80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50%

[rugrats]

Make of this what you will.

• By 2016, the top 1% of the world’s population will have more wealth than the other 99%
• 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion)
• The poorest 80% own just 5.5% of the world's wealth
• The richest 80 doubled their worth in cash terms between 2009 and 2014
• More than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches
• Britain’s 100 richest had the same wealth as 30% of UK households
• The financial sector contributed $571 million to various campaigns during 2012 U.S. presidential elections
• In 2013, financial and insurance lobbies gave $550 million to policymakers in Washington and Brussels

ps: Before anyone blindly starts proselytizing about Bitoin, keep in mind the same pattern has/is emerging in crypto as well.
Less it be forgotten, the top 100 addresses own 20% (2,875,298 BTCs) of all BTCs mined thus far (13,736,250, as of block #339,450).

[1715076505]

1715076505

[1715076505]

1715076505

[1715076505]

1715076505

[cbeast]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

[rugrats]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

[cbeast]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.

[Q7]

The difference is that fiat has been in existence for as long as creation of our current banking system. Bitcoin is only around for 5 years plus. So essentially you can't compare directly between both.

[Furio]

It's simply disgusting, if you're interested in making a change, investigate the Zeitgeist movement, they offer real solutions, yet I don't see any changes without violence. Mark Twain once said, the earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and the people responsibe have names and adresses.....

[rugrats]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.

I hope you're not going to hijack this thread trying to prove an obviously flawed notion.
Spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.
Payment for asset or service represents transfer of value, tangible or otherwise.
Ergo, the spender can theoretically recoup said expenditure by trading in the value of his purchase at a later date.
An obvious exception here is consumables, but the cyclical nature of value transfer within the BTC ecosystem on a macro scale will even things out.
So, to reiterate, spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.

It's simply disgusting, if you're interested in making a change, investigate the Zeitgeist movement, they offer real solutions, yet I don't see any changes without violence. Mark Twain once said, the earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and the people responsibe have names and adresses.....

Indeed. It is beyond tragic.
Thank for the Zeitgeist rec. Will read later, at the very least.

[cbeast]

It's simply disgusting, if you're interested in making a change, investigate the Zeitgeist movement, they offer real solutions, yet I don't see any changes without violence. Mark Twain once said, the earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and the people responsibe have names and adresses.....

The problem with RBE is the transition. Bitcoin is bloodlessly disruptive of the status quo.

[cbeast]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.

I hope you're not going to hijack this thread trying to prove an obviously flawed notion.
Spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.
Payment for asset or service represents transfer of value, tangible or otherwise.
Ergo, the spender can theoretically recoup said expenditure by trading in the value of his purchase at a later date.
An obvious exception here is consumables, but the cyclical nature of value transfer within the BTC ecosystem on a macro scale will even things out.
So, to reiterate, spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.

Congratulations. You just disproved the existence of economies. I can now get everything for free.

[rugrats]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.

I hope you're not going to hijack this thread trying to prove an obviously flawed notion.
Spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.
Payment for asset or service represents transfer of value, tangible or otherwise.
Ergo, the spender can theoretically recoup said expenditure by trading in the value of his purchase at a later date.
An obvious exception here is consumables, but the cyclical nature of value transfer within the BTC ecosystem on a macro scale will even things out.
So, to reiterate, spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.

Congratulations. You just disproved the existence of economies. I can now get everything for free.

So in your mind, spending equals wealth distribution; rejecting that notion means denying the existence of economies. Got it. Enjoy your free everything.

[username18333]

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is real and begets hyperreality.

Tribe is a genesis of a money and its state; therefore, a money will tend to tribe.

[orsotheysaid]

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

Indeed, there is no guarantee but since the supply is limited and not rigged, the Bitcoins will tend to get spread around. Look at the price, all those people selling are scared as hell early investors that are giving their cheap people to new people that missed the -200 boat.

[practicaldreamer]

  The game is one not of our choosing, played to rules not of our design, and played in an alien venue. And we lose everytime.

   Technology, I believe, is fast approaching being able to formulate new games. Games whose rules are rational and arrived at via consensus. We will choose to play because the advantages to all who participate will be obvious - and to not participate would be to render oneself ill suited to the new world and its new democratic and participatory paradigm. Technology will, so to speak, transcend certain academic debates by putting practical solutions into the hands of people - and the answers that were always illusive, will instead,in practice, be made manifest.

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

Define wealth. Strikes me that wealth is amorphous. From where does wealth originate ? Where do we locate value ? Bitcoin will never, in spite of deflation, have a monoploy on value (or wealth). So it can only ever be seen as a part of the solution - obviously.

[DonQuijote]

1% of peaple on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 99%

[Wendigo]

If the medicine advances so much in the future as to prolong the life expectancy to like more than 200 years than it's worth collecting huge amounts of money. Right now it's just getting golden toilets, Bentleys and chocolate desserts with golden toppings for $100k. Thanks but no thanks.

[Bagatell]

"DAVOS (The Borowitz Report)—A new Oxfam report indicating that the wealthiest one per cent possesses about half of the world’s wealth has left the richest people in the world “reeling with disappointment,” a leading billionaire said on Tuesday."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/richest-one-per-cent-disappointed-possess-half-worlds-wealth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28144%29&CNDID=32291837&spMailingID=7435981&spUserID=ODc4NDk0NTczMDAS1&spJobID=602473034&spReportId=NjAyNDczMDM0S0

[grendel25]

Yeah, it's a screwed up world we live in.  I've heard a few people ask the question, "how much money does anybody really need?"  When you think about it you realize just how obscene some fortunes are.  Way more than several generations could ever need and yet people accumulate scarce resources that others simply can't afford.  This is what actually causes poverty and disruptive ripples in various economies. 

[Cluster2k]

If the medicine advances so much in the future as to prolong the life expectancy to like more than 200 years than it's worth collecting huge amounts of money. Right now it's just getting golden toilets, Bentleys and chocolate desserts with golden toppings for $100k. Thanks but no thanks.

Past a certain point every one of life's needs and wants are fulfilled.  That's when people start going silly buying their fifth Ferrari, competing with friends on who can get the biggest diamond, and how many villas they have that never get used.

The one thing they can't buy is more life.  Not even Steve Jobs, with billions of dollars to spend on the finest doctors and medicines on the planet, could live to a ripe old age of 60.

[rugrats]

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

Tribe is hyperreal and begets possession. Possession is real and begets money. Money is hyperreal and begets state. State is real and begets hyperreality.

Tribe is a genesis of a money and its state; therefore, a money will tend to tribe.

You know, Baudrillard's hyperreality quote bears a resemblance to the metaphysical arguments/explanations of the Vedas and the Jain scriptures.
I'm considering getting his Symbolic Exchange and Death to read over the weekend, but no Kindle version -we'll see.

"DAVOS (The Borowitz Report)—A new Oxfam report indicating that the wealthiest one per cent possesses about half of the world’s wealth has left the richest people in the world “reeling with disappointment,” a leading billionaire said on Tuesday."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/richest-one-per-cent-disappointed-possess-half-worlds-wealth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28144%29&CNDID=32291837&spMailingID=7435981&spUserID=ODc4NDk0NTczMDAS1&spJobID=602473034&spReportId=NjAyNDczMDM0S0

Comedy gold.

[dinofelis]

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Most of the value held by rich people is not in the form of money, but in the form of assets (mainly capital, that is production, assets, such as companies).

The distribution of wealth has not much to do with the monetary policy.  In fact, only relatively poor people have a large part of their holdings in money.  Everything which devaluates money is in fact punishing more the lower economic classes which have less means to protect their stores of value.