broken. Give it up and move on.

This seems even more obvious when you consider that the wealthy who have branded themselves "job creators" don't actually create jobs. If they have a business that is currently meeting consumer demand, the last thing they do is hire more people that they don't need. It's only when more people can afford to buy their products and sales increase that they hire more people. So the real "job creators" are the average consumers, people who have been plundered by the "trickle down" system.

 

Interesting. Richest man is in Mexico and some of the richest are in France and Spain but that is because of Reagan as well right? Right Pardy?

 

You are misinterpreting the data. All consumer units include all quintiles, including the wealthy. It is why a lot of people will use the median income to represent the "average" household, even though it is incorrect. You are interpreting it as if somewhere between 65 and 70% of the households would be making below "middle class" wage ergo "poor"

 

Not Reagan, just Reaganomics, which was adopted broadly and still has great sway over modern global politics.

But that doesn't mean that Reaganomics is broken. The idea was that in real terms people get wealthier if we let the richest go. Overall I believe (can't be bothered getting the stats) that people around the world are getting wealthier. Sure some are starting from a very low base, and the difference between the rich and the poor is getting bigger. But the basic tenant of Reagonmics appears to be holding.

The problem is that Reaganomics is an economic solution. The social problems that can arise from increased disparity are less easy to quantify but no less dangerous to stability. If we lose social stability we'll get a lot poorer, and quickly.

 

By all means, feel free to provide another perspective on that data...
I'd be interested to see whether there's any way of "interpreting" it that makes 'trickle-down' look like anything short of moronic.

 

France and Spain... the countries that the right loves to call "commie countries" has billionaires? Go figure.

 

Well if there are going to be 1 percenters in these kinds of nations, so be it. Why I should care is beyond me. People seem to operate under the assumption that having a lot more wealth than other people is just wrong.. just.. you know.. wrong.
I confess that I don't care.

 

Stop projecting.

 

Now that you mention knowledge, can you kindly share with us this authority and where this authority derives it's power that determines "we are responsible for the least of us".

When you get done with that task, would you let us know if this "responsibility" extends beyond the borders of the U.S? Because there's A LOT of third worlders "eying" out your minimum wage income as you are pretty "rich" in their eyes.

 

Anyone else smell that?

Sniff....sniff....sniff......


Smells like revolution in the air.
http://freakonomics.com/2012/09/25/...hip-between-income-inequality-and-revolution/

 

Dont deflect now. You blamed Reagan for all these billionaires.

 

That would involve putting the bong down and actually venturing outside......Doubful it'll happen anytime soon.

 

exactly, this is the real income redistribution causing many of our current problems, conservatives see the speck in the poors eye, but refuse to see the plank in the uber rich...

 

Can you explain this "real income redistribution"? Are the rich folks stealing your pocket change?

 

Responsible how? I'm responsible for your skipping those math and science classes and did pathetically on the SAT and didn't even get into a community college?

Responsible? Responsible how exactly?

 

Is the poor poor because the rich are rich?
and before you answer that you do know wealth is created

 

FACT #1: Lefties are almost unanimously suck at math. I haven't even met one that is actually good at numerical analysis.

 

Seeing the responses by right wingers in this thread really allows it to settle in, just how much they have all internalized the propaganda of capitalists. Keep being good house slaves and defending master for working oh so very hard!!

Those of us with some connection to reality understand that the 85 people have as much wealth as they do, because of government granted privileges which allow them to do so. Don't get me wrong, many of those people would be wealthy no matter what. Bill Gates invented a product which people like, so he would be well off no matter what. However, he is only a multi-billionaire because of the government enforced monopoly that exists on his products. That is the reality of capitalism. Capitalists use their own market power as well as government power to enrich themselves as much as is possible.

Capitalism is not a terrible and corrupt system because people and businesses make products others want. It is terrible and corrupt because people make products, sell products, provide services, etc and then use government granted privilege to promote their accumulation of wealth. Monsanto is NOT wealthy because they do great work. They are wealthy, because government granted privilege allows them to monopolize multiple industries. Microsoft is fine, but they only make billions because they have no competition. Banking is a necessary element of society, but most major banks rely on government bailouts and regulated marketplaces to amass and maintain their wealth. Energy companies are also necessary to the functioning of our society, but they rely on our interventionist foreign policy to maintain their access to energy sources. Without the US government spending hundred of billions of dollars a year to maintain stability in their access, their profits would plummet. Haliburton, Boeing, etc rely on the same military industrial complex. Walmart uses monopsony power to drive down prices on the goods they buy. Exploit desperately poor workers to make their products at the lowest cost possible. The list goes on and on and on.

So the problem is NOT and never has been that people have money nor that they make money. It is that the wealthiest rely so heavily on undue market power and government granted privilege to amass their wealth. The wealthiest companies and people spend billions a year lobbying politicians and bribing them with campaign contributions. So that is the real problem. It is not market conditions and hard work creating these conditions. So stop with the lies. It is capitalists who ensure large government to do their bidding. It is capitalists who ensure freedom is limited. It is capitalists who manipulate markets to ensure their own wealth. It is capitalists who use predatory practices to ensure their wealth. They aren't just the most talented people and the hardest workers. They are the least scrupulous people and businesses who are the most adept at using government power and market power to their own advantage.

 

I haven't looked at the details of this study, but it seems to be based on a worthless foundation. Are they looking at the entire world? North Korea, third world countries? Regardless of economic system, autocratic, democratic, free or totaltarian? Is the study saying that N. Korea's dirt poor is poor because the western world doesn't tax its wealthy enough?

To me it would be more honest to look at individual societies and criticize the ones that prevent class movement. This study really doesn't seem to say anything meaningful......or helpful. In our own U.S...its the intense regulation, taxes and government intrusion that prevents people from taking risk, starting a business. Its our government that encourages poor people to stay poor for generations by rewarding poverty demotivating people from advancing. Generations are poor not because of the rich but because of social engineering.

 

The wealthy rely on the poor and the working classes. The system depends on such a set up. The wealthy rely entirely on poor and working class people to do ALL the work to allow them to amass wealth. There used to be an idea that as the wealthy "created" more wealth, it would benefit everyone. A rising tide lifts all boats sort of cliche. Unfortunately the tide may be rising, but the wealthy seem to be tossing all their trash into the boats of the poor, because only their own boats have been rising over the last few decades. As the wealthy have benefited from a huge percentage of the wealth that has been created, while the average person has seen their real wages stagnate.

 

I'm not deflecting because I believe that Reaganism has created more economic inequality, and more welfare, than any other economic project in the history of the US. By the way, you are the one who brought up France and Spain.

 

Yes because you blamed Reagan for the existence of these billionaires... OOpps eh?

And btw...

"As with France and Russia, I can see a class revolution happening if this horrific inequality continues. Heads up, Congress, King Louis didn't fare too well. "

Does that look familar? It should. You typed it.... so no you brought up other countries.

I'm sure the Bettencourts and Arnaults are quaking in their boots in fear of another French Revolution /rolls eyes.