The richest 1% now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined.

[Curiosity]

Wasn't sure where to post this so here it is.
I found this article to be interesting and thought I'd share it.

"Just 62 individuals now hold the same amount of wealth as 3.6 billion people, the bottom half of the entire planet — a shocking statistic made even more alarming when considering as recently as 2010, that same half of all wealth was held by 388 people. Now, 80 billionaires collectively hold over $2 trillion, while the bottom half has lost $1 trillion of their wealth — in just five years."

http://theantimedia.org/62-people-have-more-wealth-than-half-the-world-top-1-have-more-than-all-of-us/

[DeDukshyn]

... Insane ...

[ozmirage]

I sincerely hope that wealth is not denominated in dollar bills (no par value).

Dollar bills have been worthless since 1933.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

Since Congress nor any other American government can take private property without paying just compensation, you have to wonder HOW Congress is kiting "bad checks" underwritten by us?

If I am not mistaken, it's by voluntary enrollment into FICA / SocSec that makes us "contributors" on their debt.

On the day enough withdraw consent, the billionaires become zero-aires.
For their paper wealth will evaporate.

D'Oh!

[risveglio]

6 Reasons to Be Skeptical about Oxfam's Inequality Numbers

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/oxfams-global-inequality-statistics-dont-believe-the-anti-capitalist-hype

[Curiosity]

6 Reasons to Be Skeptical about Oxfam's Inequality Numbers

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/oxfams-global-inequality-statistics-dont-believe-the-anti-capitalist-hype

Thank you for the link and like the statement in paragraph 4

"4) Oxfam is inconsistent in how it uses these statistics. At a global level, Oxfam highlights the level of net wealth inequality. Whenever they use the very same Credit Suisse data to look at the UK, they discuss the trends – i.e. the changes in the levels. Why are they not consistent and talk about the level of net wealth inequality in the UK? Might it be because the same data shows that most countries have higher net wealth inequality than the UK (on Gini coefficient, top 10% share and top 1% share), which would not fit with Oxfam’s domestic narrative? Might it expose that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality because there is little incentive for the poor to save and accumulate assets?"

[ghostrider]

Shows you how spiritually unbalanced those in power are ... 80 billionaires are fine with 7 billion people suffering, while the rich could change the world if the virus of greed could be cured ...

[Flash]

6 Reasons to Be Skeptical about Oxfam's Inequality Numbers

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/oxfams-global-inequality-statistics-dont-believe-the-anti-capitalist-hype

Thank you for the link and like the statement in paragraph 4

"4) Oxfam is inconsistent in how it uses these statistics. At a global level, Oxfam highlights the level of net wealth inequality. Whenever they use the very same Credit Suisse data to look at the UK, they discuss the trends – i.e. the changes in the levels. Why are they not consistent and talk about the level of net wealth inequality in the UK? Might it be because the same data shows that most countries have higher net wealth inequality than the UK (on Gini coefficient, top 10% share and top 1% share), which would not fit with Oxfam’s domestic narrative? Might it expose that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality because there is little incentive for the poor to save and accumulate assets?"


please, give me some reliable backgrounds or studies that show that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality (I am thinking of Canada here for example). This is not what I have seen at all, in fact, the only places before the USA where I have seen incredible wealth inequalities are third world countries. Then the USA, although altogether much richer, has extreme wealth inequality. Curiosity, would you be blind to your own state of affairs?

As fot the little incentive fot he poor to same and accumulate assets, I have heard that mantra over and over again in the USA - when seen from an outside eye, a definite brain washing mantra American have bought to excuse rampant destructive greedy and unbalanced capitalism.

In fact, the poor do not lack incentive to save and accumulate assets - the facts are that they are too poor to accumulate anything, they need all they have to pay for a roof, heating bills and food and nothing is left afterwards - and do not tell me that the money put on a movie once every two weeks for example should be saved. Why not redistributing some of the wealth instead so that the worker do have breaks and mostly hope. it is the lack of hope that pushed the poors to drink their beer in front of TV, not the lack of incentive created by equality..... Canadian do no abide by this mantra and do take business initiatives.

[FinallyNow]

Nice. I was just cleaning up my desk and ran across an OXFAM article that I had printed last year dated 1/19/2015 and here it is.

Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016. Well, here we are and here it is... at least perhaps close.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

[Bluegreen]

We have been conditioned and brainwashed since birth by these very individuals to believe that this is "right" and the "proper" way things should be because if you "work" hard enough you will "get" all of your dreams "fulfilled" and you can even grow up to be President. Well guess what ...

"The Emperor Has No Clothes"
:blushing:

[risveglio]

6 Reasons to Be Skeptical about Oxfam's Inequality Numbers

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/oxfams-global-inequality-statistics-dont-believe-the-anti-capitalist-hype

Thank you for the link and like the statement in paragraph 4

"4) Oxfam is inconsistent in how it uses these statistics. At a global level, Oxfam highlights the level of net wealth inequality. Whenever they use the very same Credit Suisse data to look at the UK, they discuss the trends – i.e. the changes in the levels. Why are they not consistent and talk about the level of net wealth inequality in the UK? Might it be because the same data shows that most countries have higher net wealth inequality than the UK (on Gini coefficient, top 10% share and top 1% share), which would not fit with Oxfam’s domestic narrative? Might it expose that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality because there is little incentive for the poor to save and accumulate assets?"


please, give me some reliable backgrounds or studies that show that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality (I am thinking of Canada here for example). This is not what I have seen at all, in fact, the only places before the USA where I have seen incredible wealth inequalities are third world countries. Then the USA, although altogether much richer, has extreme wealth inequality. Curiosity, would you be blind to your own state of affairs?

As fot the little incentive fot he poor to same and accumulate assets, I have heard that mantra over and over again in the USA - when seen from an outside eye, a definite brain washing mantra American have bought to excuse rampant destructive greedy and unbalanced capitalism.

In fact, the poor do not lack incentive to save and accumulate assets - the facts are that they are too poor to accumulate anything, they need all they have to pay for a roof, heating bills and food and nothing is left afterwards - and do not tell me that the money put on a movie once every two weeks for example should be saved. Why not redistributing some of the wealth instead so that the worker do have breaks and mostly hope. it is the lack of hope that pushed the poors to drink their beer in front of TV, not the lack of incentive created by equality..... Canadian do no abide by this mantra and do take business initiatives.


From my experience the rich and the poor are both trying to get what they can out of the system, the rich are just better at it. But, the US does not have Capitalism. In the few places where there is Capitalism, we have seen improved quality and lower prices. I don't know what you think Capitalism is, but the US hasn't really had it in well over a century. I don't understand why anyone would want more government when governments are responsible for 90% of the world's problems.

EDIT: Corporatism isn't Capitalism. A perfect example is the rail roads of the late 19th Century. Compare Hill to Cook.

[Curiosity]

6 Reasons to Be Skeptical about Oxfam's Inequality Numbers

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/oxfams-global-inequality-statistics-dont-believe-the-anti-capitalist-hype

Thank you for the link and like the statement in paragraph 4

"4) Oxfam is inconsistent in how it uses these statistics. At a global level, Oxfam highlights the level of net wealth inequality. Whenever they use the very same Credit Suisse data to look at the UK, they discuss the trends – i.e. the changes in the levels. Why are they not consistent and talk about the level of net wealth inequality in the UK? Might it be because the same data shows that most countries have higher net wealth inequality than the UK (on Gini coefficient, top 10% share and top 1% share), which would not fit with Oxfam’s domestic narrative? Might it expose that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality because there is little incentive for the poor to save and accumulate assets?"


please, give me some reliable backgrounds or studies that show that some of the countries which have bigger welfare states and more redistribution have higher wealth inequality (I am thinking of Canada here for example). This is not what I have seen at all, in fact, the only places before the USA where I have seen incredible wealth inequalities are third world countries. Then the USA, although altogether much richer, has extreme wealth inequality. Curiosity, would you be blind to your own state of affairs?

As fot the little incentive fot he poor to same and accumulate assets, I have heard that mantra over and over again in the USA - when seen from an outside eye, a definite brain washing mantra American have bought to excuse rampant destructive greedy and unbalanced capitalism.

In fact, the poor do not lack incentive to save and accumulate assets - the facts are that they are too poor to accumulate anything, they need all they have to pay for a roof, heating bills and food and nothing is left afterwards - and do not tell me that the money put on a movie once every two weeks for example should be saved. Why not redistributing some of the wealth instead so that the worker do have breaks and mostly hope. it is the lack of hope that pushed the poors to drink their beer in front of TV, not the lack of incentive created by equality..... Canadian do no abide by this mantra and do take business initiatives.

Hey Flash, thanks for the reply. Let me start off by saying I agree with you. I posted that quote because it hit me the same way it hit you, I think.
It's hard to have any incentive to save or accumulate assets when,"the more you have the more they want and the more they take". Plus the more you have the more it cost you. So if you don't have the means to pay for it, typically you won't have any incentive to acquire it.

So when I read that part of the article it didn't make sense to me and the red flags came up.

If anyone can clarify what that paragraph means, or validate it, it would be appreciated.

[risveglio]

Here is a quick and dirty on the Gini coefficient. Sorry its wiki but orders to Seattle and LA have sky-rocketed for some reason (thanks government) so I am a bit busy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

A google search will tell you far more.

[OMG]

It won't be long when there will be no more need for money...

:)

[Curiosity]

It won't be long when there will be no more need for money...

:)

I wonder what effect this will have on the poor? As for the wealthy, what they own and probably who thy own is what their wealth is based on.

[Eric J (Viking)]

This was on Sky News UK (mainstream) yesterday morning...folk are waking up.

Viking

[risveglio]

This was on Sky News UK (mainstream) yesterday morning...folk are waking up.

Viking

Of course it was on mainstream. It fits the controllers narrative perfectly. No mention of government cronyism and a call for more government. I expect this to be on every mainstream outlet.

[TargeT]

This was on Sky News UK (mainstream) yesterday morning...folk are waking up.

Viking

Of course it was on mainstream. It fits the controllers narrative perfectly. No mention of government cronyism and a call for more government. I expect this to be on every mainstream outlet.

class warfare is definitely a desired narrative... maybe as a part of the "global restructure"? maybe just to destabilize... hard to say really eh?



I don't trust any of these numbers... the queen of England is worth some 11 - 30 trillion dollars (http://morcanbooksandfilms.com/2014/04/06/the-queens-invisible-riches/) if you count all her land holdings, so may be even fewer people own most the wealth? maybe we have no idea how much money is "out there"? lots of variables IMO.

definitely imbalanced however.

[araucaria]

Whatever the actual details of where we are up to at this particular moment, the fact remains that this is where we are heading. The 80:20 Pareto principle, as it is called, when applied to itself over and over, leads inevitably to the 99:1 ratio and beyond. See this post: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post874226 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?74722-Money-the-taproot-of-all-evil-or-fossil-virus&p=874226&viewfull=1#post874226)

[Sunny-side-up]

This was on Sky News UK (mainstream) yesterday morning...folk are waking up.

Viking

Of course it was on mainstream. It fits the controllers narrative perfectly. No mention of government cronyism and a call for more government. I expect this to be on every mainstream outlet.

class warfare is definitely a desired narrative... maybe as a part of the "global restructure"? maybe just to destabilize... hard to say really eh?



I don't trust any of these numbers... the queen of England is worth some 11 - 30 trillion dollars (http://morcanbooksandfilms.com/2014/04/06/the-queens-invisible-riches/) if you count all her land holdings, so may be even fewer people own most the wealth? maybe we have no idea how much money is "out there"? lots of variables IMO.

definitely imbalanced however.

Hi TargeT just won't to point out:
In the case of The Big Queen, she actually has Gold, Silver and Jewellery by the ton.
She has probably never touched paper-money, except for the uncut roll of notes hanging in he closet (Personal use)

[mgray]

Here's my take (https://mgray12.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/the-numbers-behind-the-greatest-wealth-transfer-ever/) on the Oxfam report. It dovetails nicely with the Great Fleecing I have recently written about.

[ozmirage]

It won't be long when there will be no more need for money...

:)

I wonder what effect this will have on the poor? As for the wealthy, what they own and probably who thy own is what their wealth is based on.

Poverty is not cured by money. Money is the cause of poverty.

If money cured poverty, then let us give everyone 22 billion billion quatloos, making them "Set for Life," with more money than they can ever spend.
No one “needs money” ever again. Poverty abolished. Wealth equality for everyone.

If no one needs money, ever again, would anyone wish to go work?
What happens if no one bothers to go to work, labor, manufacture, transport, and trade?
What is the worth of that money if there’s nothing to buy with it?

Unless people engage in useful labor to produce surplus goods and services, civilization collapses.

So what is REALLY preventing trade between those in need, the unemployed, and owners of unused production assets?

And without the existence of money, are the rich really rich?