0
0
0
From "The Chicago Tribune"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-world-wealth-report-20150119-story.html#
Richest 1% will own more than half the world's wealth by 2016: report
The richest 1 percent of the population will own more than half the world's wealth by 2016, Oxfam International said in a report released as the World Economic Forum begins in Davos, Switzerland.
Oxfam said the world's richest people saw their share of global wealth jump to 48 percent last year from 44 percent in 2009. Rising inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty as the world's biggest companies lobby the U.S. and European Union for beneficial tax changes at a time when average taxpayers are still paying the bill for the financial crisis, Oxfam said.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I keep on hearing this "inequitable wealth distribution" line and a question suddenly popped into my head - "What percentage of the wealth of the Roman Empire did the 'Richest 1%' control?". Then I thought "What percentage of the wealth of the British Empire (in 1775) did the 'Richest 1%' control?". Then I thought "What percentage of the wealth of the newly formed United States of America did the 'Richest 1%' control in 1785?". Then I thought "What would the graph of the percentage of the world's wealth that the 'Richest 1%' look like if it were drawn from 5,000 B.C. to today?". And, you know what, I simply don't know - but I'd be prepared to bet that it hasn't varied all that much (say, maybe, +/- 10%) over time. - Thoughts?]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-world-wealth-report-20150119-story.html#
Richest 1% will own more than half the world's wealth by 2016: report
The richest 1 percent of the population will own more than half the world's wealth by 2016, Oxfam International said in a report released as the World Economic Forum begins in Davos, Switzerland.
Oxfam said the world's richest people saw their share of global wealth jump to 48 percent last year from 44 percent in 2009. Rising inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty as the world's biggest companies lobby the U.S. and European Union for beneficial tax changes at a time when average taxpayers are still paying the bill for the financial crisis, Oxfam said.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I keep on hearing this "inequitable wealth distribution" line and a question suddenly popped into my head - "What percentage of the wealth of the Roman Empire did the 'Richest 1%' control?". Then I thought "What percentage of the wealth of the British Empire (in 1775) did the 'Richest 1%' control?". Then I thought "What percentage of the wealth of the newly formed United States of America did the 'Richest 1%' control in 1785?". Then I thought "What would the graph of the percentage of the world's wealth that the 'Richest 1%' look like if it were drawn from 5,000 B.C. to today?". And, you know what, I simply don't know - but I'd be prepared to bet that it hasn't varied all that much (say, maybe, +/- 10%) over time. - Thoughts?]
Economy
Society
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
0
0
0
Yes. It has, is, and will continue to cause problems. It is unfortunate that so many people cry "class warfare" and liken it to a desire have welfare recipients be handed cash awards taken from Mitt Romney's bank account. Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that the national forecast is that our children will have a LOWER standard of living than we do. This is because as CEO pay (for example) has gone up by a factor of like 400 over the last 40 years, worker pay has stagnated or gone down. When the economy tanked in 2008, they basically told us that it was because of a bunch of shakey mortgage loans. But more matching to my sensory perception is that priced the middle class out of the middle class year after year to the point that middle class people no longer have any disposable income to support the economy. When only the wealthy can afford to buy gas, eat at a restaraunt, or buy a new car, the economy contracts.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc Sir, the Pareto principle has always been roughly true (20% leverages 80% of most things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle). Some of the writings have done comparisons throughout history of the wealthiest vs poorest but I think most focus on how in the past 100 years there was more diffusion throughout the strata of society that is now shrinking again.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014_Page2.html
I found this article interesting:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014_Page2.html
Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[1] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Richard I P. Captain; Thank you for the links.
At a rough guess, I'd say that there is a certain level of "income disparity" which works well for society's progress and that there is a certain amount of variation around that level that society can function with without adverse effects. But, when that level of "income disparity" gets too large (in favour of the rich) "the masses go for the torches and pitchforks". Contrary-wise, when it gets too small, society simply stops working well.
At a rough guess, I'd say that there is a certain level of "income disparity" which works well for society's progress and that there is a certain amount of variation around that level that society can function with without adverse effects. But, when that level of "income disparity" gets too large (in favour of the rich) "the masses go for the torches and pitchforks". Contrary-wise, when it gets too small, society simply stops working well.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google