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

[HenryB]

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?

That is part of the problem - if you earn more than $32k or have net assets worth more than $770k, you are in the 1%.

Edit: I admit to fitting the former criteria but not the latter.

That is most members on this Site on in the Top 1% just read what they post

Edited January 22, 2016 by HenryB

[Credo]

A lot of people support the economic ideas of the top 1% because they think they have a chance at getting there. They are dreamers, they never will, but it's part of the human condition. Every time I buy a lottery ticker, I think I just might win.

[thaibeachlovers]

Its always been the same the Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer,

off the backs of the of the workers,to 1% too much is never enough.

regards Worgeordie

It isn't and never has been like that. The rich get richer yes, the poor also get richer, at a slower rate.

Compare average living standards of the poor for any large interval of time, in almost all cases their living standards went up.

In fact, the living standards of the poor correlate directly with the wealth gap, that being, the bigger the wealth gap between rich and poor, the better off the poor are. This is because the richer the rich are, the more infrastructure they invest in which benefits the poor.

For example, if a rich person has $1 bln to invest in food production, food supply goes up, cost therefore goes down and the poor are better off. If this $1 bln is divided evenly among a large group of poor people, they all have more money to spend on food increasing demand which increases the cost of food proportionally so they are no better off than before.

The income gap will only make the poor, "poorer" if the wealthy consume goods necessary for survival. A person a million times as rich doesn't consume a million times as much food so it doesn't actually make the poor poorer.

I disagree. That may have happened before but now rich people use money to make money- it's not invested in anything real. I give you sub prime- made money from nothing.

In the past the rich invested in their own countries, now it goes wherever is cheapest labour.

In my country, the rich have bought up all the houses and the rents are going up so too much of wages are used for a place to live- the middle class ( on a fixed wage as wages are not increasing as fast as inflation ) is fast becoming the new poor class.

The real "poor" are on welfare, so they are OK.

[thaibeachlovers]

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?

The solution is simple, but impossible to make happen. If they stop breeding themselves to exceed the available amount of work, they will all be able to get a job, have a better life. When people that can't even feed themselves have eight children, what else can they expect but poverty.

My solution would be compulsory sterilisation for all after one child ( one child per couple- both sterilised ), but I know it'll never happen, therefore, IMO humanity is doomed.

BTW, have you noticed that a mosquito born virus is causing deformed babies in middle America and expected to arrive in Texas sometime this year- NO CURE? As I have been saying, Gaia ( nature ) is fighting back against the human race, and this may just be the beginning.

[thaibeachlovers]

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?

That is part of the problem - if you earn more than $32k or have net assets worth more than $770k, you are in the 1%.

Edit: I admit to fitting the former criteria but not the latter.

That is most members on this Site on in the Top 1% just read what they post

Yes indeed. There are more than a few that profess to keep their hiso Chinese Thai wives ( that they bought for vast amounts of sin sod, and support the entire family of 5 hundred ) in the lap of luxury, and think nothing of paying over 3 million baht for a condo .

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

than a police officer, soldier, teacher, firemen, etc.? Well it's the free market at work!

No it's not. All those that you mention are government employees and paid at a fraction of what their masters the MPs are paid. As one that worked most of my life for the government, I know just how stuffed the pay system is for those that actually work. Absolutely no "free market" at work for them. We all took those jobs knowing that we wouldn't be paid well, but we swallowed the lie that when we retired they'd look after us. So much for that political scam.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

Bad choice of industry, LOL. Now that they make cars with robots there aren't many employees to buy cars anymore. Thousands of automotive workers will soon be looking for work in Australia, and I don't think they'll be buying new cars on the dole.

[Dumbastheycome]

Incomes are proportioned similar to the one armed bandit slot machines in casinos.

For a select and well dressed and well connected minority who provide the correct image for the establishment the machine will dispense payouts and jackpots with great and impressive clamour.

On a sliding scale the same does not happen. Instead there are smaller payouts and rare jackpots.

The remote control to reset to start again point is utilized well.

The problem with massively accrued cash wealth is that it is removed from turn over.

It is the money go round that enables Govt tax expenditure.

Japan is an example..... Banks full of money, low personal expenditure, reduced taxability, slow economy .

Low income earners are the salt of the earth to Finance Ministers. They spend every cent thay have !

[Basil B]

The annual rhetoric from an organisation that I would like to see just what % of the money raised actually goes as aid.

But the figures banded around actually show money accumulated by people but in reality because a person in a first would county could be earning 100's of thousands of dollars a year yet can be in debt, but still eats well, lives in a nice big house, has a number of very expensive cars, etc they are probably ranked the same as a pheasant farmer in a third world country who probably has to eat the rice he put aside for the next harvest to stay alive.

[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?

The solution is simple, but impossible to make happen. If they stop breeding themselves to exceed the available amount of work, they will all be able to get a job, have a better life. When people that can't even feed themselves have eight children, what else can they expect but poverty.

My solution would be compulsory sterilisation for all after one child ( one child per couple- both sterilised ), but I know it'll never happen, therefore, IMO humanity is doomed.

BTW, have you noticed that a mosquito born virus is causing deformed babies in middle America and expected to arrive in Texas sometime this year- NO CURE? As I have been saying, Gaia ( nature ) is fighting back against the human race, and this may just be the beginning.

I certainly agree we're doomed.

[Eirene]

Anyone remember 'The Miniature Earth'? Based on Donella Meadows 'Who Lives in the Global Village?' An incredible woman...a visionary. Sadly she left us in 2001.

Perspective. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5HgtrSssyw

The text....needs updating. http://www.empowermentresources.com/info2/theglobalvillage.html

If so inclined there is a video there on her Down to Earth speech from 1993.