Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The richest 62 people have more money than half the world's population Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    thing is has that include the real richest as in the rothchilds those guys own approximately $750,000,000,000,000 meanwhile warren buffett as one of the top five richest on the list is at $80,000,000,000
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    They are out there doing the best work they intellectually can, satisfying market demands globally and in the process creating a wealth.


    (Original post by enaayrah)
    Let's move to Mars

    Me and you
    ..... Couldn't resist... it's you and me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by enaayrah)
    Let's move to Mars

    Me and you
    It's a date.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I accept there is a gap in wealth between groups of people in society but if the poorest are not living in poverty I do not think it is worth worrying about. The wealth gap should be looked at in terms of how well off the poorest are, not how much better off the richest are.
    Absolutely not in my view. I accept the merits of this argument. However, inequality, as measured by relative rather than absolute poverty, is still incredibly important.

    Why?

    Because, if (reductions in) absolute poverty reflect (improving) living standards, then (increases in) relative poverty reflect the (top-heavy) distribution of power and control in society.

    300 reducing to 65 individuals with such economic power concentrated in their hands simply cannot be good for this reason. Why on earth should we trust them with all the money? You are probably one to bang on about the big state, but at least if the state has all the money there are mechanisms for democracy, transparency and accountability.

    While it's true corporate governance has come on in leaps and bounds since the early 1990s recession, when neoliberalism was first discredited, it's still a far cry from anything like what the state had going for it even a couple of hundred years ago. They still have one pound one vote in corporations, for heaven's sake.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Absolutely not in my view. I accept the merits of this argument. However, inequality, as measured by relative rather than absolute poverty, is still incredibly important.

    Why?

    Because, if (reductions in) absolute poverty reflect (improving) living standards, then (increases in) relative poverty reflect the (top-heavy) distribution of power and control in society.

    300 reducing to 65 individuals with such economic power concentrated in their hands simply cannot be good for this reason. Why on earth should we trust them with all the money? You are probably one to bang on about the big state, but at least if the state has all the money there are mechanisms for democracy, transparency and accountability.
    I do not believe relative poverty is a bad thing, I am not convinced it is terrible for a small group of individuals to dominate capital. Individuals who work hard to build fortunes, or gain power legally should be commended for their efforts, not taxed, nor criticised for having a large share of the wealth.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I do not believe relative poverty is a bad thing, I am not convinced it is terrible for a small group of individuals to dominate capital. Individuals who work hard to build fortunes, or gain power legally should be commended for their efforts, not taxed, nor criticised for having a large share of the wealth.
    For the record, I consider the above to be an incredibly facile argument morally, and incorrect to boot: you don't get rich by working hard, or at least not harder than everyone else.

    Fair's fair, we all have a different moral compass.

    However, if you read it again, you will see my argument in the previous post is not concerned with any moral dimension. It is concerned merely with the distribution of power and control in society, which isn't a matter of opinion, it's a real thing.

    In the world of corporate governance, there are, objectively speaking, none of the constitutional checks and balances that the Western world has spent the past 400 years painstakingly building up in civil governance.

    Refute that rather than moving the goalposts. Seeing as these people are apparently so saintly they don't need checks and balances, do tell me why I should trust them with all the money and power.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    They are out there doing the best work they intellectually can, satisfying market demands globally and in the process creating a wealth.




    ..... Couldn't resist... it's you and me
    Ur just jel
    (Original post by hejraat)
    It's a date.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    For the record, I consider the above to be an incredibly facile argument morally, and incorrect to boot: you don't get rich by working hard, or at least not harder than everyone else.

    Fair's fair, we all have a different moral compass.

    However, if you read it again, you will see my argument in the previous post is not concerned with any moral dimension. It is concerned merely with the distribution of power and control in society, which isn't a matter of opinion, it's a real thing.

    In the world of corporate governance, there are, objectively speaking, none of the constitutional checks and balances that the Western world has spent the past 400 years painstakingly building up in civil governance.

    Refute that rather than moving the goalposts. Seeing as these people are apparently so saintly they don't need checks and balances, do tell me why I should trust them with all the money and power.
    I agree, there is a moral argument to be made but I like to ignore moral arguments as morals tend to stand in the way of things. I do not see what the debate is over, I have no problem with a small group of individuals dominating wealth if there is a legal system to prevent that group from openly exploiting people, building up unnatural monopolies, or selling bad products. I believe a suitable legal system is in place to protect consumer rights, to protect standards in industries where safety is a big concern, and to stop people being unfairly dismissed from a job; I do not agree that in the corporate world there are no checks.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I agree, there is a moral argument to be made but I like to ignore moral arguments as morals tend to stand in the way of things. I do not see what the debate is over, I have no problem with a small group of individuals dominating wealth if there is a legal system to prevent that group from openly exploiting people, building up unnatural monopolies, or selling bad products. I believe a suitable legal system is in place to protect consumer rights, to protect standards in industries where safety is a big concern, and to stop people being unfairly dismissed from a job; I do not agree that in the corporate world there are no checks.
    I'm glad that you have conceded the point about the necessity for strict regulation. Of course, it could be achieved much more cheaply by simply ensuring the wealth (that is, the power) was distributed among more people.

    I am not saying there are no checks and balances in the corporate world. I am saying they are objectively inferior to their equivalents in the world of civil governance. That's fair enough while governments still hold ultimate power, as I believe they still do, but it won't be long until the balance tips in favour of corporations.

    Consumer rights, health and safety and industry standards have indeed been improving over time, but they are again nowhere near their equivalents in civil governance and in any case again it's usually the state and the law, not the business world, which is driving these things on.

    (To be clear, you are the only one to have made a moral argument: namely, "they deserve it because they worked hard for it". Plus the implied "they must have worked hard for it, look how rich they are!" (fallacy: circular reasoning).)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    They are out there doing the best work they intellectually can, satisfying market demands globally and in the process creating a wealth.




    ..... Couldn't resist... it's you and me
    How does stock market speculation create wealth?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've never really understood the hard work argument. They, like the vast major of middle class people, have never done a hard day's work in their lives (anything which largely involves sitting on your arse all day is not hard work).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder how many of them are women...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    That's rich, coming from the person who showers in water every day whilst people are dying due to lack of water. Or do we only support communism to the point it benefits us?
    Lol so showering everyday puts you on the same wavelength as those who have billions to spare...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    the global economy isn't like a pie - there's really no such thing as "hoarding" because the fact that these people have that much money in the first place is because they satisfied so many consumers/markets (and hence generated more GDP, jobs, etc). in this world, you don't make more money by leaving it in a bank account too - if you invest it, you help both yourself and others

    people who have these concerns regarding inequality don't understand this fact
    it's, therefore, either a matter of ignorance or an argument that is purely aesthetic and appealing to emotion for the wider purpose of building support for socialism
    That's the absolute bull**** nonsensical non-logic spouted by right-wing think tanks that people have been brainwashed into eating nowadays.

    When you try to grasp the logic of it, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    "The global economy is not like a pie". That's where you're wrong. Resources on this planet ARE finite. Wealth is resources. If you want to claim information and invention and technology are wealth - that is absolutely fine, but these when wealth is quantifiably measured, it is measured in terms of resources, in terms of material possessions. These ARE finite.

    If you want to claim resources are not wealth or have some sophisticated escape - I'll take away your resources and leave you with your brain, and you can tell me you are still "rich" in some kooky, new-age kind of way, but not any measurably REAL way.

    If resources were not finite and they could be somehow conjured out of thin air or "hard work" - there would be no wars. Incidentally, poor people tend to work much more gruelling jobs for much longer hours for much less pay - so when the obscenely wealthy claim they deserve their wealth due to their higher propensity for "hard work", they ought to get out into the real world and work a 12 hour shift with a 15 minute break (increasingly common to the working class in this country, and obviously also in the developed world).

    "in this world, you don't make more money by leaving it in a bank account too - if you invest it, you help both yourself and others"

    I am about to analyse this sentence, but before I can go any further with regards to content - if you are going to try to make a rational argument about a topic so important PLEASE endeavour to adopt at least adequate grammar, (I'm not saying mine is perfect as it is 3.30AM now, but perhaps try year 3 level grammar - you know, full stops and capital letters at the start of sentences).

    Back to content: you're right to say that you don't make more money by leaving it in a bank account. Unfortunately, that is what the very wealthy have been and are continually doing, which is why economic growth has stagnated. Many politicians thought that by giving continuous tax breaks for the rich, they would hire more employees and generate growth, but instead - they have been hoarding their wealth, which, has been at great cost to the economy.

    Invested money helps "yourself and others". Please do elaborate. How? You're just spouting right-wing talking points and clichés without knowing what they mean or how they're applicable in reality.

    You can choose to invest ethically, which is of benefit to humanity i.e. in companies that are ethical. One of the most ethical things a company can do is pay their taxes in order to contribute back to the economies whose resources they used to prosper. Unfortunately, the number of companies avoiding paying their fair share has risen exponentially over the past few decades and this is chiefly why we have rising inequality.

    "people who have these concerns regarding inequality don't understand this fact
    it's, therefore, either a matter of ignorance or an argument that is purely aesthetic and appealing to emotion for the wider purpose of building support for socialism"

    This, here, my friend, is a case of what we would call pure projection.

    What exactly IS this fact? You haven't really shown anything that is factually correct. Wealth and resources ARE finite.

    There are other things which are infinite expandable which can be used to better your quality of life - education, innovation etc, but these are not the same as WEALTH, which is material resources, which IS finite.

    To deny the finiteness of resources is to live in a land which is not the Earth.

    "Appealing to emotion for the wider purpose of building support for crony capitalism" would be an apt description of what you propose. The best economies are mixed capitalist-socialist economies (think Sweden), but we have moved so far away from governments having any abilities to reign in power of major corporations and banks - that we have moved into corporatism.

    They also own all of the media. Which gets people like you to do their bidding for them, by repeating the garbage they hear that appeals to their baser emotions instead of researching the facts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    --
    You've got it spot on, mate. In fact you've helped me compose my own thoughts better. When people say "they should have more because they deserve it" it is indeed a moral argument. Although morality is a deep issue and is difficult to totally articulate what we are really meaning by morality. At the end of the day we all decide what we give value to, but no one's idea of value is universal. I don't want to take this discussion down this road however.

    What I am coming to better visualise and conceptualise is what it really means to be rich or wealthy, to be in those top brackets. Being a billionaire doesn't enable you to acquire a billion times more food for instance, there is only a finite amount being produced and sold each day. What it instead does is grant the person the ability to mobilise the resources, be that farm land, metals, nuclear and fossil fuels, glass and finally people, to do what they want. I.e. they can mobilise the means of production. Now this does also mean that they can buy out all the food in the supermarkets and cause everyone to starve, but that is not something they would do (yet it is the power they have).

    Basically we have a scenario where people have worked, or were born, to wealth granting them the power to steer production in any way they wish; which of course is somewhat at the whim of the consumers, supply and demand etc. [but if you read about the history of marketing people find ways to trick people into buying their goods using the brain's habit and reward system, look at the history of toothpaste and how in the 30's it became popular]. This I believe is crucial, when we are fine with people being rich, what it means is we are entrusting them with the power that they behold; i.e. the power to steer us, the labour force (underemployment means there is no choice unless we want to be on benefits; and lack of choice breaks the paradigm of the freedom to go elsewhere, a popular counterargument by pro-Capistalists) to pretty much shape society.

    Now of course their power is limited to the extent that people will buy their goods, i.e. support their initiatives. But demand can be manufactured, by taking advantage of what can be taken advantage of in mankind. Look at drug addicts or users, pornography watchers, even chicken shop eaters or big chain fast-food buyers. Just because we want something doesn't mean we should get (so much of) it; a similar argument can be made for the pointlessness of democracy in an ignorant, uneducated population, their demands would be foolish and counterproductive. (This argument could in fact be taken pretty far). If you do some research into what they teach at Business school, it is pretty much an education on how to take advantage of our neurobiology, in particular our habit and reward system, in order to get us to buy products. What you then get is people buying products that they don't really need to be buying, or at least so much of. Another instance is in making children your audience, as I believe if you acquire a child as a true fan, you have them for life. As an immediate example. I have watched countless cartoons during my life, but none do I have as much love for as Dragon Ball. They got me as a kid, however I do not mind haha. But there is the point.

    So being in the top bracket means you can drive society to produce what you want it to, to the extent that people want it, need it or can be made to want or feel they need it. It also means you have the ability to shape the quality of the products produced in society, especially if you have a monopoly, and even more so if you have an agreement (cartel?) with the competing bodies. Workers steer towards wherever the work is, there is no other choice, workers are cattle. And the business owners are the shepherds, the herders. So pretty much until you get rich your only hope of directing society is in collective demand or through democratic process (NHS and that kinda stuff get this treatment) using force and breaking the powers that the top bracket have.
    If you ask me though, the power of the common man is pretty limited.

    Thanks, you really helped me better solidify and compose my thoughts. Have I got the bigger picture?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I find as time goes on I find more and more arguments to attack Capitalism. I didn't think it would be this easy. I see better now also in what way the Libertarian/anti-government free capitalist ideology is flawed. Free Capitalism means allowing people to buy as much pornography, McDonalds, drugs etc that they want. Being born in a time when a ten year-old comes across and continuously can access pornography on the internet, I can tell you firsthand that it's not just a matter of "Just stop doing X, Y, Z". Habits are real and they can have significant ramifications. The Capitalist must bear some responsibility in his practice. This is what a government, i.e. a democratically elected council (if you want to move away from that word) is for. For as long as humans coexist, government can never disintegrate, whether written or unwritten, we all abide by a set of virtues, values and 'unspoken' laws.

    We must all take care of each other. If we don't, then we cannot live together.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    How does stock market speculation create wealth?
    Eh.., Is this some philosophical question? I would argues speculating in the stock market generates income and not wealth. But I can sense an argument coming off like the income is invested so wealth is created which I can partly agree.

    Now disregarding my typo in my initial post, did I somehow imply speculating creates wealth? Can't see it tbh


    (Original post by TheFuture001)
    I find as time goes on I find more and more arguments to attack Capitalism. I didn't think it would be this easy. I see better now also in what way the Libertarian/anti-government free capitalist ideology is flawed. Free Capitalism means allowing people to buy as much pornography, McDonalds, drugs etc that they want. Being born in a time when a ten year-old comes across and continuously can access pornography on the internet, I can tell you firsthand that it's not just a matter of "Just stop doing X, Y, Z". Habits are real and they can have significant ramifications. The Capitalist must bear some responsibility in his practice. This is what a government, i.e. a democratically elected council (if you want to move away from that word) is for. For as long as humans coexist, government can never disintegrate, whether written or unwritten, we all abide by a set of virtues, values and 'unspoken' laws.

    We must all take care of each other. If we don't, then we cannot live together.
    You remind me of this guy from the game, Dead Space. But forget that what is the last book you read?


    (Original post by enaayrah)
    Ur just jel
    *_^
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard that the richest 20% have 80% of the world's income.

    [EXTRA BIT NO ONE ASKED FOR]

    Now here's the creepy bit: the 80/20 split seems to recur quite often - 80% of consequences will derive from 20% of the actions.

    Info:

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    we need communism chaps u all know it. revolt against the bourgeois with comrade corbyn
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFuture001)
    You've got it spot on, mate. In fact you've helped me compose my own thoughts better. When people say "they should have more because they deserve it" it is indeed a moral argument. Although morality is a deep issue and is difficult to totally articulate what we are really meaning by morality. At the end of the day we all decide what we give value to, but no one's idea of value is universal. I don't want to take this discussion down this road however.

    What I am coming to better visualise and conceptualise is what it really means to be rich or wealthy, to be in those top brackets. Being a billionaire doesn't enable you to acquire a billion times more food for instance, there is only a finite amount being produced and sold each day. What it instead does is grant the person the ability to mobilise the resources, be that farm land, metals, nuclear and fossil fuels, glass and finally people, to do what they want. I.e. they can mobilise the means of production. Now this does also mean that they can buy out all the food in the supermarkets and cause everyone to starve, but that is not something they would do (yet it is the power they have).

    Basically we have a scenario where people have worked, or were born, to wealth granting them the power to steer production in any way they wish; which of course is somewhat at the whim of the consumers, supply and demand etc. [but if you read about the history of marketing people find ways to trick people into buying their goods using the brain's habit and reward system, look at the history of toothpaste and how in the 30's it became popular]. This I believe is crucial, when we are fine with people being rich, what it means is we are entrusting them with the power that they behold; i.e. the power to steer us, the labour force (underemployment means there is no choice unless we want to be on benefits; and lack of choice breaks the paradigm of the freedom to go elsewhere, a popular counterargument by pro-Capistalists) to pretty much shape society.

    Now of course their power is limited to the extent that people will buy their goods, i.e. support their initiatives. But demand can be manufactured, by taking advantage of what can be taken advantage of in mankind. Look at drug addicts or users, pornography watchers, even chicken shop eaters or big chain fast-food buyers. Just because we want something doesn't mean we should get (so much of) it; a similar argument can be made for the pointlessness of democracy in an ignorant, uneducated population, their demands would be foolish and counterproductive. (This argument could in fact be taken pretty far). If you do some research into what they teach at Business school, it is pretty much an education on how to take advantage of our neurobiology, in particular our habit and reward system, in order to get us to buy products. What you then get is people buying products that they don't really need to be buying, or at least so much of. Another instance is in making children your audience, as I believe if you acquire a child as a true fan, you have them for life. As an immediate example. I have watched countless cartoons during my life, but none do I have as much love for as Dragon Ball. They got me as a kid, however I do not mind haha. But there is the point.

    So being in the top bracket means you can drive society to produce what you want it to, to the extent that people want it, need it or can be made to want or feel they need it. It also means you have the ability to shape the quality of the products produced in society, especially if you have a monopoly, and even more so if you have an agreement (cartel?) with the competing bodies. Workers steer towards wherever the work is, there is no other choice, workers are cattle. And the business owners are the shepherds, the herders. So pretty much until you get rich your only hope of directing society is in collective demand or through democratic process (NHS and that kinda stuff get this treatment) using force and breaking the powers that the top bracket have.
    If you ask me though, the power of the common man is pretty limited.

    Thanks, you really helped me better solidify and compose my thoughts. Have I got the bigger picture?
    Lols you do realise literally noone is going to read all of that.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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