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

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


    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    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

    You remind me of this guy from the game, Dead Space. But forget that what is the last book you read?

    Haha, what do you mean? What's this guy like?
    Well I'm reading quite a few books at the moment. The Way of Zen, Alan Watts; The Power of Habit, that's where I got some of the info in that post from; and The abc of Communism. 'Cause of uni and being disorganised I haven't been reading steadily. The last book I've actually read? Probably The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts or Mini-Habits some book by some guy.

    What about you?

    (Original post by Apollyon.)
    Lols you do realise literally noone is going to read all of that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    LOL well screw 'em! We only need committed brothers in the cause!

    (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.

    My understanding has since grown.

    We must make clear what income inequality means, and what is the primary issue. For the sake of production income equality is harmful. The more spread out capital is, the less any venture can be fully developed. What is meant by this? Capital gives you access to the means of production, and the greater the share you have the greater you can mobilise the productive forces to produce what you so wish.

    Take as an example grocery stores. In one case you have supermarkets, and in the other you have corner shops or smaller stores. Owners of smaller corner stores only have access to so much capital, and thus have access to only so much to spend on their enterprise. Meanwhile owners of supermarkets have access to a far greater share of capital, and so far more resources, and can employ more workers, spend on decorations and design, on organisational features, greater supply and range of stock, provide greater service, afford to take risks etc. And we can see the difference in quality and 'modernity'. Supermarkets are able to develop their venture more fully.

    So actually, monopolies are progressive. In the time before industry, or Capitalism really took off, there were countless, self-employed artisans and craftsmen, creating products in areas of their own interest and experience. As some did better than others however, i.e. make better products or attract more customers, they were able to acquire more capital and thus spend more on their own shop. This thus enabled them to improve their practice and attract more customers, grow their business, attract more customers; and so you can see it is a positive feedback loop. Meanwhile the others lost more and more customers, to these same people. When you can make things for cheaper, because for instance you just spent money on some new machinery, you sell them for cheaper, and people buy from you. In time people looked elsewhere to make their living. The process was made rapid by industrialisation which dwarfed the abilities of the labour of human beings, thus truly giving people no choice but to work for big time Capitalists in factories.

    The point being made is that you can have a hundred corner shops or you can have 5 supermarkets. You can have a hundred people doing the same thing driven by profit, or you can divert the capital i.e. productive forces in a concentration to really develop one area fully, for the sake of developing an area fully. Monopolies are fine, concentrated capital is okay.

    What do we really want/should want when we argue for income equality? Equality of access to the benefits of production. The fruits of our labour. I would call for a planned economy which provides us with our needs, that is great housing and neighbourhoods, public and communal services, including education, healthcare, parks etc. and the rest follows.

    To enforce income equality would be to rip away the capital that businesses use to reinvest and grow their business. An equal spread of capital at all times, whilst giving everyone the chance to produce, means no single venture is developed to its greatest potential. Income equality/redistribution is not the solution, the system itself is ill founded . There will come a time when production has far exceeded its current level, when scarcity is but a myth, and people can exercise their will or produce what they so wish as individuals without constraint. This is the final stage of Communism.

    One moral of this story is we should use our productive forces wisely. There is so much waste, of materials, resources and labour. Pointless ventures being taken. As well as overproduction. This is termed anarchy in production. Time to move on from Capitalism.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster

    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by enaayrah)
    I've never really understood why some would accumulate ridiculous amounts of wealth. Wanting to live a little more comfortably is fair enough, but going millions/billions in excess...
    Their wealth is a side effect of how well their business is I think. Without the success of certain companies, we wouldn't have many of the products we've grown accustomed to.

    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    Their wealth is a side effect of how well their business is I think. Without the success of certain companies, we wouldn't have many of the products we've grown accustomed to.
    It's more of a result of concentrated capital. If you take the capital from all of 100 corner shops and put it together, you can build a higher quality grocery store or possibly supermarket, because all the capital is being directed to production, and no one is afraid of losing customers to rival shops.

    Think about it. If you had far more capital, money, what could you do? Want to make games? You need access to powerful computers, knowledge and time. I'm not gonna go and list examples but you get the point.

    The point being that income wealth isn't really about anything but the means to control production. Property rights applied to the means of production is counterproductive. People consider 'right's as ordained unquestionable truths. But who do the hell would uphold a value so stringently when it is holding us back?
    • TSR Support Team

    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by BioStudentx)
    A lot of them got rich because they deserve it. This isn't a communism.
    Nobody deserves such vast quantities of wealth. The idea that these people are working millions of times harder than "ordinary" people is absurd. Most of that wealth has been obtained through privilege, exploitation, ruthlessness and selfishness.

    Someone like Jacob Rothschild received large portions of his huge wealth with the creation of war. Given his family own many central banks, he can do that. When you control the banks, you control the country and the sky's the limit as far as that ugly munter is concerned.

    (Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
    It's not so much about the wealth itself, more that they have the ability to create money, to create gold and silver
    You might be referring to mining gold and silver; they can't be created.

    and by that same method, maintain their bodies in perfect health and with huge lifespans the like of which ordinary folk can not imagine.
    The oldest person on record lived to be 122 years old, and she wasn't in the ruling elite, if I recall correctly. Hardly a huge lifespan, although that's still 40 years longer than the average life expectancy of babies being born in developed countries today (and increasing all the time).

    By all means criticise the ruling elite, but let's be honest about the largesse of said elite.

    I hope everyone complaining about this is giving ever spare penny they have to charity to help the millions who are worse off than them.

    Don't be a hypocrite, folks.

    TSR is a pile of crap. I thought this place was meant to be the den of would-be intellectuals. No real debate or discussion, I get more out of Youtube comments.


    Wealth inequality has been gross for quite a while now. We're headed back into the Dickensian past, and beyond. Something has to change! :shakecane:
Have you ever experienced racism/sexism at uni?
Useful resources

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

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