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

[jeremyp]

Ah yes! Because under the current system they're so much better off

Yes, in absolute terms.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, in absolute terms.

The gap has increased. That means more has been taken away from the poorest.

[jeremyp]

The gap has increased. That means more has been taken away from the poorest.

Wrong.

Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago. It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.

[ad_orientem]

Wrong.

Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago. It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.

So that's it, is it? To think it wrong that so much wealth is in the hands of so few is to "begrudge" others for doing better? You're way off, pal. It's not about begrudging others doing well, it's about greed and wealth off the backs of others. The latter is the neo-liberal, globalist way and the people pulling the strings are the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds.

[Shaker]

Still wanking over the Protocols I see

[Leonard James]

Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago.

Including the wealthy, who least need it.

It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.

What do we have to do ... applaud them for living off the backs of the poor?

[ad_orientem]

Still wanking over the Protocols I see

Er, no! Never have.

[Hope]

Wrong.

Pretty much everybody is better off than their peers from 50 years ago. It's quite possible for the gap to increase without anybody losing out, except the people who begrudge anybody who has done better than themselves.

Not sure that globally, this is the case, jeremy - and I believe the 1:99 figures relate to the global context.  Think, for intance about the Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees - the one's who could afford the boats and the people smuggling systems.  The majority of them probably used the majority of their wealtth to escape Assad/ISIS/etc.  Today, they probably have nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure that globally, this is the case, jeremy - and I believe the 1:99 figures relate to the global context.  Think, for intance about the Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees - the one's who could afford the boats and the people smuggling systems.  The majority of them probably used the majority of their wealtth to escape Assad/ISIS/etc.  Today, they probably have nothing.

Whoosh

[jakswan]

A thought, people in the West complaining about equality is like millionaires complaining they can't afford the private Jets that billionaires can.

[Shaker]

A thought, people in the West complaining about equality is like millionaires complaining they can't afford the private Jets that billionaires can.

Seems a fairly lame comparison to me.

People complain about inequality wherever they perceive it to exist - the fact (if it can even be called a fact, as I don't know of any objective yardstick of such things) that an inequality over here is deemed to be lesser than another, greater inequality over there doesn't change the fact that that first inequality still exists.

[jakswan]

Seems a fairly lame comparison to me.

People complain about inequality wherever they perceive it to exist - the fact (if it can even be called a fact, as I don't know of any objective yardstick of such things) that an inequality over here is deemed to be lesser than another, greater inequality over there doesn't change the fact that that first inequality still exists.

The politics of envy disguised to be that of compassion.

[Aruntraveller]

The politics of envy disguised to be that of compassion.

I don't really think so.

If we take the latest govt wheeze to allow landlords to get away with lower standards for rented property - is it really envy to point out that a lttile more money should be spent on such properties by hte more well off in society (in this case landlords) so that poorer sections of society can have adequate housing. Is that what you are saying?

[Nearly Sane]

The politics of envy disguised to be that of compassion.

campaigning for homosexual equality is just envy?

[jakswan]

I don't really think so.

If we take the latest govt wheeze to allow landlords to get away with lower standards for rented property - is it really envy to point out that a lttile more money should be spent on such properties by hte more well off in society (in this case landlords) so that poorer sections of society can have adequate housing. Is that what you are saying?

No, you are incredibly rich relative to much of the rest of the human race and we should focus on making the poorest richer not the richest poorer.

[Shaker]

No, you are incredibly rich relative to much of the rest of the human race and we should focus on making the poorest richer not the richest poorer.

I don't see why not.

It's not as though they're going to miss it.

[jakswan]

I don't see why not.

It's not as though they're going to miss it.

As you are one of the rich (relative the poorest in the world) that is very kind of you.

[Aruntraveller]

As you are one of the rich (relative the poorest in the world) that is very kind of you.

Yes but still not one of the 1%.

So why not start the rebalancing there?

[Shaker]

As you are one of the rich (relative the poorest in the world) that is very kind of you.

Yes, it is.

That's why I do it.

[jakswan]

Yes but still not one of the 1%.

So why not start the rebalancing there?

Why not the top 10%, why not the top 50%?

Sure you are rich with enough to eat, a safe house and enough free time to spend frivolously on the internet, but look at him next door he has a nicer car, a better house, he can pay for it.

As I said its like millionaires complaining that billionaires are too rich.

[jeremyp]

Not sure that globally, this is the case, jeremy

That's because you don't do any research.

and I believe the 1:99 figures relate to the global context.  Think, for intance about the Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees

You think a couple of million refugees can sway the overall statistics of a World population of 7 billion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vr6Q77lUHE

Here is a video that explains how the World has changed.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jakswan,

No, you are incredibly rich relative to much of the rest of the human race and we should focus on making the poorest richer not the richest poorer.

I kind of like that, kind of Biblical, what's that one about the old biddy giving her last penny. 

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

That's because you don't do any research.

Actually, I have done research; hence my comment.

You think a couple of million refugees can sway the overall statistics of a World population of 7 billion?

The context of this comment was that everyone is better off than they were 50 years ago.  I suggested that this was incorrect and gave an example.  I could have looked at the situations in Southern Sudan, Nepal, various parts of India - along with many other nations in the bottom third of the global wealth table, were starvation is at least as prominent than it was 50 years ago, simply because whilst people's incomes may have inched up (or should that be centimetred up?), prices have increased far quicker.  We even have that situation here in the UK, where incomes have not increased anywhere near as fast as prices have.  In £sd/$/€/¥/Rupee terms, people may be richer, but in purchasing terms they are often less well off.

[Hope]

I don't see why not.

It's not as though they're going to miss it.

Not quite sure of the number of billionaires and millionaires in the world today, but if we were to remove half their money from them and hand it out to the poorest 25%, it probably wouldn't make that much difference to that 25%. 

When we living in Nepal, our monthly 'income' was the equivalent of about £350.  On top of that we had rent, education and medical costs 'paid for' (well, it was paid for out of the monies we had managed to raise as support (and, where necessary, one person/family's over 100% support would be shared with those who had less than 100% support - usually single people brought in over 100%, whilst families less than 100%).  We calculated that our effective monthly income was therefore nearer £700.  That didn't allow us to live like royalty, but we were comfortably off.