Thread: Richest 85 own as much as 3.5 billion poorest

THE world's 85 richest individuals now own as much as the poorest half of the 7 billion global population, according to a report released by Oxfam.

The world's elite have rigged laws in their own favour undermining democracy and creating a chasm of inequality across the globe, the charity says.
The report exposes the "pernicious impact'' of growing inequality that helps "the richest undermine democratic processes and drive policies that promote their interests at the expense of everyone else'', the statement said.
Inequality has recently emerged as a major concern in countries around the world, with US President Obama prioritising a push to narrow the wealth gap in his second term.
In China, the new government there has cracked down on the elite perks and privileges and Germany seems set to adopt a minimum wage.
The World Economic Forum, which organises the Davos talkfest, warned last week that the growing gulf between the rich and the poor represents the biggest global risk in 2014.
"The chronic gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest citizens is seen as the risk that is most likely to cause serious damage globally in the coming decade,'' the WEF said.
But many of the corporate giants and world leaders set to confer at Davos, a posh ski resort tucked on the eastern reaches of Switzerland near Liechtenstein, are implicitly pointed at by Oxfam.
"Policies successfully imposed by the rich in recent decades include financial deregulation, tax havens and secrecy, anti-competitive business practice, lower tax rates on high incomes and investments and cuts or underinvestment in public services for the majority,'' Oxfam said.
WEF however has decided to put the inequality theme up front during the five-day event with closed doors seminars and public key talks scheduled to mull over the hot-button issue.
In the forefront will be Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Sydney has just taken on the G20 presidency, and in a speech on Thursday Abbot should tackle the rich and poor gap issue, with the fight against tax havens and evasion firmly on target.
In the report, Oxfam said that "since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 of the 30 countries for which data are available, meaning that in many places the rich not only get more money but also pay less tax on it.''

'Richest 85 own as much as 3.5 billion poorest', Oxfam report says | News.com.au

It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a f*****g shame?

Wait for the Boner to come along and say poverty is a choice.

'ere we go 'ere we go 'ere we go...don't be shy, give us your formula to eradicate poverty.

And if that's too difficult or embarrassing, just point to a time in history when there were no poor people and everyone lived happily ever after.

I blame the Jews.

"The chronic gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest citizens is seen as the risk that is most likely to cause serious damage globally in the coming decade,'' the WEF said.

I wonder what sort of damage they are talking about?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder what sort of damage they are talking about?

Starvation and lack of clean water.

That bottom half may well not make it though the next decade, which should solve the statistical anomaly.

Future politicians may then boast about how they eradicated world hunger and poverty.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Sydney has just taken on the G20 presidency, and in a speech on Thursday Abbot should tackle the rich and poor gap issue, with the fight against tax havens and evasion firmly on target.

i expect that Abbot would take action on the issue at about the same time that hell freezes over.

how many people could they feed?




if you cooked them...?

Originally Posted by leemo

don't be shy, give us your formula to eradicate poverty.

A good way to go about reducing poverty and inequality would be to reverse some of the policy changes that have favored the rich at the expense of the rest of society, over the last two or three decades-

Originally Posted by Necron99

"Policies successfully imposed by the rich in recent decades include financial deregulation, tax havens and secrecy, anti-competitive business practice, lower tax rates on high incomes and investments and cuts or underinvestment in public services for the majority,''

Originally Posted by leemo

just point to a time in history when there were no poor people and everyone lived happily ever after.

Before agriculture started.

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder what sort of damage they are talking about?

Starvation and lack of clean water.

That bottom half may well not make it though the next decade, which should solve the statistical anomaly.

Future politicians may then boast about how they eradicated world hunger and poverty.

If they spent some of it abolishing the Catholic church and providing free contraception, that would be a really good start I grant you.

^

Hallelujah to that Brother.

It’s time to reject crony capitalism and embrace the real thing


Sir Richard Branson and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg boost economic growth, increase employment, help develop poor economies and lift living standards, and their vast wealth is their just reward

Merely bashing the top 0.1pc, as has become fashionable once more, is to substitute clear thinking for destructive, simplistic demagoguery

By Allister Heath 4:18PM GMT 21 Jan 2014


It is a real tragedy that so many of the great and the good who are meeting in Davos this week don’t really understand the difference between genuine free-markets and crony capitalism.

If they did, they wouldn’t be talking so much muddled nonsense about inequality, one of the key themes at this year’s World Economic Forum.

Real business people, who make their money in open, competitive markets, are entitled to their vast wealth but crony capitalists, who rely on state privileges, don’t deserve our support. The Left and the Right have both got it wrong here: the former wrongly attack all inequality; the latter wrongly defend all of it.

The blunt reality is that all societies are highly unequal, even supposedly communist ones. What really matters is the source of the inequality: are the wealthy rich because they looted everybody else, as was inevitably the case in feudal, pre-commercial societies, or are they prosperous because they profited from serving the needs of others in a competitive market? Is a society open to new talent and ideas, and encouraging of social mobility, or is it controlled by a small economic and political aristocracy that doesn’t let anybody else climb to the top?

Whether inequality is good or bad depends on the answer to those questions; merely bashing the top 0.1pc, as has become fashionable once more, is to substitute clear thinking for destructive, simplistic demagoguery.

There are two ways businesses and investors can make money legally.

The first is by providing goods and services that people want, by working out correctly what assets will be in most demand or by investing capital in successful projects, all activities that boost economic growth, increase employment, help develop poor economies and lift living standards.

This is what the likes of Sir Richard Branson, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or the financier Warren Buffett have achieved and their vast wealth is their just reward. We need more of these kinds of people and we must incentivise them to be as successful as possible.

Most business people and entrepreneurs in the UK fit in this category and, contrary to what many believe, finance, when practised properly, honestly and prudently, is a socially useful activity like any other and should not be singled out for opprobrium.

The second way that businesses and investors can make money is by getting the government to rig markets in their favour – by erecting barriers to entry to restrict competition, by providing them with cheap credit or by allowing them to use their political connections to grab contracts and other privileges. These gains are not the fruit of value-adding economic activity. Rather than helping to grow the economy, they often merely redistribute wealth.

There have been far too many examples of this kind of behaviour in recent years in the West, in Russia, in Latin America and in most other parts of the world. Tragically, our economic systems have been moving away from commercial relationships and becoming ever more politicised.

In no developed country have the effects of this shift been as apparent as in the US. Remarkably, counties in and around Washington, DC have become among the most prosperous in the US. They are populated with lawyers, lobbyists, contractors and others who derive their income from doing deals with politicians.

Incomes in the District of Columbia itself have done better than in any other US state in recent years: between 2000 and 2012, they surged an astonishing 23.3pc, according to the US Census Bureau, compared with a national slump in median household incomes of 6.6pc. The highest earners are often ex-Congressmen or ex-political staffers who have switched into lobbying, milking their connections rather than any inherent ability to satisfy consumers in a real free-market.

This wasn’t the case in the 1980s and early 1990s, when incomes in Washington didn’t rise as much or even fell and were left behind by states powered by the private sector. The rot only really set in after the late 1990s under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Britain made a temporary break from crony capitalism during Margaret Thatcher’s time in office, when state-owned industries were sold off, subsidies slashed and competition increased. To survive, old businesses had to reinvent themselves; their future was no longer determined by the cosiness of their relationship with politicians or by the hold of their unionised workforces on MPs in marginal seats. All of this has now gone into reverse again. Politicians and companies have jumped back into bed together and industrial policies, subsidies and corporatism have become fashionable again.

It started to go wrong during the Labour years, with the rise of badly designed private finance initiative projects and wasteful, incompetently managed procurement contracts. The biggest mistake was in banking, where implicit subsidies allowed institutions to leverage up too much, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn’t be allowed to go bust. This helped boost returns. The railways became dominated by a strange mix of profit-seeking, subsidies and state direction, where pleasing the Treasury was more important than serving the customer.

Energy companies ceased to defend their customers’ interests and chose instead to embrace the costly green energy promoted by politicians. Land prices were pushed up by stultifying planning rules, with developers reliant on politicians for their success; a system of shadow payments emerged whereby those seeking to build new homes would have to offer to build roads or other buildings for councils in return.

Some of this has been tackled by the Coalition but in many ways the situation has been getting worse rather than better. Banking is now a joint venture between state and private sectors, with subsidised credit, lending targets, pay caps and endless political grandstanding. Ministers have become salespeople abroad for favoured UK industries. Quantitative easing has helped those with homes but hurt those with savings.

Tragically, the remedies being proposed by the Left – yet more regulations and tax – will merely reinforce corporatism, entrench current power structures and make it harder for entrepreneurs to break through.

Higher minimum wages were originally welcomed by some large retailers because they knew they would hurt small rivals. Big companies find it easier to hire the compliance officers needed to deal with red tape; in finance, large banks are more easily able to afford the vast amounts of capital now required, freezing out challengers, and lawyers and accountants will have even more fun.

There is a simple answer to all of this and it doesn’t involve punitive taxation, demonising the rich or fuelling jealously. The solution is to promote competition, tear up barriers to entry, unleash consumer choice, eliminate subsidies and soft loans and make sure that the only way an entrepreneur, a CEO, a banker or an investor can make money is by serving customers, discovering new opportunities or allocating capital more efficiently.

If the denizens of Davos are serious about making the world a fairer place, they need to reject crony capitalism and embrace the real thing.

DAILY TELEGRAPH
Allister Heath is editor of City AM

and who can argue with that?

The wealthiest people want more and more people. They drive economics with population and care nothing about the effects on the environment and long term problems. You would think that those with the most wealth and power would be leaders but in fact they are just selfish fools who are not worthy of respect. Only those who desire the gleam of gold and wealthy praise these fools. Their wealth-gap economic model really does work for them as so many are and so many more to come will be hopelessly stuck in life looking to people like them who supposedly 'succeeded' so normally in this system. It's the ultimate ponzi scheme which offers wealth pretty much in the same way your government lottery does: most get nothing and a few are lucky winners. You know the slogans "You too could be a lucky winner." "If you don't play, you can't win!" So believe. That's it.

What good things most people have could probably be attributed to those in history who broke the hierarchical systems, fought for human rights, fought for workers rights and for the other social programs. Very few of the people at the very top of the wealth pyramids do anything for those below them. The just don't give a damn about others.

Getting rid of the royals in Europe brought opportunity to people there and in other places around the globe. Now there are new people in their places and they too like the kings of past think they are above society. They can be taken down one way or another.

Originally Posted by P Kupic

The wealthiest people want more and more people. They drive economics with population and care nothing about the effects on the environment and long term problems. You would think that those with the most wealth and power would be leaders but in fact they are just selfish fools who are not worthy of respect. Only those who desire the gleam of gold and wealthy praise these fools. Their wealth-gap economic model really does work for them as so many are and so many more to come will be hopelessly stuck in life looking to people like them who supposedly 'succeeded' so normally in this system. It's the ultimate ponzi scheme which offers wealth pretty much in the same way your government lottery does: most get nothing and a few are lucky winners. You know the slogans "You too could be a lucky winner." "If you don't play, you can't win!" So believe. That's it.

What good things most people have could probably be attributed to those in history who broke the hierarchical systems, fought for human rights, fought for workers rights and for the other social programs. Very few of the people at the very top of the wealth pyramids do anything for those below them. The just don't give a damn about others.

Getting rid of the royals in Europe brought opportunity to people there and in other places around the globe. Now there are new people in their places and they too like the kings of past think they are above society. They can be taken down one way or another.

Must say in my lifetime things have significantly changed for both better and worse, and we seem to be moving in both directions at a furious pace.

But your proposal could very well lead to the Thai way, install the big cheeses then take them down 'one way or another' in order to install the next crew. One way is via elections, the other has us in a state of emergency.

So what's wrong with keeping the centuries old structure? At least we know what it is.

Please watch this short clip and give your opinion:

[QUOTE=leemo;2675923]'ere we go 'ere we go 'ere we go...don't be shy, give us your formula to eradicate poverty.

kill the 85.....have a share out.....sorted

Originally Posted by Rainfall

A demagogue. None of the currently 85 richest was recruited from the poorest half of the world's population, .

What about the Indians , Phillipinos , Thais , Mexicans , Malaysians , Columbians , Nigerians who are on the list ?

Just found this on this subject. A lot of talk about Thailand in it in relation to the OP story and rich people.

Originally Posted by Fluke

Originally Posted by Rainfall

A demagogue. None of the currently 85 richest was recruited from the poorest half of the world's population, .

What about the Indians , Phillipinos , Thais , Mexicans , Malaysians , Columbians , Nigerians who are on the list ?

What about them? Yeah the Thai on #85 was born to poor parents, 1 out of 85. He doesn't belong on that list because it omits the monarch amongst other people. The normal case amongst them is rather the Quandts (BMW). They financed and equipped WW1, and Hitler and WW2, but always land on their feet when the show is over. On top of the family pic is a Quandt, maybe you recognize the other gentleman.

Interesting. I had never heard of this family.

Nazi Leader Joseph Goebbels' Surviving Step-Grandchildren Are Billionaires | Celebrity Net Worth




BMW's Quandt Family Faces Its Nazi Past - Businessweek

[QUOTE=louis key;2678804]

Originally Posted by leemo

'ere we go 'ere we go 'ere we go...don't be shy, give us your formula to eradicate poverty.

kill the 85.....have a share out.....sorted

Dumb as dumb gets.

Originally Posted by taxexile

It’s time to reject crony capitalism and embrace the real thing


Sir Richard Branson and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg boost economic growth, increase employment, help develop poor economies and lift living standards, and their vast wealth is their just reward

Merely bashing the top 0.1pc, as has become fashionable once more, is to substitute clear thinking for destructive, simplistic demagoguery

By Allister Heath 4:18PM GMT 21 Jan 2014


It is a real tragedy that so many of the great and the good who are meeting in Davos this week don’t really understand the difference between genuine free-markets and crony capitalism.

If they did, they wouldn’t be talking so much muddled nonsense about inequality, one of the key themes at this year’s World Economic Forum.

Real business people, who make their money in open, competitive markets, are entitled to their vast wealth but crony capitalists, who rely on state privileges, don’t deserve our support. The Left and the Right have both got it wrong here: the former wrongly attack all inequality; the latter wrongly defend all of it.

The blunt reality is that all societies are highly unequal, even supposedly communist ones. What really matters is the source of the inequality: are the wealthy rich because they looted everybody else, as was inevitably the case in feudal, pre-commercial societies, or are they prosperous because they profited from serving the needs of others in a competitive market? Is a society open to new talent and ideas, and encouraging of social mobility, or is it controlled by a small economic and political aristocracy that doesn’t let anybody else climb to the top?

Whether inequality is good or bad depends on the answer to those questions; merely bashing the top 0.1pc, as has become fashionable once more, is to substitute clear thinking for destructive, simplistic demagoguery.

There are two ways businesses and investors can make money legally.

The first is by providing goods and services that people want, by working out correctly what assets will be in most demand or by investing capital in successful projects, all activities that boost economic growth, increase employment, help develop poor economies and lift living standards.

This is what the likes of Sir Richard Branson, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or the financier Warren Buffett have achieved and their vast wealth is their just reward. We need more of these kinds of people and we must incentivise them to be as successful as possible.

Most business people and entrepreneurs in the UK fit in this category and, contrary to what many believe, finance, when practised properly, honestly and prudently, is a socially useful activity like any other and should not be singled out for opprobrium.

The second way that businesses and investors can make money is by getting the government to rig markets in their favour – by erecting barriers to entry to restrict competition, by providing them with cheap credit or by allowing them to use their political connections to grab contracts and other privileges. These gains are not the fruit of value-adding economic activity. Rather than helping to grow the economy, they often merely redistribute wealth.

There have been far too many examples of this kind of behaviour in recent years in the West, in Russia, in Latin America and in most other parts of the world. Tragically, our economic systems have been moving away from commercial relationships and becoming ever more politicised.

In no developed country have the effects of this shift been as apparent as in the US. Remarkably, counties in and around Washington, DC have become among the most prosperous in the US. They are populated with lawyers, lobbyists, contractors and others who derive their income from doing deals with politicians.

Incomes in the District of Columbia itself have done better than in any other US state in recent years: between 2000 and 2012, they surged an astonishing 23.3pc, according to the US Census Bureau, compared with a national slump in median household incomes of 6.6pc. The highest earners are often ex-Congressmen or ex-political staffers who have switched into lobbying, milking their connections rather than any inherent ability to satisfy consumers in a real free-market.

This wasn’t the case in the 1980s and early 1990s, when incomes in Washington didn’t rise as much or even fell and were left behind by states powered by the private sector. The rot only really set in after the late 1990s under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Britain made a temporary break from crony capitalism during Margaret Thatcher’s time in office, when state-owned industries were sold off, subsidies slashed and competition increased. To survive, old businesses had to reinvent themselves; their future was no longer determined by the cosiness of their relationship with politicians or by the hold of their unionised workforces on MPs in marginal seats. All of this has now gone into reverse again. Politicians and companies have jumped back into bed together and industrial policies, subsidies and corporatism have become fashionable again.

It started to go wrong during the Labour years, with the rise of badly designed private finance initiative projects and wasteful, incompetently managed procurement contracts. The biggest mistake was in banking, where implicit subsidies allowed institutions to leverage up too much, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn’t be allowed to go bust. This helped boost returns. The railways became dominated by a strange mix of profit-seeking, subsidies and state direction, where pleasing the Treasury was more important than serving the customer.

Energy companies ceased to defend their customers’ interests and chose instead to embrace the costly green energy promoted by politicians. Land prices were pushed up by stultifying planning rules, with developers reliant on politicians for their success; a system of shadow payments emerged whereby those seeking to build new homes would have to offer to build roads or other buildings for councils in return.

Some of this has been tackled by the Coalition but in many ways the situation has been getting worse rather than better. Banking is now a joint venture between state and private sectors, with subsidised credit, lending targets, pay caps and endless political grandstanding. Ministers have become salespeople abroad for favoured UK industries. Quantitative easing has helped those with homes but hurt those with savings.

Tragically, the remedies being proposed by the Left – yet more regulations and tax – will merely reinforce corporatism, entrench current power structures and make it harder for entrepreneurs to break through.

Higher minimum wages were originally welcomed by some large retailers because they knew they would hurt small rivals. Big companies find it easier to hire the compliance officers needed to deal with red tape; in finance, large banks are more easily able to afford the vast amounts of capital now required, freezing out challengers, and lawyers and accountants will have even more fun.

There is a simple answer to all of this and it doesn’t involve punitive taxation, demonising the rich or fuelling jealously. The solution is to promote competition, tear up barriers to entry, unleash consumer choice, eliminate subsidies and soft loans and make sure that the only way an entrepreneur, a CEO, a banker or an investor can make money is by serving customers, discovering new opportunities or allocating capital more efficiently.

If the denizens of Davos are serious about making the world a fairer place, they need to reject crony capitalism and embrace the real thing.

DAILY TELEGRAPH
Allister Heath is editor of City AM

and who can argue with that?

Pile of Bullshit!

A sick out of touch fuck.