Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why do the richest 10% own 85% of the worlds wealth? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    If the construction worker needs to be told to encourage their child, perhaps they shouldnt have had children??
    If you need to be told to go learn what reading comprehension is, perhaps you shouldn't be on the Internet?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    If the construction worker needs to be told to encourage their child, perhaps they shouldnt have had children??
    Bit harsh on the child though? They can't help what background they are born into.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalism my friend
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Bit harsh on the child though? They can't help what background they are born into.
    With that logic where does it end? That child isn't to blame, has two kids and they turn out the same and arent to blame and have 2 kids each.

    We end up with a country which is half full of bond-heads...... oh- we have that already!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Ok, I'll just quickly state my answers and move on because I'm bored now.

    "Money" does not exist. It is provided by the state for your use. This is the main reason you should have to give some it back if you're lucky enough to have over £375,000 (or maybe £345,000, can't remember) when you die.
    Also, you choose to live in this country, the country's rules state that this is how things happen, don't like it, move or try and change the law.

    You seem to be verging on the edge of advocating eugenics, which I have to say is just lovely, and I'm not going to attempt to defend Communism, as I've already said, it can't work.

    Finally, yes, it was a strawman. I can't recall ever saying that I'd "strip wealthy families down their bare boards, have them hand over their inherited wealth and live in council flats and tell them that it's just not fair that they aren't giving their money away." I simply said wealth stays within the wealthy due to the system we have.

    So, yeah, you magicked up some idea of what I was saying and used it to defend your point.
    Money doesn't exist? :rolleyes: I assure you it does. Money is the logical extension of a barter system. Hmm, I suppose you'd say the same to Student protesters and the like? I'm simpley saying it doesn't seem fair to me.

    What's wrong with eugenics?....

    And nay. It was no Strawman. I asked if that's what you were advocating, I didn't say it was what you were advocating.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Money doesn't exist? :rolleyes: I assure you it does. Money is the logical extension of a barter system. Hmm, I suppose you'd say the same to Student protesters and the like? I'm simpley saying it doesn't seem fair to me.

    What's wrong with eugenics?....

    And nay. It was no Strawman. I asked if that's what you were advocating, I didn't say it was what you were advocating.
    How does "money" exist? What we have are pieces of cotton that represent "money" which if not backed by the country's gold reserves would be worthless.

    I can't even begin to answer your question as to what's wrong with eugenics, as that's something that is a personal choice.

    And yes, it was a strawman, as you presented it as my argument.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by (:Becca(:)
    My grandma always used to tell me "It's not what you know, it's who you know."
    Most of the politicians/investment bankers/top 1% come from Eton and other top public schools. And this is the problem.
    Got any evidence for this?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I wish socialists would stop banging on about inequality and instead focus on improving the lives of the worlds poor. Poverty massively decreased after Russia changed from a communist to a capitalist society and many of the world's poor (Ie virtually the enitirety of Africa) live under left-wing rule. Yes Capitalism increases inequality but that doesn't neccesarily mean the poor are worse off.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    How does "money" exist? What we have are pieces of cotton that represent "money" which if not backed by the country's gold reserves would be worthless.

    I can't even begin to answer your question as to what's wrong with eugenics, as that's something that is a personal choice.

    And yes, it was a strawman, as you presented it as my argument.
    Take out your wallet. Remove from it a penny or two. Hold it in your hand, sniff it, taste it if you like. Tell me now, does it exist?

    And nay good sir, I asked if that were your argument, I did not present it at yours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hi I'm Vivi)
    If you need to be told to go learn what reading comprehension is, perhaps you shouldn't be on the Internet?
    but I don't
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because money is power. Those at the top have more control of the resources, so what do you think they're going to do with them?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    capitalism (like almost all other economic systems) has produced massive differences in inequality; which is not necessarily a bad thing. but compared to other economic systems, free-market capitalism has produced greater innovations, is more efficient and has produced more wealth the other systems. it has lifted millions of people out of poverty around the world; but ultimately this development will come at a cost: environmental devastation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We are in the top 10%, stop *****ing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    but I don't
    No, that's what you think.

    Hopefully, you can figure it out for yourself, if not...


    Spoiler:
    Show
    It wasn't about the parent simply encouraging his child, but rather the encouragement towards what. You completely missed the point anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    One thing that this statistic ignores is that 100% is just that - it's a percentage, rather than an absolute term. If the richest 10% of people's worth doubled overnight, their share would then be 92.5% instead of 85%, leaving a mere 7.5% for everyone else; Yet their wealth hasn't gone down.

    There are problems with capitalism, and there are a lot of poor people in the world. But using relative wealth as a means of exploring and analysing it doesn't do much good, and it doesn't illuminate any paths. Reducing the gap between the rich and the poor isn't difficult - reducing the gap whilst increasing the quality of life for everyone to the same extent that capitalism does currently is very difficult (and, arguably, impossible). It depends on what you care more about.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN)
    capitalism (like almost all other economic systems) has produced massive differences in inequality; which is not necessarily a bad thing. but compared to other economic systems, free-market capitalism has produced greater innovations, is more efficient and has produced more wealth the other systems. it has lifted millions of people out of poverty around the world; but ultimately this development will come at a cost: environmental devastation.
    Can you not see the fundamental hypocrisy within this system? If someone's labour is not profitable, they will be left to starve. While quality of life has undoubtedly improved for many who are lucky enough to live in parts of the world that have been engulfed by the new industrial revolution (eg. China), and others who find themselves at the centre of commercialisation (eg. UAE, USA), they are all nothing more than pawns on a chess board. If capitalism didn't manipulate the world in such a way that there is always an emerging market, and always someone to produce it cheaply, it would collapse.

    Right now, it leaves many hundreds of millions of people starving, because they're insignificant: they are not profitable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    its the 1 percent you need to concentrate on the 9% are just a prospect of modern day democracy. The 1% hold the true power and we are talking billions they can change currencys, depict what food we eat, how we dress, how we spend our money and how we live our lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by und)
    Can you not see the fundamental hypocrisy within this system? If someone's labour is not profitable, they will be left to starve. While quality of life has undoubtedly improved for many who are lucky enough to live in parts of the world that have been engulfed by the new industrial revolution (eg. China), and others who find themselves at the centre of commercialisation (eg. UAE, USA), they are all nothing more than pawns on a chess board. If capitalism didn't manipulate the world in such a way that there is always an emerging market, and always someone to produce it cheaply, it would collapse.

    Right now, it leaves many hundreds of millions of people starving, because they're insignificant: they are not profitable.
    Actually, capitalism made a green revolution. Starvation is the norm for humans. Capitalism is the only way out.

    It was actually a charitable society made by rich people, the Rockfeller society, which spread all this food growing technology. Millions or billions less people would be alive today if it wasn't for rich people. They'd have starved to death. Thank you, rich people.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nepene)
    Actually, capitalism made a green revolution. Starvation is the norm for humans. Capitalism is the only way out.

    It was actually a charitable society made by rich people, the Rockfeller society, which spread all this food growing technology. Millions or billions less people would be alive today if it wasn't for rich people. They'd have starved to death. Thank you, rich people.
    Actually, those people probably would not have been born in the first place. Capitalism led to a population boom during the industrial revolution and afterwards, which it needed in order to sustain a flow of workers and consumers.

    It's rather narrow minded to blindly assert that 'billions less people would be alive today' without considering why this may be. Have you considered the long-term consquences of such a massive and unprecedented increase in the world population?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You should watch this, it's incredibly interesting, athough is long, weighing in at 3hours 35 minutes

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.