Wealth of richest 1% 'equal to other 99%'

[Hope]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475

I don't think that this is in any way new.  I seem to remeber having a discussion on very similar figures (if not identical) with my father when I first qualified back in the 70s.  Have had discussions with other folk since, including economists and politicians.

I'd be interested to see how folk here would "take action on inequality" in the way that Oxfam are asking world leaders meeting in Davos this week to act.  Note this isn't simply here in the UK, or Europe; not even the G20.  It's context is the global situation.

[Sriram]

I think inequalities are inevitable. We are never going to have a situation where everyone in the world owns a suburban 4 bedroom home, two cars and drives around on holidays with his wife, two kids and a dog. 

Extreme poverty and starvation can perhaps be eradicated with some effort....but there are always going to be the wealthy 1 or 2 % and the rest 99 or 98% (with of course a large gradient among them). 

We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest. 

[Hope]

We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.

This is probably truer now than it was say 100 years ago, when the wealth of the 'top people' was largely inherited, whilst an increasing number of the top people are entrepeneurs and business folk who do at least pay others to work for them.

[Nearly Sane]

This is an interesting take on the figures.




http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7871947/oxfam-wealth-statistic

As to the second part of your post, I don't think, and doubt that Oxfam thinks, that there is an easy set of actions to take. Rather if the trend of the figures is going in this direction, we probably have to look to change something or understand the affects of it. The complexity of actions in the area of global economics and the interaction it has with politics is, I would argue, past any possibility of grand plans.


I think we can only concentrate on tactical solutions here, looking where there are specific areas of control, in national terms aiming to support those in most need, and in terms of the figures used in the Oxfam headline, that's going to be looking at reducing personal debt, and the property bubble in parts of the country.

Globally we can look best to reducing conflicts, as if that were easy, and dealing with areas ravaged by climactic extremes. That said, other ways of looking at figures point to a glass at least half full, if not getting fuller.

[Nearly Sane]

We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.

 

Do they do this by planting wealth trees? The generation of wealth is, I would suggest, some what more complex than this sort of ' top people'  hand waving. If anything, it is the system that does it as an emergent property.

[Leonard James]

We must also remember that it is the top people who generate the wealth that gets distributed among the rest.

No it isn't. The wealth is generated by the rest and commandeered by the "top" greedy people.

[Hope]

No it isn't. The wealth is generated by the rest and commandeered by the "top" greedy people.

So, are you sayng thats someone like James Dyson, who created a number of new concepts in cleaning equipment couldn't have made his money without the 'rest'?  Surely, there is a pattern whereby someone like Dyson invests time and money into such designs and prototypes, and then employs 'the rest' the produce the ideas that help to pay them.  Are you suggesting that the pattern is the other way round?

[Nearly Sane]

So, are you sayng thats someone like James Dyson, who created a number of new concepts in cleaning equipment couldn't have made his money without the 'rest'?  Surely, there is a pattern whereby someone like Dyson invests time and money into such designs and prototypes, and then employs 'the rest' the produce the ideas that help to pay them.  Are you suggesting that the pattern is the other way round?

Just to point out 'making money ' and 'creating wealth' don't seem to be synonyms to me. Further there are lots of people 'making money' who don't work as Dyson has.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

No it isn't. The wealth is generated by the rest and commandeered by the "top" greedy people.

Sounds about right to me, but this kind of story always reminds me of that bloke who owns microsoft, his goal before he shuffles off is to be totally skint when it happens, we need more just like him, more rich to say, right I have my wealth now how can I thank the world for my incredible good luck.

Gonnagle.

[Aruntraveller]

There did use to be a theatre group called 7:84 which was based on the figure that 7% of the population owned 84% of the wealth - it would seem that this situation has worsened - although that figure may have applied only to the Uk (I can't remember exactly).

Anyhow it is clearly ridiculous that this situation exists given the absolute poverty that so many people around the globe are subjected to. Whilst I do not wish to discourage entrepeneurs like James Dyson I would suggest there are only so many luxury yachts one can own.

It is clear however that any claims that the "trickle down theory" works are complete and utter dog doo.

[Leonard James]

So, are you sayng thats someone like James Dyson, who created a number of new concepts in cleaning equipment couldn't have made his money without the 'rest'?  Surely, there is a pattern whereby someone like Dyson invests time and money into such designs and prototypes, and then employs 'the rest' the produce the ideas that help to pay them.  Are you suggesting that the pattern is the other way round?

I am saying that the wealth generated by the producing members of society should be shared among all members, not finish up in the pockets of a few.

I say "should" because I am judging according to a moral code. I am perfectly aware that human nature runs contrary to the code, hence the impossibility of achieving true equality.

We can, however, try to keep the inequality within bounds.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, dear old 7:84. It is a UK figure though I would note that the difference in numbers doesn't necessarily mean things have got worse since 1:50 could then simply be part of a 7:84 figure, I.e. the next 6 % could own 34% of the assets. It's not clear that the method of calculation of the figures is the same and,I suspect, the 7:84 calculation is more based on assets rather than assets minus debts but anyway here is a link to 7:84's most famous production:

http://www.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=X-r_J14n100

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

Sounds about right to me, but this kind of story always reminds me of that bloke who owns microsoft, his goal before he shuffles off is to be totally skint when it happens, we need more just like him, more rich to say, right I have my wealth now how can I thank the world for my incredible good luck.

Gonnagle.

Fine, but it would be far better to share that wealth before he goes! I know that he is very generous with it already and that is to his credit.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

Yes I think that is part of his problem ( lucky man to have that kind of problem ) how best to distribute his wealth, he has looked at what ails the world, and one of his ventures is sanitation, building toilets, it not only has created jobs but is saving millions of lives.

Although the documentary I watched regarding the history of toilets, one of the ventures he is investing in, zapping poo with lazers, something to do with saving water, it was a fascinating programme.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

It is clear however that any claims that the "trickle down theory" works are complete and utter dog doo.

Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all?  Doesn't it simply end up with a few being more equa than the rest?

Seriously, how best can we solve the problem?

[Hope]

I am saying that the wealth generated by the producing members of society should be shared among all members, not finish up in the pockets of a few.

I say "should" because I am judging according to a moral code. I am perfectly aware that human nature runs contrary to the code, hence the impossibility of achieving true equality.

We can, however, try to keep the inequality within bounds.

As I asked Trent, how do we do this?

[Nearly Sane]

Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all?  Doesn't it simply end up with a few being more equa than the rest?

Seriously, how best can we solve the problem?

False dichotomy. Trickle down and Marxism are not opposite systems.

[Hope]

False dichotomy. Trickle down and Marxism are not opposite systems.

Isn't 'trickle down' just another name for capitalism?  Perhaps I should have said communism, though.

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't 'trickle down' just another name for capitalism?  Perhaps I should have said communism, though.

No, it's a theory about how a version of capitalism might work in achieving a specific goal. Further it's simplistic to directly compare capitalism and communism as if they are simple statements on economics, or indeed as if economics necessarily is on a simple right/left split.

[ad_orientem]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475

I don't think that this is in any way new.  I seem to remeber having a discussion on very similar figures (if not identical) with my father when I first qualified back in the 70s.  Have had discussions with other folk since, including economists and politicians.

I'd be interested to see how folk here would "take action on inequality" in the way that Oxfam are asking world leaders meeting in Davos this week to act.  Note this isn't simply here in the UK, or Europe; not even the G20.  It's context is the global situation.

It needs neo-liberal globalist economics to come crashing down.

[Shaker]

Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all?

Has history shown Marxism qua Marxism - that is, the body of economic ideas as put forth by Marx himself in his writings, not his supporters or interpreters but Marx himself (the man who allegedly said: "All I know is, I'm not a Marxist") - ever to have been tried?

[Aruntraveller]

Has history shown the opposite system - namely Marxism - to work at all?  Doesn't it simply end up with a few being more equa than the rest?

Seriously, how best can we solve the problem?

Well I wasn't proposing the other system not being a Marxist either now, or in the past - and as already noted it is not an opposite system.

I think the best we can hope for is a more robust response to tax evasion and a fairer distribution of the wealth created.

It takes political guts (of which I see little sign of) to stand up to the corporations and individuals that control so much of the market that I don't know how their values can easily be changed - and I certainly don't see any sign in the West of a concerted effort to minimise the influnce of these malign organisations and individuals.

[Nearly Sane]

It needs neo-liberal globalist economics to come crashing down.

Ah, yes a depression always helps the poor.

[Nearly Sane]

As ever I am fairly close to Will Hutton



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/china-economic-crisis-world-economy-global-capitalism

[ad_orientem]

Ah, yes a depression always helps the poor.

Ah yes! Because under the current system they're so much beter off, which is why the gap has increased rather than decreased, I assume? We do not have an economic system which enables the poor to exit poverty but one which gives greater profit to multinational corporations and their shareholders at the expense of the poor. Don't be fooled by it. What we have is a neo-liberal grab all.