62 richest on Earth Now Hold As Much Wealth As The Poorest 3.5 billion People

[MerenthaClone]

On 1/18/2016 at 1:59 AM, litechick said:

 

If you divide 1.76 trillion by 3.5 billion each of us would get about $500.  That would be huge for some people but for me it would be less than a month's rent.

Stop focusing on wealthy people as the source of the problem.

Despite the fact that $500 is upwards of a year's salary for some people, we should ignore a massive economic imbalance because the same value doesn't cover your monthly rent.  What self-involved shit.  

[Mr Fixit]

Neoliberal dogma at its best. The idea that the concentration of wealth leads to general increased prosperity, job creation etc can be easily debunked by some hard cold numbers. For example, despite the fact that the US economy has grown enormously since the 60s, the real wages actually decreased.  

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

If something doesn't change and fast, this planet is in for some rough times.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Electric Bass said:

Ugh, I totally botched the quote function on that. 

At what point does this become unsustainable? Are there any signs the trend is slowing, or can we expect wealth to concentrate into ever smaller pockets?

I think it will eventually decline, especially with China and other developing countries getting richer (at least until the recent downturn). China especially is pulling up the bottom, and that's eventually going to show up in average wealth statistics. 

 

China is far more unequal than it was 40 years ago;  the same is true of the former Eastern bloc countries in Europe.  But, the average standard of living in such countries is also far higher than it was 40 years ago.  Globalisation, and the end of communism, have both worked out very well for  these countries.

OTOH, globalisation has not worked out so well for rich Western countries, for the past 15 years or so.  It's had the effect of multiplying the    number of jobs at both the top and bottom of the scale, while reducing the number of jobs in the middle. 

[sologdin]

'average' is weasely, aye? the mean of 100000 and six 1s is 14286; those 1s are doing really well, by the average.

[Spring Bass]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

China is far more unequal than it was 40 years ago;  the same is true of the former Eastern bloc countries in Europe.  But, the average standard of living in such countries is also far higher than it was 40 years ago.  Globalisation, and the end of communism, have both worked out very well for  these countries.

OTOH, globalisation has not worked out so well for rich Western countries, for the past 15 years or so.  It's had the effect of multiplying the    number of jobs at both the top and bottom of the scale, while reducing the number of jobs in the middle. 

They've become much more unequal internally, but since overall Chinese incomes have risen so much in the past 30 years it may be reducing global inequality. It's taken hundreds of millions of people who were among the poorest in the world in terms of income, and raised them up to middle-income status in the coastal cities.

As for the rich countries, it's actually worse than that in the US. In the 1990s there was a trend towards expanding job numbers in high-skilled, highly educated categories and low-skilled, low-educated categories, with middle-skilled workers in trouble. But since about 2000 that's no longer the case - only low-skilled jobs have been heavily expanding, and the college premium in income is stagnant.

I don't know about whether that holds in other rich countries, although I do know that the number of temporary workers expanded a lot of Japan and Germany, but not so much the entire EU (France, IIRC, had the biggest expansion of temporary workers in the 1990s, but not nearly as much since then). Germany also did their wage restraint thing with manufacturing in order to save jobs after about 2000.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

'average' is weasely, aye? the mean of 100000 and six 1s is 14286; those 1s are doing really well, by the average.

The Median is probably a better indicator.  There's no doubt that median incomes in China are way ahead of 40 years ago.

[SeanF]

20 minutes ago, Electric Bass said:

They've become much more unequal internally, but since overall Chinese incomes have risen so much in the past 30 years it may be reducing global inequality. It's taken hundreds of millions of people who were among the poorest in the world in terms of income, and raised them up to middle-income status in the coastal cities.

As for the rich countries, it's actually worse than that in the US. In the 1990s there was a trend towards expanding job numbers in high-skilled, highly educated categories and low-skilled, low-educated categories, with middle-skilled workers in trouble. But since about 2000 that's no longer the case - only low-skilled jobs have been heavily expanding, and the college premium in income is stagnant.

I don't know about whether that holds in other rich countries, although I do know that the number of temporary workers expanded a lot of Japan and Germany, but not so much the entire EU (France, IIRC, had the biggest expansion of temporary workers in the 1990s, but not nearly as much since then). Germany also did their wage restraint thing with manufacturing in order to save jobs after about 2000.

In the UK,  real median incomes are much the same as 10 years ago.

[TerraPrime]

11 hours ago, Electric Bass said:

China especially is pulling up the bottom, and that's eventually going to show up in average wealth statistics. 

 

I am not sure what that means. Can you explain? 

China is not near the bottom for GDP. There are plenty of countries in Africa, in eastern Europe/former USSR, and some in South America, with larger issues of poverty (on a global scale) and income distribution. 

We need to also remember that the conclusion is only as good as the data. In countries with no stable political infrastructure to keep track of income and taxation, we cannot infer reliably what the spread of wealth is. In a typical warlord-controlled area, income is highly uneven, with the majority hoarded by the man with the biggest group of guns. Yet, those will hardly show up on this type of analysis. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

30 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

I am not sure what that means. Can you explain? 

China is not near the bottom for GDP. There are plenty of countries in Africa, in eastern Europe/former USSR, and some in South America, with larger issues of poverty (on a global scale) and income distribution. 

We need to also remember that the conclusion is only as good as the data. In countries with no stable political infrastructure to keep track of income and taxation, we cannot infer reliably what the spread of wealth is. In a typical warlord-controlled area, income is highly uneven, with the majority hoarded by the man with the biggest group of guns. Yet, those will hardly show up on this type of analysis. 

It used to be.

[Marcus Agrippa]

A lot of china's economic data doesn't stack up, I firmly believe the country is a bubble, also this stat about the top 62 rich V.3.5 poor is legally true but generally false. Still, corporations and banks are vastly more powerful then most states. Something has to be done about them.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

4 minutes ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

A lot of china's economic data doesn't stack up, I firmly believe the country is a bubble, also this stat about the top 62 rich V.3.5 poor is legally true but generally false. Still, corporations and banks are vastly more powerful then most states. Something has to be done about them.

A lot of it is a bubble. It's still indisputably richer than it was 20 years ago. Even 10 years ago.

[TerraPrime]

It's only a bubble if it bursts. If it stays afloat, then it's wealth generation. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

3.5 billion people divided by 62 people = 56451612.9032 people.

Can you imagine one of those Iranian style hostage exchanges for one of these mega billionaires? 

Iran: " Okay give us 56,000,000 people and we'll free Zuckenberg".

Sec.Kerry: "Fuckn diplomacy! You guys are killing me here, we can't trade people like cattle!"

Iran: "No peeps no Google dude... Tell you what, we're flexible though. Gives us 4 red states, a lifetime supply of Heinz Ketchup and we will give you Zuckenberg and some kickass rugs."

Sec.Kerry: "You got a deal dude."

[Marcus Agrippa]

13 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

It's only a bubble if it bursts. If it stays afloat, then it's wealth generation. 

That's true, but the bubble right now is extremely dangrous as I see it, China's local debt is dangrous, they hide it well

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/china

I really have no idea how they get this information

19 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

A lot of it is a bubble. It's still indisputably richer than it was 20 years ago. Even 10 years ago.

^ see above

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, Marcus Agrippa said:

That's true, but the bubble right now is extremely dangrous as I see it, China's local debt is dangrous, they hide it well

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/china

I really have no idea how they get this information

^ see above

I am not an econ major so I can't tell the ins and outs of this, but I do know that market and currency manipulation are a given in Chinese economy. The advantage of a totalitarian non-democracy is that many things that are impossible in the U.S. and Europe are actually possible. So I have faith in the total disregard of free market principles or any other principles when it comes to stabilizing the economy and maximizing development and growth in China from the Chinese government.

[Marcus Agrippa]

34 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

I am not an econ major so I can't tell the ins and outs of this, but I do know that market and currency manipulation are a given in Chinese economy. The advantage of a totalitarian non-democracy is that many things that are impossible in the U.S. and Europe are actually possible. So I have faith in the total disregard of free market principles or any other principles when it comes to stabilizing the economy and maximizing development and growth in China from the Chinese government.

That has nothing to do with it, free market princples aren't exactly healthy but authroian economics are no better, right not the world is currently in a QE heist which doesn't solve anything, if anything only bad stuff comes out of it, hyperinflation, bond crashes, trade wars, ect could all happen- they haven't yet. China, Japan, russia, india, america, and europe are in QE mode. America supposedly quit QE mode, but i see patterns of them undercutting that secretly, thought I don't have the proof yet to prove anything. Quantitative easing is the production of money if you need a reference, the treasury creates cash and then puts it on the market by buying cash second hand bonds. This allows capital to go into banks, institutions, and other econ engines. Now, the problem with this it destroy's cash savings and sinks the value of the dollar which in theory raise the prices of commodities, Why you aren't seeing that is because everyone is doing QE, well that matters anyway.

 

China is a backwagon passenger despite the media's drivel on how powerful they are, their power isn't actual, it's theoretical. In a war they would be a tough nut, but they if the world economy sinks they're done. Now, if china was smart and you see some of this, is that they are buying strategic area's in south america along with africa. Should the world go to shit, they have a strong hold on several places. That being said, if china falls apart economically, I don't think the country or the party will survive. A lot of local police has a lot of power, and the military in certain regions will defer to the leaders in that area, not the party.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

3 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

I am not an econ major so I can't tell the ins and outs of this, but I do know that market and currency manipulation are a given in Chinese economy. The advantage of a totalitarian non-democracy is that many things that are impossible in the U.S. and Europe are actually possible. So I have faith in the total disregard of free market principles or any other principles when it comes to stabilizing the economy and maximizing development and growth in China from the Chinese government.

To a certain extent, yes.

The Chinese Communist Party wanted to keep China in an autarkist rural economy, then they can probably do whatever they want and completely disregard what economic principles they want (though people will be dirt poor and many will starve to death or die to treatable diseases). But since they want a sophisticated, modern, export basd economy to transition to a service based economy with relatively free flow of capital, then they've got to work within some constraints. Ignore them, then shit catches up to you, like Maduro can testify*. Now China has a lot more weight to throw around than Venezuela does, but it's not infinite. See for example when they tried to arrest that stock market slide last year.

 

*He would if he weren't so stupid/stubborn/afraid of losing face.