The richest 1% own more than 99% of world's population

[Pakboong]

The 1% is a nickname for the super rich and not to be taken literally.

The paper today ( that's something that will disappear soon, replaced by a tablet- why pay people to make newsprint, print and deliver paper when it can be done cheaper electronically? There's another umpteen thousand jobs gone ) said that 64 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion poorest people. Believe it or not, up to you, but even if that is incorrect, it is obvious that a few people are too rich, and a lot of people are too poor, and it can't go on indefinitely.

What is "too rich"? Is that anyone who has more money than you or me?

Without a doubt, there is income disparity in the world.

So how to fix it? Let some government agency decide who gets what?

My view on that has always been that the spending habits of the super rich are so unique. They are so busy making money, they don't have time to shop. Pretty much all of them have somebody to do their shopping

[Johpa]

The opposite of capitalism is laziness.

People who do not want to work expecting "the government" to provide everything.

Although I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges and being a tad intellectually lazy, I do understand that within the Christian tradition that both greed and sloth are sins.

[mgjackson69]

The opposite of capitalism is laziness.

People who do not want to work expecting "the government" to provide everything.

Although I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges and being a tad intellectually lazy, I do understand that within the Christian tradition that both greed and sloth are sins.

My response was to a previous poster's statement that the opposite of socialism is selfishness.

I was responding in kind to his ridiculous statement.

[Jonmarleesco]

They also own a substantial percentage of 'elected' politicians, both within and without their own countries.

[augustwest]

Soylent green is people

[jollyhangmon]

Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico.

"17 from Europe"

1% of the world's population is something like 70 million people and we've only found 17 in Europe?

Interesting, yes, maybe Europes extra-loaded do (usually) pay some reasonable tax and did so for quite some years now, dunno ...

Btw. i read another way to point out the outcome which went like follows:

Those said 63 extra-super-loaded ones (out of which 53 are male) own pretty exactly as much as the poorer half of mankind.

(the year before it needed the 80 extra-super-loaded ones to put up the very same equation ...)

Boils down to a ratio of about 1 : 60 millions. Not that bad - for them ...

[Traveler19491]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Your apologies for the wealthy really don't stand up under close scrutiny. Under Eisenhower the top tax bracket was 92% on incomes over $400,000, and corporate tax rates topped out at 50%. Oddly, that was the same period when the middle class exploded, unions enjoyed their highest growth, business expanded, we started the interstate system, launched our first satellite and began the space race. A middle class family could, with only one wage earner, buy a house, buy a new car, take a vacation every year, send their kids to college, and still have a little left over to set aside for retirement. We had pension plans, excellent, reasonably priced health insurance, our schools were the best in the world, our business methods studied globally, and our infrastructure the envy of the world. What changed?

Trickle down. Arthur Laffer's laughable economic "theory" that cutting taxes would create jobs has done nothing more than led to an $18 trillion national debt, the crumbling of our highways and bridges, the destruction of our schools, the elimination of pensions and other key benefits, and the destruction of the middle class. Trickle down created an entitlement mentality among the rich. They came to believe that everything they had was the sole result of their efforts alone. Bullshit. To quote Lincoln; "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation."

Edited January 19, 2016 by Traveler19491

[lostboy]

The opposite of capitalism is laziness.

People who do not want to work expecting "the government" to provide everything.

Although I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges and being a tad intellectually lazy, I do understand that within the Christian tradition that both greed and sloth are sins.

My response was to a previous poster's statement that the opposite of socialism is selfishness.

I was responding in kind to his ridiculous statement.

A fiction designed by the Right to get people to vote against their self interest in favour of rich people.

Claiming the opposite of Capitalism is laziness demonstrates gross ignorance typical of the petite bourgeoise.

So incomprehensibly stupid, that you had to explain it.

[mgjackson69]

The opposite of capitalism is laziness.

People who do not want to work expecting "the government" to provide everything.

Although I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges and being a tad intellectually lazy, I do understand that within the Christian tradition that both greed and sloth are sins.

My response was to a previous poster's statement that the opposite of socialism is selfishness.

I was responding in kind to his ridiculous statement.

A fiction designed by the Right to get people to vote against their self interest in favour of rich people.

Claiming the opposite of Capitalism is laziness demonstrates gross ignorance typical of the petite bourgeoise.

So incomprehensibly stupid, that you had to explain it.

Perhaps your liberal, touchy-feely, socialist self is so thin-skinned that you cannot understand a tongue-in-cheek remark.

"The opposite of capitalism is laziness" is no more incomprehensibly stupid than "the opposite of socialism is selfishness".

[Dumbastheycome]

They own 99% of the population?

Dontchamean 99% of the wealth?

Is there a difference?

[lostboy]

My response was to a previous poster's statement that the opposite of socialism is selfishness.

I was responding in kind to his ridiculous statement.

A fiction designed by the Right to get people to vote against their self interest in favour of rich people.

Claiming the opposite of Capitalism is laziness demonstrates gross ignorance typical of the petite bourgeoise.

So incomprehensibly stupid, that you had to explain it.

Perhaps your liberal, touchy-feely, socialist self is so thin-skinned that you cannot understand a tongue-in-cheek remark.

"The opposite of capitalism is laziness" is no more incomprehensibly stupid than "the opposite of socialism is selfishness".

Why do the right wing loons who make a fetish out of rich people think that calling someone a liberal is an insult? The entire de-regulation, anti-tax, get rich quick on the backs of the underclass is based on liberal economic theory. At least my insult was in French so it sounded classy. Your prosaic, mundane caricature of the Mentality of the Right are just boring.

[chilli42]

They own 99% of the population?

Dontchamean 99% of the wealth?

There is a difference?

[mgjackson69]

My response was to a previous poster's statement that the opposite of socialism is selfishness.

I was responding in kind to his ridiculous statement.

A fiction designed by the Right to get people to vote against their self interest in favour of rich people.

Claiming the opposite of Capitalism is laziness demonstrates gross ignorance typical of the petite bourgeoise.

So incomprehensibly stupid, that you had to explain it.

Perhaps your liberal, touchy-feely, socialist self is so thin-skinned that you cannot understand a tongue-in-cheek remark.

"The opposite of capitalism is laziness" is no more incomprehensibly stupid than "the opposite of socialism is selfishness".

Why do the right wing loons who make a fetish out of rich people think that calling someone a liberal is an insult? The entire de-regulation, anti-tax, get rich quick on the backs of the underclass is based on liberal economic theory. At least my insult was in French so it sounded classy. Your prosaic, mundane caricature of the Mentality of the Right are just boring.

Why do whiny liberals insist that anyone who thinks they should get to keep what they earn has some "fetish of the rich"?

Your pseudo-French impressed nobody.

[Dumbastheycome]

If we all were rich we would all be relatively ( poor? ) Or truely communist.

The capitalist system baits the donkey to chase the carrot.

Not every donkey is motivated to keep up the chase even if beaten with a propagandist stick.

But when most of the willing donkeys are hobbled by punitive methods to the advantage of donkeys from approved stables the system gets unbalanced.

What perpetuates the system is that the maority are not donkeys.

They are mules.

[Dumbastheycome]

The 1% is a nickname for the super rich and not to be taken literally.

The paper today ( that's something that will disappear soon, replaced by a tablet- why pay people to make newsprint, print and deliver paper when it can be done cheaper electronically? There's another umpteen thousand jobs gone ) said that 64 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion poorest people. Believe it or not, up to you, but even if that is incorrect, it is obvious that a few people are too rich, and a lot of people are too poor, and it can't go on indefinitely.

What is "too rich"? Is that anyone who has more money than you or me?

Without a doubt, there is income disparity in the world.

So how to fix it? Let some government agency decide who gets what?

My view on that has always been that the spending habits of the super rich are so unique. They are so busy making money, they don't have time to shop. Pretty much all of them have somebody to do their shopping

My observation of the super rich is that they spend little on anything other than making money. The brown nosers who clamour for acknowledgement from them regularly try to ingratiate or impress by "sponsoring" them. Such is the "power" of the super rich.

[mgjackson69]

The 1% is a nickname for the super rich and not to be taken literally.

The paper today ( that's something that will disappear soon, replaced by a tablet- why pay people to make newsprint, print and deliver paper when it can be done cheaper electronically? There's another umpteen thousand jobs gone ) said that 64 people have as much wealth as 3.5 billion poorest people. Believe it or not, up to you, but even if that is incorrect, it is obvious that a few people are too rich, and a lot of people are too poor, and it can't go on indefinitely.

What is "too rich"? Is that anyone who has more money than you or me?

Without a doubt, there is income disparity in the world.

So how to fix it? Let some government agency decide who gets what?

My view on that has always been that the spending habits of the super rich are so unique. They are so busy making money, they don't have time to shop. Pretty much all of them have somebody to do their shopping

My observation of the super rich is that they spend little on anything other than making money. The brown nosers who clamour for acknowledgement from them regularly try to ingratiate or impress by "sponsoring" them. Such is the "power" of the super rich.

What most of us know about the "super rich" comes from whatever "news" source supports our worldview...either they are the greatest people in the world or they are the most evil.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. There are good and bad people to be found in the slums and in the mansions.

[lostboy]

Perhaps your liberal, touchy-feely, socialist self is so thin-skinned that you cannot understand a tongue-in-cheek remark.

"The opposite of capitalism is laziness" is no more incomprehensibly stupid than "the opposite of socialism is selfishness".

Why do the right wing loons who make a fetish out of rich people think that calling someone a liberal is an insult? The entire de-regulation, anti-tax, get rich quick on the backs of the underclass is based on liberal economic theory. At least my insult was in French so it sounded classy. Your prosaic, mundane caricature of the Mentality of the Right are just boring.

Why do whiny liberals insist that anyone who thinks they should get to keep what they earn has some "fetish of the rich"?

Your pseudo-French impressed nobody.

Again with the Liberals. If that is the most base slur that you can come up with then you must not be reading the proper teabag websites.

Somebody who has actually considered the economics of capital, Thomas Picketty in his recent book on "Capital in the Twenty First Century" wrote that "Whenever the rate of return on capital is significantly ad durably higher than the growth rate of the economy, it is all but inevitable that inheritances(of fortunes accumulated in the past) predominates over savings (wealth accumulated in the present)... Wealth originated in the past automatically grows more rapidly, even without labour, than wealth stemming from work, which can be saved" This excerpt was identified by the Economist in its article on Inherited Wealth. http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/03/inequality

Now exactly how how is inherited wealth earned? What 'work' has anyone done to earn revenues from the growth of inherited wealth? How does your snide, supercilious and stupid comment about laziness apply here? Money accumulated in the present through labour grows less than inherited wealth which contributes to the widening of income inequality, or to be precise wealth inequality.

The Economist is a bastion of liberal economics. Nothing whiney about them. They would run rings around your facile comprehension of the meaning of wealth creation. Your frivolous comment on laziness is not only wrong on empirical grounds but is offensive to those who do not have the benefit of an environment that provides opportunities for acquiring education, wealth and privilege.

And, your pseudo-French retort is as lame as your comment on laziness. The phrase is actually French and has a particular meaning that is accurately applied in this case. You may feel free to look it up. Nothing pseudo about it.

[mopar71]

Do 1% have own too much? I don't care. I've never worried about how much more others have. It's more important that I feel that I have enough.

Would it be a bad world if one person had 90% of the world's wealth yet everyone else had a good job, could provide for themselves & family, afford a good home, healthcare, education, the most modern tech toys, etc? In that sense, the poor today are much better off than the poor of the past.

I doubt if a Dhaka slum dweller would consider himself "better off".

So what it your solution to make him better off?

[mopar71]

I've always found it fascinating that in the US, the conservative middle class are more than willing to support policies that are against their own self-interest, which is to protect the rich and super rich in the hopes that they themselves can become one.

That is because one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals is conservatives tend to vote for what they think is best for the country and liberals tend to vote for what they think is best for themselves.

[NeverSure]

So how to fix it? Let some government agency decide who gets what?

That's the apparent idea of the communists on here who seem to think it's possible to make everyone the same.

If someone thinks he deserves to be really well off I suggest he invent another Google like some college kids did. If they were to take that capital from Google there would be no more google or its thousands of good jobs because there wouldn't be enough money to run it.

Those who keep mentioning the very poorest people on the planet fail to recognize that they also have a culture that never recognized freedom or capitalism. The West got wealthy by embracing freedom, free enterprise, innovation and capitalism.

People make fun of "trickle down" but when Henry Ford started his automobile company it was so innovative and efficient that he could pay his people enough that they could afford to buy one of the cars. Call that what you will but it opened the door for all of us to have a car. If you prefer another term I have no problem with you using it as long as you realize that Henry Ford put a lot of people in automobiles and created a massive number of jobs.

[MRDave]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Same tired old rhetoric. its funny how the bosses need more money to make then work harder, while the poor are threatened with having their money cut to make them work harder. what is needed is the workers should share in the companies profits just like the bosses. Instead of it all going to shareholders.

Have you even been to Russia? I despair at comments like yours. Trickle down economics does not work. it goes abroad to tax havens.

We don't want all the rich peoples money, we just want Amazon, and Starbucks to pay their fair share instead of having there headquarters in Tax havens.

Edited January 20, 2016 by MRDave

[Grouse]

Yes, the stupid European socialists would take from the rich and give to the poor. Within 15 minutes the poor would be poor again.

In the meantime there would be no incentive for people to work, invent, start companies, create jobs... They'd know that if they succeeded it would be taken from them.

How many rich or even prosperous people are there in communist Russia as a percentage of the population? Just the elite, that's who. The rest of the people are dirt poor. That's what happens when everyone is "equal".

Neither communism nor socialism has ever worked long term. The Western nations got wealthy via capitalism and that means you have to be able to amass your capital. Or, as they say, "You never got a job from a poor man".

Hard to know where to begin correcting your thinking here. European Socialists do not intend to take from the rich to make poor people rich but to provide them with healthcare and educational opportunity. I always imagined that the chance at the first million would suffice for incentive and that having little chance at the billion level would not seriously impact motivation to innovate. Russia was communistic back in the day and not socialistic. Nobody is advocating a return to the failed concepts of communism although some are arguing against the equally failed American cowboy capitalism. European style socialism, democratic socialism, seems to be working quite fine in regions such as Scandinavia where they have some of the best results from their healthcare systems and from their educational systems compared to other countries, especially the US which always seems to be ranked rather low on such matters. And there are many entry level jobs created by people of limited means. Compare that to the number of jobs created by the wealthiest American family, the Waltons, whose only hires are their accountants. Again, it is not wealth that creates jobs and grows an economy. These happen only when there is an aggregate increase in demand for goods and services and sometimes that happens when you have high progressive taxation on high income such as during the era of that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower when taxes were as high as 90% on high incomes.

Well said sir!

Sadly, you will never convince American Republicans and other right wingers of your stance.

It is my opinion that the UK's lurch away from Europe and towards the USA with the massive increase in inequality has and is damaging my home land.

It seems to be that the happiest countries have less inequality and greater social justice.

[F430murci]

The root cause: Internet.

The middle class is being decimated by the inability of mom and pop and brick and mortar businesses to compete. Non-skilled and poorly educated labor force are screwed as jobs like cashiers, stockers and etc. are being eliminated. Even larger businesses like Walmart, Best Buy, Target and etc. are getting hammered from a brick and mortar standpoint. These companies will turn more and more to Internet sales. Cheaper, less labor, less capital costs for structures all over the country and etc.

The Internet will continue to make those few lucky ones who found their niche richer, but will continue to decimate middle class and create huge class disparity in wealth.

The absolute best thing one could do for the world's economy is to shut down e commerce. Hackers from Russia and China could potentially make it exceedingly more expensive for companies by compromising customer information, stealing credit card number and running up fraudulent purchases.

People like me are somewhat insulated as I gave a professional degree in a heavily regulated field and I also invest heavily into real estate. These are two areas Internet commerce cannot hurt. Restaurant businesses are also somewhat safe, but think about everything else being decimated by the Internet. Even brick and mortar car dealers are getting crushed. They are being forced to slag commissions for sales staff and restructure bonus programs for managers and the entire service staffs because Internet sales companies are killing them.

One can say the consumer is benefitting by better pricing, but at what cost when consumer purchasing power is being eroded and people are losing jobs. Lol, Obama in all of his wisdom pushes companies to pay $15 an hour thereby causing these companies to shut down due to their inability to compete with companies using the Anazon business model ala recent Walmart shut downs here state side.

In 20 years, the middle class will be virtually nonexistent and the job market is going to look very much different than it did in the 1990s and 2000s. The rich will get absurdly richer by business models that reduce labor and capital costs.

Income inequality has always existed. Right from the first time humans gathered in structured societies. The Age of Reason introduced the idea of Equality, but it was not until universal suffrage that socialism became a political force on the back of the economically disenfranchised of the Industrial Revolution. All this happened long before the internet.

Your dispute is about consumerism not income equality. I do not see its relevance. You are merely expressing the view of a Luddite. The coming generation will have entirely no concept of or interest in these views.

Lol, you should focus more on articulating your message and less on trying to use impressive vernacular.

I don't care about income inequality and am not "disputing consumerism." I am simply addressing what I perceive to be a huge economical problem moving forward.

The population is steadily increasing, but advances in technology and the Internet is actually decreasing the number of jobs and business opportunities for the masses at an alarming rate.

I am set. I am hedged against it. Doctors, lawyers and, as someone pointed out in a rather colorful response to my post, construction, real estate and real estate development is immune.

The work force is saturated with unskilled, poorly educated individuals that will have extremely limited options in the very near future. I suppose we could put them to work building ghost cities and to "enhance" GDP, but we are seeing how well that worked for China.

RE: $15 an hour minimum wage in Washington noted by earlier response

Without a doubt, there are certain areas or cities where the economy and the job market could feasibly support a $15 an hour minimum wage. Many, however, cannot. Brick and mortar companies are now running tighter and tighter profit margins in many industries in an effirt to remain competitive with extremely efficient e commerce companies. I do not think smaller mom and pop or brick and mortar based companies already operating on razor thin profit margins can keep their doors open for long with a mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage.

Candidly, most individuals making minimum wage are not providing services worth anywhere near $15 an hour. I doubt the profit margins in Egg Mcmuffincups and Big Macs are sufficient to cover $15 an hour for those valued highly skilled talents needed to drop the fries, operate the slurpee lever and assemble a hamburger.

Under no accepted or acceptable definition can my text be classified as vernacular. It is, in fact, entirely opposite. That's what happens when you try to use words to impress. As the closing Chorus in Sophocles' Antigone says "Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows, and, in old age, teach the chastened to be wise." http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/antigone.html

I make my living from words. I know how to use them.

I have a study by Mckinsey that says in 13 countries they studied, the internet accounts for 3 - 4% of GDP. The internet has significantly contributed to growth. Companies in more traditional industries capture 75% of the benefits of the internet. You can read and download the full report here http://www.mckinsey.com/features/sizing_the_internet_economy. This is just one of many studies that makes a mockery of your nonsense. I have data to support my 'message' as you call it. What do you have? A gut feeling? Intuition? Evidence from your weekly shopping expedition?

Like I said, you merely take the view of a Luddite and find facts to fit your conclusion. You have committed a logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy. Perhaps you might consider keeping your unsolicited and unwelcome advice on individual expression to yourself.

Lol, I bet your a hit at all of the parties.

[lostboy]

Under no accepted or acceptable definition can my text be classified as vernacular. It is, in fact, entirely opposite. That's what happens when you try to use words to impress. As the closing Chorus in Sophocles' Antigone says "Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows, and, in old age, teach the chastened to be wise." http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/antigone.html

I make my living from words. I know how to use them.

I have a study by Mckinsey that says in 13 countries they studied, the internet accounts for 3 - 4% of GDP. The internet has significantly contributed to growth. Companies in more traditional industries capture 75% of the benefits of the internet. You can read and download the full report here http://www.mckinsey.com/features/sizing_the_internet_economy. This is just one of many studies that makes a mockery of your nonsense. I have data to support my 'message' as you call it. What do you have? A gut feeling? Intuition? Evidence from your weekly shopping expedition?

Like I said, you merely take the view of a Luddite and find facts to fit your conclusion. You have committed a logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy. Perhaps you might consider keeping your unsolicited and unwelcome advice on individual expression to yourself.

Lol, I bet your a hit at all of the parties.

Certainly not at the kind of party you would attend. If I did, you might even hear me talking in the vernacular.

Mitch McDeere wannabes with hottie Russian wives are not the first ones I would choose to engage in discussion about income inequality. This is evidenced by you entirely ignoring anything related to the topic.

[Berkshire]

I've always found it fascinating that in the US, the conservative middle class are more than willing to support policies that are against their own self-interest, which is to protect the rich and super rich in the hopes that they themselves can become one.

That is because one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals is conservatives tend to vote for what they think is best for the country and liberals tend to vote for what they think is best for themselves.

Not exactly. Middle/lower class conservatives vote against their own self-interest because they simply don't know any better. Wealthy conservatives know exactly what they're doing.

[Berkshire]

So how to fix it? Let some government agency decide who gets what?

That's the apparent idea of the communists on here who seem to think it's possible to make everyone the same.

If someone thinks he deserves to be really well off I suggest he invent another Google like some college kids did. If they were to take that capital from Google there would be no more google or its thousands of good jobs because there wouldn't be enough money to run it.

Those who keep mentioning the very poorest people on the planet fail to recognize that they also have a culture that never recognized freedom or capitalism. The West got wealthy by embracing freedom, free enterprise, innovation and capitalism.

People make fun of "trickle down" but when Henry Ford started his automobile company it was so innovative and efficient that he could pay his people enough that they could afford to buy one of the cars. Call that what you will but it opened the door for all of us to have a car. If you prefer another term I have no problem with you using it as long as you realize that Henry Ford put a lot of people in automobiles and created a massive number of jobs.

I'm a capitalist myself but even I can admit to its many flaws. For example, capitalism doesn't allocate rewards/wealth very well. Do you think these young Google guys, or a hedge fund guy, or a professional athlete, or an actor, should be paid 100-1,000 times more than a police officer, soldier, teacher, firemen, etc.? Well it's the free market at work! But it doesn't mean that it's always perfect and should always be defended at all cost.

By the way, when you say "The West got wealthy by embracing freedom, free enterprise, innovation and capitalism...," you're talking about a rather small percentage of Americans who actually became wealthy under this system. The vast majority aren't doing nearly as well.

[RuamRudy]

Those who keep mentioning the very poorest people on the planet fail to recognize that they also have a culture that never recognized freedom or capitalism. The West got wealthy by embracing freedom, free enterprise, innovation and capitalism.

Do you really believe that to be true? Were the virues of freedom and free enterprise offered by the Europeans to the African and Asians they colonised, or by the Americans to much of Central and South America, Iran etc? No - that was exploitation, geneocide and theft carried out by those with the means, the guns and the total lack of morals, and allowed them to build the foundations of our current global economy.

To say that our countries are rich because we embraced freedom and liberty is a complete joke. We don't even practice the capitalism of Adam Smith, but a skewed, bastardised and thoroughly corrupt version where the invisible hand has been replaced by a dead hand.

[Dumbastheycome]

I've always found it fascinating that in the US, the conservative middle class are more than willing to support policies that are against their own self-interest, which is to protect the rich and super rich in the hopes that they themselves can become one.

That is because one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals is conservatives tend to vote for what they think is best for the country and liberals tend to vote for what they think is best for themselves.

But the carrot is always green.

[gerry1011]

When I was 12 I was reading about how Trump or Branson got rich. I was collecting newspaper stories about big businesses. I was wondering why my teachers did not apply their own advices in the own life...

I have had some difficulties in my young years. But I guess I have always been a capitalist, pro-employer, anti-union kind of person.

I still am...

The strong get rich. The others can't figure out how to get rich.

I don't like socialists, I must admit.

They all seem to think that the rich people's wealth is illegitimate.

Acquiring weatlh and retaining wealth is not as easy as they tend to believe.

But it does of course not mean that rich people should not help the society. Most do.

Edited January 22, 2016 by gerry1011

[HenryB]

After reading all the post here I will say at least 60 per cent of Thai Visa are in the top 1 per cent counting the wealth of their Thai wives or GF

I have to say I am not in the Top 1%

Now I shall for a Hi So BF or GF so I can be in the top 1%