1
0

Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth


 invite response                
2017 Nov 26, 6:20pm   26,145 views  92 comments

by Strategist   ➕follow (3)   💰tip   ignore  

#money
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth - CNBC.com
https://www.cnbc.com/.../11/14/richest-1-percent-now-own-half-the-worlds-wealth.ht...
Nov 14, 2017 - The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth, according a Credit Suisse report. The total ...

http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-1-own-over-half-the-worlds-wealth-2017-11

Comments 1 - 40 of 92       Last »     Search these comments

1   Strategist   2017 Nov 26, 6:32pm  

Jazz and Dan are gonna hate this:

"The richest 1% of families and individuals around the world now hold over half of global wealth, according to a new report from Credit Suisse.
The richest 10% of households own 88% of the world's assets.
Stock market gains helped add $8.5 trillion to US household wealth from mid-2016 to mid-2017, a 10.1% rise."

Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?
2   Strategist   2017 Nov 26, 6:35pm  

Strategist says
Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?


Why bite the hand that feeds you? Isn't that stupid?
3   Strategist   2017 Nov 26, 6:55pm  

Sniper says
Strategist says
Strategist says
Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?


Why bite the hand that feeds you? Isn't that stupid?


Those clowns want to be a part of the 1%, they just don't want to WORK for it, but have it given to them. After all, they're "entitled"!!


Or they gave up trying to be part of the 1% because they just could not pick 6 numbers from the lottery tickets. Gosh, who would have thought picking six lousy numbers could be that hard? Now that they wasted their life savings, they suddenly became communists.
OK, i'm kidding about them, but would it be accurate to state that generally, those who don't make it in America, are the ones most likely to become communists?
4   MrMagic   2017 Nov 26, 7:00pm  

Strategist says
but would it be accurate to state that generally, those who don't make it in America, are the ones most likely to become communists?


or Bernie Sander's Socialists.
5   Strategist   2017 Nov 26, 7:05pm  

Sniper says
Strategist says
but would it be accurate to state that generally, those who don't make it in America, are the ones most likely to become communists?


or Bernie Sander's Socialists.


Ahhh..." Bernie Sander's Socialists" another word for communist.
6   Patrick   2017 Nov 27, 7:58am  

And within that 1%, I'd bet the 1% of that (the top 0.01%) owns half of the half, so one quarter of the world's wealth.
7   ja   2017 Nov 27, 9:05am  

1% means net worth of > $1M. For an US retiree, I call this middle class
8   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 12:10pm  

Sniper says
Those clowns want to be a part of the 1%, they just don't want to WORK for it, but have it given to them. After all, they're "entitled"!!

Strategist says
Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?


Ah you guys are gonna argue that the rich worked so much more than the rest that they actually deserve to own 50% of the world.
It would be unfair if they owned only 35%, right?

And if robots tomorrow produce enough for anyone satisfaction, you will still be here arguing that it's immoral to give stuff for free, and that the rich deserve to now own 99% of the world.

Your moral intuition is bankrupt.
9   anonymous   2017 Nov 27, 2:51pm  

ja says
% means net worth of > $1M


I highly doubt that. 1% means much, much more wealth than $1M.
10   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 2:53pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Sniper says
Those clowns want to be a part of the 1%, they just don't want to WORK for it, but have it given to them. After all, they're "entitled"!!

Strategist says
Dear Jazz, Dan, and Communists,
If you kill the rich, in other words kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, where will the money to feed the welfare queens come from?


Ah you guys are gonna argue that the rich worked so much more than the rest that they actually deserve to own 50% of the world.
It would be unfair if they owned only 35%, right?

And if robots tomorrow produce enough for anyone satisfaction, you will still be here arguing that it's immoral to give stuff for free, and that the rich deserve to now own 99% of the world.

Your moral intuition is bankrupt.


So you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Next in line to feed the welfare queens will be the middle class. Up up up will go your taxes.
11   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 3:25pm  

Strategist says
So you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Next in line to feed the welfare queens will be the middle class. Up up up will go your taxes.


Strawman. Do you think that if the rich owned only 35% of the world, the goose that lays the golden eggs would be dead?
How about 20%?
12   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 3:42pm  

Sniper says


You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.


Oh PLEASE don't tell us it's a meritocracy. There are plenty of people who work their tails off but are not rich, and also some idiots who work 2 or 3 jobs and are dirt poor.
But according to your narrative all these people had to do was to work a 4th job, or maybe they should have been born with a better brain (so just bad luck hey?).
13   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 3:59pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Do you think that if the rich owned only 35% of the world, the goose that lays the golden eggs would be dead?
How about 20%?


I don't know if the goose would die. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.
14   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 4:12pm  

Strategist says
I don't know if the goose would die. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.

Why? This seems a gratuitous assertion.
Do you think someone is less motivated if they are paid $50 millions instead of $100 millions?
Would the CEOs work less hard if they earned only 100 times more than the lowest salary in their companies instead of 400 times more?
When wealth was spread more evenly in the US in the 50s, was the goose laying less eggs?

As long as there is a sufficient level of inequality, capitalism will work well.
And past experiences show the necessary level is much less than it is now.
15   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 4:13pm  

Sniper says
Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".

So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?
16   bob2356   2017 Nov 27, 4:13pm  

Sniper says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage.


How many? What percentage? .
17   bob2356   2017 Nov 27, 4:14pm  

Strategist says
. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.


How are you sure?
18   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 4:25pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Do you think someone is less motivated if they are paid $50 millions instead of $100 millions?


I think the CEO's would even take $5 million if he had no other choice. His goal is to get the maximum possible. In today's competitive world he would end up in a different country, where someone offered him $80 million.
Lets face it, humans are incentive driven. Even animals are given incentives while training. You take away the incentives, you end up with nothing. Our problem is, we give too much incentives to the wrong people. Instead of giving more incentives to those who can produce, we give incentives to welfare queens to not work. If the welfare queens choose to live on welfare, they are obviously getting paid too much.
19   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 4:38pm  

Strategist says
I think the CEO's would even take $5 million if he had no other choice. His goal is to get the maximum possible. In today's competitive world he would end up in a different country, where someone offered him $80 million.


No, you assume there is a job market for CEOs where this is the pay level. This is not how it works.
Employees are in a job market where the market decides the normal wages.
But there are tons of smart people that could do most CEOs jobs. CEOs have unique positions where they arrange pay packages in one-off deals with a board often made of their buddies. There are no rules and no market. In fact shareholders activists often argue that pay packages are totally disconnected from performance and abusive.
It's a pick-a-number system. And again, given to people who are probably not the best, but happen to be here. And there is no evidence that these people could get a better deal somewhere else.

Strategist says
You take away the incentives

Again, going from $100 billions to $50 billions, there is no loss of incentives.
20   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 4:41pm  

Strategist says
Our problem is, we give too much incentives to the wrong people.


When you talk about wrong incentives in the current world, these wrong incentives are not due to not enough inequality. Often they are basically welfare, or unions, which are justified by too much inequality.
So from any angle you look at it, less inequality would be better.
21   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 4:59pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
No, you assume there is a job market for CEOs where this is the pay level. This is not how it works.
Employees are in a job market where the market decides the normal wages.
But there are tons of smart people that could do most CEOs jobs. CEOs have unique positions where they arrange pay packages in one-off deals with a board often made of their buddies. There are no rules and no market. In fact shareholders activists often argue that pay packages are totally disconnected from performance and abusive.
It's a pick-a-number system. And again, given to people who are probably not the best, but happen to be here. And there is no evidence that these people could get a better deal somewhere else.

What people in top management get is entirely up to the board. It's their company and their money. I'm OK with whatever the two sides end up negotiating.

Heraclitusstudent says

When you talk about wrong incentives in the current world, these wrong incentives are not due to not enough inequality. Often they are basically welfare, or unions, which are justified by too much inequality.
So from any angle you look at it, less inequality would be better.

Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers. We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare. I only mean cutting off benefits of the able bodied who refuse to work.
22   Patrick   2017 Nov 27, 5:35pm  

What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.

The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.

The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.

Then everyone will have an incentive to work.
23   anonymous   2017 Nov 27, 6:11pm  

Middle class stops working unless it involves either owning or selling things. MAGA

Participate in the economy or piss on it.
24   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 6:11pm  

Patrick says
What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.

The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.

The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.

Then everyone will have an incentive to work.


Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.
25   anonymous   2017 Nov 27, 6:13pm  

Strategist says
So you would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Next in line to feed the welfare queens will be the middle class. Up up up will go your taxes.


The 1% is killing the golden egg, not creating it.
26   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 6:17pm  

Strategist says
Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers.

Agreed. This means we have a huge leeway to increase taxes by a lot on rich people.

Strategist says
We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare.

Nope. We live in a "winner take all" world, and therefore there gonna be a lot of losers. You can't change this by more people working harder.
27   Heraclitusstudent   2017 Nov 27, 6:22pm  

Then there are the rentiers type which have no incentive to work because of capitalism.
Too many of those, and the normal way to rid the world of them is to have a good depression and then euthanize them.
But the power that be won't let this happen.
Capitalism without depressions is not capitalism. It's socialism for the rich.
28   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 6:27pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Strategist says
Less inequality would be better for society, but not by removing incentives for the producers.

Agreed. This means we have a huge leeway to increase taxes by a lot on rich people.

Bad idea. I would rather have a billionaire death tax. The dead don't need incentives.

Heraclitusstudent says
Strategist says
We can have less inequality by turning losers into producers by cutting off their welfare.

Nope. We live in a "winner take all" world, and therefore there gonna be a lot of losers. You can't change this by more people working harder.

We can change this by making it more easy for losers to be winners. I have always believed ALL education should be free, because education is an investment, not an expense. When you give more opportunities for losers to be winners, and less opportunities for losers to remain losers, something good will happen.
29   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 7:59pm  

anon_fd7ee says
Heraclitusstudent says
Sniper says
Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".

So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?


If you're dumb it must be bad luck. All humans are not born with the same intelligence or talents.


Strategist.
30   bob2356   2017 Nov 27, 7:59pm  

Strategist says

What people in top management get is entirely up to the board. It's their company and their money. I'm OK with whatever the two sides end up negotiating.


It's the shareholders company and the shareholders money not the board. The board are hired guns. elected by the shareholders but nominated by the CEO or in some corporations by a search firm. Boards are packed with CEO's from other firms. .
31   anonymous   2017 Nov 27, 8:00pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Sniper says
Exactly. There's this thing called "Working SMARTER not HARDER".

So if you're dumb, it's just bad luck right?


If you're dumb it must be bad luck. All humans are not born with the same intelligence or talents.
32   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 8:00pm  

bob2356 says
Strategist says
. I'm quite sure it would get sick and lay less eggs.


How are you sure?


Common sense.
33   bob2356   2017 Nov 27, 8:01pm  

Sniper says
bob2356 says
Sniper says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage.


How many? What percentage? .


Did they all start out rich at 16 years old?


You mean like trump and the Koch bros? Did they all start out poor? You said many, how many? Run and hide.
34   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 8:07pm  

bob2356 says
You said many, how many? Run and hide.


Silly question.
35   Patrick   2017 Nov 27, 8:15pm  

Strategist says
Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.


Stocks and real estate would be more tied to their fundamental income-producing values, which is a good thing.

There would be no need for a 401k, since all income from actual labor would be untaxed. People would save anyway. I know I would. And my savings would be larger because of the reduced tax on it.

OK, some poor people will never work. Not saying they should get anything special.

New investment in companies would likely go way up, because it's the ordinary people who spend the money who keep corporate investments profitable. The rich mostly hoard their wealth and do not spend it, destroying the demand side. Giving more to them does nothing for the demand side. But not taxing the labor of ordinary workers would give them more cash to spend, and therefore increase corporate profits.

The main source of taxes should be land values. But capital gains seems like a good source as well.
36   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 8:16pm  

Sniper says
You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.


Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.
37   bob2356   2017 Nov 27, 8:22pm  

Sniper says

Why do you keep spewing this crap. The facts are, there are multi THOUSANDS of CEOs that have small businesses and have a handful of employees.


Small business with a handful of employees are almost always partnerships or llc's which don't have CEO's for the most part. Llc's can have a CEO but it's not very common. Usually the title is president for a hired manager.

Want to show how many multi thousands of small business CEO[s are out there? That will never happen. It's true because I say it's true.
38   anonymous   2017 Nov 27, 8:40pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
There are plenty of people who work their tails off but are not rich

Engineers: their jobs get shorter and shorter the more long week they devote to their employers who make their demands unreasonable and harp on outsourcing etc to make wages cheaper.

The entire Republican philosophy boils down to tyrannical use of government to create lower wages for all, and less alternatives so people work for ever lower wages, they all are absolutely obsessed with it but preach a lot of horse shit to try not to look like the pigs they are. If you are right wing and you are not a pig then you are placing yourself on the menu. LOL
39   Strategist   2017 Nov 27, 8:55pm  

Patrick says
Strategist says
Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.


Stocks and real estate would be more tied to their fundamental income-producing values, which is a good thing.

They already are. PE ratios, interest rates, and expectations are all factored in.

Patrick says
There would be no need for a 401k, since all income from actual labor would be untaxed. People would save anyway. I know I would. And my savings would be larger because of the reduced tax on it.

You would save, but most Americans won't. They don't even save now.

Patrick says
OK, some poor people will never work. Not saying they should get anything special.

OK agreed. Lets take away the benefits of the able bodied who refuse to work.

Patrick says
New investment in companies would likely go way up, because it's the ordinary people who spend the money who keep corporate investments profitable. The rich mostly hoard their wealth and do not spend it, destroying the demand side. Giving more to them does nothing for the demand side. But not taxing the labor of ordinary workers would give them more cash to spend, and therefore increase corporate profits.

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.
The rich invest their wealth, not hoard it, because there is nothing for them to buy. What can can Jeff Bezos buy for a $100 billion? They may as well give it away upon their death like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
40   anonymous   2017 Nov 27, 9:08pm  

The last thing cheap-labor conservatives want is prosperity.

Defenders of corporate greed - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you.

If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

And that is all there is to Republicans: Work cheaper or starve.

Comments 1 - 40 of 92       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions