Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population

[ridery99]

The vast and growing gap between rich and poor has been laid bare in a new Oxfam report showing that the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population.

Timed to coincide with this week’s gathering of many of the super-rich at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, the report calls for urgent action to deal with a trend showing that 1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

[ridery99]

Related:

So much for trickle down: only bold reforms will tackle inequality

Even the IMF recognises the vicious circle in which inequality breeds instability, which causes recession and spending cuts that make inequality worse

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2015/jun/21/so-much-for-trickle-down-bold-reforms-are-required-to-tackle-inequality

[iCeSaiah]

I think this billionaires are really donating through charity. The problem why we really cant see they are helping is because some of there donations doesnt really go to intended beneficiaries.

[mOgliE]

I'd just like to ask a question:

What would happen if there was like 1000 people in a room, 1 of them has a tremendous amount of food, 10 of them have enough food to it as they wish and the rest of them are starving?

Well the rest of the people would kill the one with so much food and eat as much as they want.

Why aren't we doing it in our word? The difference between what I said and our world is that it's like a huge room with 7 billions people from which 1 billion has just enough to eat to live correctly and 6 billions have nothing they can rely to. While a few hundreds people have so much we can't even see them belong what they possess.

It would be time to remind them that they "possess" nothing. Not if the rest of the world wants or need it.

[Francis Freeman]

This is because only few people are able to make money.
If you see the list of the most wealthy people you could easily notice the most of them started from the bottom: Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim, Amancio Ortega and so on... they weren't born "rich", they became rich with their abilites.

[saddampbuh]

I'd just like to ask a question:

What would happen if there was like 1000 people in a room, 1 of them has a tremendous amount of food, 10 of them have enough food to it as they wish and the rest of them are starving?

Well the rest of the people would kill the one with so much food and eat as much as they want.

Why aren't we doing it in our word? The difference between what I said and our world is that it's like a huge room with 7 billions people from which 1 billion has just enough to eat to live correctly and 6 billions have nothing they can rely to. While a few hundreds people have so much we can't even see them belong what they possess.

It would be time to remind them that they "possess" nothing. Not if the rest of the world wants or need it.

because for everyone to "live correctly" according to our standards we would need between 3 and 5 planet earths to sustain them all at that level with all the extra fuel usage and food production that would entail. 7 (soon to be 9) billion people are never going to have a western standard of living and its time everyone accepted that and looked at ways of reducing the population sizes of poor countries.

your 1000 people in a room scenario possibly works if we're just looking at civilised countries but it doesn't work if most of those people are africans and aboriginal central americans with low iqs who keep having more kids than they can support with no idea how to manage their resources in a sustainable way

[mOgliE]

This is because only few people are able to make money.
If you see the list of the most wealthy people you could easily notice the most of them started from the bottom: Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim, Amancio Ortega and so on... they weren't born "rich", they became rich with their abilites.

Wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooong!!!

That's just the shit that the "American dream" wants you to believe.

Go to Forbes list of 500 richest people and look a bit. Yes there is bill gates. He's the first one. Great. Ellison and Slim too ok.
Now look at the others: most of them are from a rather rich family. That doesn't mean they did nothing, that just means that the richest families continue to become richer and richer.

[mOgliE]

I'd just like to ask a question:

What would happen if there was like 1000 people in a room, 1 of them has a tremendous amount of food, 10 of them have enough food to it as they wish and the rest of them are starving?

Well the rest of the people would kill the one with so much food and eat as much as they want.

Why aren't we doing it in our word? The difference between what I said and our world is that it's like a huge room with 7 billions people from which 1 billion has just enough to eat to live correctly and 6 billions have nothing they can rely to. While a few hundreds people have so much we can't even see them belong what they possess.

It would be time to remind them that they "possess" nothing. Not if the rest of the world wants or need it.

because for everyone to "live correctly" according to our standards we would need between 3 and 5 planet earths to sustain them all at that level with all the extra fuel usage and food production that would entail. 7 (soon to be 9) billion people are never going to have a western standard of living and its time everyone accepted that and looked at ways of reducing the population sizes of poor countries.

your 1000 people in a room scenario possibly works if we're just looking at civilised countries but it doesn't work if most of those people are africans and aboriginal central americans with low iqs who keep having more kids than they can support with no idea how to manage their resources in a sustainable way

How narrow minded and false your commentary is 

Here is a small link to understand how wrong you are: http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/

Problem is just the way of life, not the number of humans. The "low IQs people" as you say, are the only one correctly managing Earth resources, while your incredibly intelligent Americans are consuming 4 times the resources the Earth can provide.

Stop blaming the others for your own incapacity to live in a sustainable way buddy. Assume the fact that you're killing the world in which your children will have to live, you'll be responsible for it, not the Africans.

[saddampbuh]

How narrow minded and false your commentary is 

Here is a small link to understand how wrong you are: http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/

Problem is just the way of life, not the number of humans. The "low IQs people" as you say, are the only one correctly managing Earth resources, while your incredibly intelligent Americans are consuming 4 times the resources the Earth can provide.

Stop blaming the others for your own incapacity to live in a sustainable way buddy. Assume the fact that you're killing the world in which your children will have to live, you'll be responsible for it, not the Africans.

doubling your population every couple of generations is not sustainable.

you can call it 4 planets worth or you can say there are 4 times too many people on the 1 planet we have. better a couple of billion people having cars, protein rich diets and only having to work 40 hours a week than 9 billion people all living like indian slum dwellers.

[GTO911]

Very simple, eliminate the billions of piss poor good for nothing third world people.

Problem Solved

[freemind1]

Always been so and always will be the same. So few live well many more must live worse. It is what happens for example with the working class people compared to the third world.

[ace45954]

How narrow minded and false your commentary is 

Here is a small link to understand how wrong you are: http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/

Problem is just the way of life, not the number of humans. The "low IQs people" as you say, are the only one correctly managing Earth resources, while your incredibly intelligent Americans are consuming 4 times the resources the Earth can provide.

Stop blaming the others for your own incapacity to live in a sustainable way buddy. Assume the fact that you're killing the world in which your children will have to live, you'll be responsible for it, not the Africans.

doubling your population every couple of generations is not sustainable.

you can call it 4 planets worth or you can say there are 4 times too many people on the 1 planet we have. better a couple of billion people having cars, protein rich diets and only having to work 40 hours a week than 9 billion people all living like indian slum dwellers.

But the earth's population isn't doubling. In fact the human population growth rate is slowing quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwfH1gYkXTw
In a few decades, human population will level off somewhere around 9-10 billion or so. There is enough food in the world to feed over 11 billion iirc assuming the food was evenly distributed.

In addition, standards of living are improving, even the vast majority 3rd world countries are significantly better now than they were just 10 years ago.
"In 1990, the percentage of the global population living in extreme poverty was 43.1%, but in 2010, that percentage had dropped down to 20.6%."

[saddampbuh]

But the earth's population isn't doubling. In fact the human population growth rate is slowing quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwfH1gYkXTw
In a few decades, human population will level off somewhere around 9-10 billion or so. There is enough food in the world to feed over 11 billion iirc assuming the food was evenly distributed.

In addition, standards of living are improving, even the vast majority 3rd world countries are significantly better now than they were just 10 years ago.
"In 1990, the percentage of the global population living in extreme poverty was 43.1%, but in 2010, that percentage had dropped down to 20.6%."

third world peoples are better off largely because they are burning coal and destroying forests and beautiful wildlife to make more space for their cities and even distribution would result in a drastic drop in our (the civilised countries) quality of life. for example right now i get to eat meat every day, should i agree to eat it only once a week so that 5 billion africans who didn't need to be born can also eat it once a week instead of never? i don't think so.

the third world population has been expanding rapidly and will peak at about 9 billion as you say, the current population of nigeria was same as the population of the whole of africa when my mother was born. the 7 billion people we have now can barely be sustained at current levels of resource consumption let alone 9 billion who are all going to demand electricity, air travel, protein rich diets and whatnot, and will probably engage in revolutions and terrorism to get them. something has to give.

either we reduce the third world population with contraception and sterilisation,  be it forced or connected to international aid, or we agree to have marxism, impoverish ourselves and redistribute most of what we have to poor countries on the basis of to each according to his need. how disgraceful it is that our civilisation produces so many pussies who care more about niggers who aren't born yet than defending there own interests.

[mOgliE]

third world peoples are better off largely because they are burning coal and destroying forests and beautiful wildlife to make more space for their cities and even distribution would result in a drastic drop in our (the civilised countries) quality of life. for example right now i get to eat meat every day, should i agree to eat it only once a week so that 5 billion africans who didn't need to be born can also eat it once a week instead of never? i don't think so.

5 billion africans who didn't need to be born? Seriously?
And you're totally wrong. 90% of deforestation comes from agriculture. Which mostly leads to meat production. You're by far more responsible of deforestation than the expansion of third world cities you moron.

the third world population has been expanding rapidly and will peak at about 9 billion as you say, the current population of nigeria was same as the population of the whole of africa when my mother was born. the 7 billion people we have now can barely be sustained at current levels of resource consumption let alone 9 billion who are all going to demand electricity, air travel, protein rich diets and whatnot, and will probably engage in revolutions and terrorism to get them. something has to give.

So the fact that our western countries have known THE EXACT SAME PHENOMENON of demographic growth doesn't count? It means that as we reproduced like rabbits a century ago they can't do it now?
What hypocrisy...

either we reduce the third world population with contraception and sterilisation,  be it forced or connected to international aid, or we agree to have marxism, impoverish ourselves and redistribute most of what we have to poor countries on the basis of to each according to his need. how disgraceful it is that our civilisation produces so many pussies who care more about niggers who aren't born yet than defending there own interests.

Ok on this one you definitely are the dumbest and most horrible kind of person possible. Don't you understand anything? They consume in order to produce things FOR US!

But at least you are right on the fact that killing all of them would answer the problem... But who will cultivate your corns? Make your clothes? Produce your computers?
Of course we can kill them all. But I hope you agree to work 20h a day as they do eating a bawl of rice a day.

[Lauda]

I wouldn't mind much if they were actually using a lot of their money for something meaningful. Just imagine what a $1 Trillion R&D budget could to for a few technologies.

Very simple, eliminate the billions of piss poor good for nothing third world people.

Problem Solved

Even if you put those out of equation (I'm not saying that I'd support your proposal), they're exponentially richer than a lot of 1st world people combined.

[mOgliE]

I wouldn't mind much if they were actually using a lot of their money for something meaningful. Just imagine what a $1 Trillion R&D budget could to for a few technologies.

Totally true. The problem is that in our modern society, money=power so concentration of money means concentration of power. Having few people filthily rich means they can do whatever they want.

If what they wanted was the greater good, I wouldn't mind. Problem is it's not the case, power calls for power so they only want more. That's why it should be regulated. What one man can do of dozens of billions of dollars anyway? You could take 90% of what he has he wouldn't even know it xD

[Snail2]

This is a spectacular illustration about how flawed the keynesian model really is. But this was known since ages, so I don't understand why this is so surprising for some.

[mOgliE]

This is a spectacular illustration about how flawed the keynesian model really is. But this was known since ages, so I don't understand why this is so surprising for some.

THANK YOU!

Somedy seeing the truth here ^^
The keynesian model is an abomination. It was a good idea for a transition but can't be a finished model. The reason why it's still taught in universities around the world is because the people who benefit from this model don't want to change that's all.

The simple idea of an economy needing growth to be in good health is the more stupid and delusional idea ever!

[saddampbuh]

5 billion africans who didn't need to be born? Seriously?
And you're totally wrong. 90% of deforestation comes from agriculture. Which mostly leads to meat production. You're by far more responsible of deforestation than the expansion of third world cities you moron.

there is currently enough land to provide meat for a couple of billion europeans, koreans and japs, along with some of the chinese elite and higher grade indians. there is not enough land to produce meat for billions of peasants.

So the fact that our western countries have known THE EXACT SAME PHENOMENON of demographic growth doesn't count? It means that as we reproduced like rabbits a century ago they can't do it now?
What hypocrisy...

they can and they are, that doesn't mean i have to like it and call it a wonderful thing. it is going to make us all poorer if we don't do something to stop it and like i told the other guy, i care more about defending the interests of my people than feeding luxury foods to a bunch of savages because i'm not a faggot sjw

Ok on this one you definitely are the dumbest and most horrible kind of person possible. Don't you understand anything? They consume in order to produce things FOR US!

But at least you are right on the fact that killing all of them would answer the problem... But who will cultivate your corns? Make your clothes? Produce your computers?
Of course we can kill them all. But I hope you agree to work 20h a day as they do eating a bawl of rice a day.

and their consumption wasn't an issue when they were content to have only that bowl of rice but it is becoming a problem now that the internet's given them a glimpse of the good life and they are illegally migrating here in their millions, organising rebellions/terrorism and generally making mischief around the world.

i don't want to "kill them all". i want to reduce their populations to manageable levels with a one child policy.

[mOgliE]

Ok on this one you definitely are the dumbest and most horrible kind of person possible. Don't you understand anything? They consume in order to produce things FOR US!

But at least you are right on the fact that killing all of them would answer the problem... But who will cultivate your corns? Make your clothes? Produce your computers?
Of course we can kill them all. But I hope you agree to work 20h a day as they do eating a bawl of rice a day.

and their consumption wasn't an issue when they were content to have only that bowl of rice but it is becoming a problem now that the internet's given them a glimpse of the good life and they are illegally migrating here in their millions, organising rebellions/terrorism and generally making mischief around the world.

i don't want to "kill them all". i want to reduce their populations to manageable levels with a one child policy.

So who will work 20h a day for your computer man?
They're migrating and organizing rebellions/terrorism only because they refuse to continue being the slave of western countries. But your "european elites" can't live their developed way of life without billions of slaves working for them...

So I'll ask you again, who will produce what you're currently consuming?