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

Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half' Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    disgusting
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    80-20 or Paretto rule
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Wonderful. They are still not worth the same as several hundred million people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Wonderful. They are still not worth the same as several hundred million people.
    Economically they are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Economically they are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, except we're not robots with mindless faith in the cosmic omnipotence of the free market.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Yes, except we're not robots with mindless faith in the cosmic omnipotence of the free market.
    Nobody is saying that the top 8 are more human than the bottom 48%. But money is economics, and the top earners contribute much more economically than anyone else so they have a corresponding amount of wealth. It's fair and just.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Nobody is saying that the top 8 are more human than the bottom 48%. But money is economics, and the top earners contribute much more economically than anyone else so they have a corresponding amount of wealth. It's fair and just.
    It is fair and just that they have more than others. It is not fair and just that they have 9 orders of magnitude more than others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    It is fair and just that they have more than others. It is not fair and just that they have 9 orders of magnitude more than others.
    Where do you draw the line?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Where do you draw the line?
    £5,320,090.99
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Wonderful. They are still not worth the same as several hundred million people.
    Oxfam seem to disagree with you on that one, and well they kinda are.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kravence)
    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.
    To an extent you are correct. However poor people in third world countires are not worse off because Bill Gates is rich. The people getting poorer there are people buying Windows for example. In that scenario the people getting poorer are the ones buying the service that the rich person offers.

    The point I was making is that there isn't a finite amount of money that circulates evenly around everyone. If Bill Gates wasn't around his money woulnd't be distributed to the poor, his money would be with the people that originally paid for Microsoft services. I might be £100 better off because I didn't buy a Windows license but it has absolutely no impact on people that are actually poor or had nothing to do with Micrsoft in the first place.

    Incidentally you're also using poorer as a verb here, whereas I was using it as a noun. Yes, people paying rich people for things makes the consumer poorer because they have to trade money. It does not make them poor though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    To an extent you are correct. However poor people in third world countires are not worse off because Bill Gates is rich. The people getting poorer there are people buying Windows for example. In that scenario the people getting poorer are the ones buying the service that the rich person offers.

    The point I was making is that there isn't a finite amount of money that circulates evenly around everyone. If Bill Gates wasn't around his money woulnd't be distributed to the poor, his money would be with the people that originally paid for Microsoft services. I might be £100 better off because I didn't buy a Windows license but it has absolutely no impact on people that are actually poor or had nothing to do with Micrsoft in the first place.

    Incidentally you're also using poorer as a verb here, whereas I was using it as a noun. Yes, people paying rich people for things makes the consumer poorer because they have to trade money. It does not make them poor though.
    The poorer person also gets paid by the richer meaning the flow runs both ways. The real wealth may grow faster at the top than bottom, but it generally grows from top to bottom.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    Absolutely, I totally agree. Supply and demand is always going to be a huge part. None of these people would be rich if there wasn't demand for something. In the case of investors, supply and demand control the value of the thing you're investing in.

    I don't remember who said it (read it in Tools for Titans) but if you want to be rich and successful you can either be really good (top in the world) at something or you can be really good (top 25%) in several things. Athletes are an example of being top in the world, where they outlcass almost every other person alive. This is not attainable for most people. Being in the top 25% isn't hard, doing a little bit of work makes you better than most people. It's unique combinations of the things you are in the top 25% for that make you desirable. Which kind of begs the question, from that perspective is getting everyone to go to uni a bad thing? If it makes the bar higher for everyone then that pushes the really good people to be even better. Raising the average means most people are better than before while the exceptional are even more exceptional. I don't agree with pushing everyone to go to uni but if you only look at from this perspective it does have merits.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The poorer person also gets paid by the richer meaning the flow runs both ways. The real wealth may grow faster at the top than bottom, but it generally grows from top to bottom.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Even simpler way to look at it. Poor people don't have employees.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Time for some radical IP law reform then.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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.