Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half'
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Bornblue
It's rather naive of the political right to claim that inequality and standard of living for the poor aren't related.
They still believe in this libertarian fantasy pipe dream whereby as long as the rich get richer, the wealth will trickle down and lift everyone out of poverty.
There are a certain amount of resources on this planet. When so few people have access to such a huge amount of it, clearly that prevents the unfolding of this libertarian, junior common room fantasy.
They still believe in this libertarian fantasy pipe dream whereby as long as the rich get richer, the wealth will trickle down and lift everyone out of poverty.
There are a certain amount of resources on this planet. When so few people have access to such a huge amount of it, clearly that prevents the unfolding of this libertarian, junior common room fantasy.
nobody believes in this trickle-down bull****
Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.
Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.
1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
Pros: I will be a billionaire
Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.
2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
Pros: ???
Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
Original post by jape
nobody believes in this trickle-down bull****
Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.
Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.
1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
Pros: I will be a billionaire
Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.
2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
Pros: ???
Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.
Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.
1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
Pros: I will be a billionaire
Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.
2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
Pros: ???
Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
I genuinely respect you a lot.
Whilst I may disagree with your views, you're one of the first right leaning people to call BS on the nonsense 'trickle down theory'.
If you don't care about wealth trickling down then fair enough, but I respect you for not pretending that it does.
Original post by Bornblue
I genuinely respect you a lot.
Whilst I may disagree with your views, you're one of the first right leaning people to call BS on the nonsense 'trickle down theory'.
If you don't care about wealth trickling down then fair enough, but I respect you for not pretending that it does.
Whilst I may disagree with your views, you're one of the first right leaning people to call BS on the nonsense 'trickle down theory'.
If you don't care about wealth trickling down then fair enough, but I respect you for not pretending that it does.
But that's my point. Trickle-down theory doesn't work, because it doesn't exist. People have been slamming "trickle-down economics" since FDR, but no economist has ever proposed appropriating wealth for the top in the hopes that they eventually end up giving it to the bottom. That's a caricature of the free market position, which is totally indifferent to the gap and just wants to see free mutual transactions between corporations and individuals on their own terms.
In a way It does make people poorer because the money circling around poor people generally goes up to rich people and stays there except for the scenario you mentioned in which they donate large amounts to the poor.
I think the problem with this report is what people define as poor.
The poor people benefiting are the ones who generally have nothing in poor countries while ones in developed countries aren't because are poor but only in comparison to working class etc.
I think the problem with this report is what people define as poor.
The poor people benefiting are the ones who generally have nothing in poor countries while ones in developed countries aren't because are poor but only in comparison to working class etc.
Original post by jape
But that's my point. Trickle-down theory doesn't work, because it doesn't exist. People have been slamming "trickle-down economics" since FDR, but no economist has ever proposed appropriating wealth for the top in the hopes that they eventually end up giving it to the bottom. That's a caricature of the free market position, which is totally indifferent to the gap and just wants to see free mutual transactions between corporations and individuals on their own terms.
There are elements of it for sure.
George Bush granting a massive tax cut to the wealthiest in the belief that the wealth would trickle down. 70% of it or so left the economy.
There are only a finite amount of resources on the planet so the notion that the gap and standards of living for the poorest are totally independent, is nonsense.
Original post by l'etranger
Arrest them for what crime? Mark Zuckerberg for example made billions of dollars as a businessman and computer scientist and has since pledged to give almost all of his wealth to good causes when he dies, in addition to funding health care and research projects across the globe, what the left needs to learn is that the sum total of global wealth is not constant and that it's perfectly possible to get rich without hurting others and with a few exceptions, most rich people are rich precisely because they improved the world.
Yeah true. I'm not saying it's a logical route, but it does amaze me the 3.4 billion are happy to let those few control all the wealth.
I'm being incredibly flippant, I of course know the draws of money to motivate people to do amazing things. And of course, those rich people end up paying the wages one way or another of thousands of people.
However, I do think there are limits to the level of wealth any one individual should have and the balance is tipping worryingly to this super elite. Also, to be quite barbarian about it, why are so many billions of people willing to just sit by as lemmings and do nothing about it? Convincing themselves that someone like Bill Gates is superior to them just because he won the lottery of luck?
Original post by Bornblue
There are elements of it for sure.
George Bush granting a massive tax cut to the wealthiest in the belief that the wealth would trickle down. 70% of it or so left the economy.
There are only a finite amount of resources on the planet so the notion that the gap and standards of living for the poorest are totally independent, is nonsense.
George Bush granting a massive tax cut to the wealthiest in the belief that the wealth would trickle down. 70% of it or so left the economy.
There are only a finite amount of resources on the planet so the notion that the gap and standards of living for the poorest are totally independent, is nonsense.
It would be nonsense if we ran on something like the Gold Standard, but in the era of central banking money is just an illusion and it's worth whatever we say it is. That's the principal reason the gap doesn't bother me.
tax the rich more and close the gap who tf needs all that money anyway
Original post by jape
nobody believes in this trickle-down bull****
Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.
Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.
1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
Pros: I will be a billionaire
Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.
2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
Pros: ???
Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
Literally nobody, not even people like Friedman or Hayek. It's a straw-man.
Anyway, here's the thing. You aren't closing that gap. There's two ways to try, and both ways are disastrous.
1. Print money for everyone until everyone has bill gates money.
Pros: I will be a billionaire
Cons: In real terms I will have no money whatsoever because the currency will be so diluted it'll be basically valueless.
2. By one means or another, redistribute money away from the top 8 to the bottom 50%
Pros: ???
Cons: Creates a culture of dependency in recipient societies and it's morally abhorrent to tax the richest at such high rates for no reason other than they've been successful.
3. Abolish shareholder capitalism
The other thing that people ignore is that calling it the labour market uses market in the same way as you would talking of the cattle market: market forces still apply. The cleaner is low paid because we literally have tens of millions of people in the country with the requisite skills. It's the same reason relevant qualifications help you earn more, and a wealth of good experience: you're distinguishing yourself as better than other people on the same level, making you worth more as a higher quality employee; or you are showing you are capable of doing something others aren't, making you worth more due to a limited supply.
It's also the reason that pushing everybody to uni is a bad idea given it's just making people economically inactive for 3+ years and in most cases is of minimal benefit because the basic bar has been raised to accommodate the increased supply.
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's also the reason that pushing everybody to uni is a bad idea given it's just making people economically inactive for 3+ years and in most cases is of minimal benefit because the basic bar has been raised to accommodate the increased supply.
Posted from TSR Mobile
disgusting
I believe they should keep what they earn for themselves because it´s their money u know?. But for example, Amancio Ortega (Zara´s owner) donated a couple of millions to charity last year and is currently giving scholarships to Spanish students up to 18 years old to study in the USA and lear English . Some might argue he avoids taxes by keeping his money in Ireland, but I I had his money and could avoid paying millions and millions of euros, I would obviously do it too, and so would many who say they´d donate to charity.
I really cannot understand how anybody can even begin to justify this wealth, even if they believe in the delusional fantasy of trickle-down economics. What on earth could a person have possibly done to justify a wealth that is on the same order of magnitude as the combined wealth of half of the human race?
Original post by Recont
80-20 or Paretto rule 
And it's worth considering that when there is human control over such things the 20 can easily change, you don't even need the rich to become poorer in nominal terms, you just need some people to get wealthier faster.
Or that whenever models are run this is the outcome.
However it also only really works well with large samples and whole population sets. If we were to apply the rule on the global population, then the 20%, then the 4% etc until we have only 8 left they would only have about 6%
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Plagioclase
I really cannot understand how anybody can even begin to justify this wealth, even if they believe in the delusional fantasy of trickle-down economics. What on earth could a person have possibly done to justify a wealth that is on the same order of magnitude as the combined wealth of half of the human race?
Make a website that lets you show all your friends what you're having for lunch, apparently.
Original post by Plagioclase
I really cannot understand how anybody can even begin to justify this wealth, even if they believe in the delusional fantasy of trickle-down economics. What on earth could a person have possibly done to justify a wealth that is on the same order of magnitude as the combined wealth of half of the human race?
Invented the OS used by the entire world, or one of the world's best advertising platforms, or a whole host of other industries such as arms, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics.
Better yet, just look at the rich lists and see why people are up there, almost all are going to be there for inventing new stuff (or being part of the inheritance chain started by such a person)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Invented the OS used by the entire world, or one of the world's best advertising platforms, or a whole host of other industries such as arms, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics.
Better yet, just look at the rich lists and see why people are up there, almost all are going to be there for inventing new stuff (or being part of the inheritance chain started by such a person)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Better yet, just look at the rich lists and see why people are up there, almost all are going to be there for inventing new stuff (or being part of the inheritance chain started by such a person)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Wonderful. They are still not worth the same as several hundred million people.
Original post by Plagioclase
Wonderful. They are still not worth the same as several hundred million people.
Economically they are.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jape
Yes, except we're not robots with mindless faith in the cosmic omnipotence of the free market.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- How do I become financially successful with bad grades?
- why do people hate Taylor Swift
- Why do Northern universities have more northerners and vice versa for southern?
- Education
- Can someone mark my ACC english lit Essay?
- a chirstmas carol essay- attitudes towards poverty
- Your Perfect Country
- Why is Man City hated so much?
- I am obsessed with a celebrity
- Why are young men so different than before?
- Old school mates making fun of me for going to uni
- Sunak to force English universities to cap numbers of students on ‘low-value’ degrees
- Free school meals to billionaire
- Environmental Science St Andrews
- Is it common to feel stupid at the start of A levels?
- Medicine
- Why is Lil Wayne now trash?
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- Economics EPQ
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
