Neat article. http://observationdeck.io9.com/what-would-global-wealth-equality-look-like-1680832610/+rtgonzalez Before the republicans jump in here with their usual hatemongery, deliberately obtuse, painfully stupid declarations in the form of pointless, infantile questions, I'll point out that I'm not advocating for perfect wealth or income equality. Nobody else is, either, as far as I know. Even the utilitarians would acknowledge, I think, that some people (generally the young, the elderly, the sick and so on) need more resources than other people, so a perfectly even distribution of resources isn't actually the way to go. The whole point of an economy, in any case, is for people to channel their resources to other people. Perfect equilibrium is neither desired nor required by anybody. Still, it's interesting to see what the dollar value of such a distribution would be, for the sake of perspective. Consider, for example, that this amount of money would be considered a fortune by most of the world, but completely unacceptable for the people that actually run the economy (for one thing, they wouldn't run the economy any more). No banker believes that he can live on $21k a year with $56k in assets, and that banker feels perfectly justified in taking from others who have even less to make sure that he retains his leverage over the rest of us.
Ayuh,.... Well below the poverty level,...... 'course, that's the plan aways ain't it,..?? Who's gonna pay for the food stamps for 300,000 people,..??
Wrong. The point of an economy is to provide the participants with the opportunity to enjoy greater prosperity by trading than they would if they did not. The channeling of rescources can be a means to that end, but it can just as easily be a vehicle for the spread of poverty.
Even though there's very many people who seem very interested in "banksters" few of those seems to have any interest in actually learning about economics in general, and the banking system in particular. Why is that? Is it hard to learn, is the information hard to get to? Not at all! It's avaible for free on the internet! Does it require any particular skills, above average intelligence? No, it does not. The knowledge is all out there, for free, and it's easily understood, yet people seldom bother to try to learn. Truly, ignorance is bliss. Ain't that right daybreaker? How is that bliss?
Within a few months you will have people that spent all those assets and others who have invested it wisely and are tripling it. Before the end of the year you will have people living on the street and those on their way to the millionaire club. There will always be wealth differences because people are different.
Sorry for jumping in with my whatever, but if everyone had the same income, the prices of items would change because there aren't enough materials for everyone to life a developed-world lifestyle. So we would all get $21,000 a year or something, but an electric guitar amp would cost $5,000 instead of $100. Because all of the rural Indians, Chinese and Africans are now competing in the market for those items with you and they have the same purchasing power that you do and there isn't enough of a supply, nor can there be, to keep the price the same. Do you see where I am going with this?
Silly article. More "hatemongery" comes from democrats than republicans. Also, publications like huffpost cannot take the heat. But both parties are composed of incompetents.
Granny says, "Dat's right - it's a sin how rich folks hoggin' too much o' the pie... Wealth of top 1% 'equal to other 99%' Mon, 18 Jan 2016 - The richest 1% now has as much wealth as the rest of the world combined, according to Oxfam.
Your own figures show socialism to be trickle up poverty!!!!! Second it shows that all of the "rich" peoples money didnt go near as far as all the left wingers think it would.
I don't have the answer but I know 30-40 more years of crony capitalism and the corruption of the best government (mega) corporate money can buy isn't it.
The problem is easier to illustrate than that. A farmer with $56,000 in assets does not own enough land to grow enough food for himself, let alone enough to spare for others to purchase.
There's nothing immoral about the developed world having more wealth than the developing world. It's not as if all of the things that we enjoy fell from the sky, and that the poorer nations simply couldn't collect enough of it. That wealth was built, and if developed countries had not industrialized, poorer nations would still be as poor as they are today. There's enough for everybody; I advocate developing nations embrace capitalism as much as developed nations have. But simply having something doesn't mean that it was taken from someone else, nor does it imply that developed nations have any sort of obligation to bequeath some of their wealth to poorer nations.
And then what? In a year the majority of losers would have blown that money while the smart ones increased it and we would be back in the same exact spot. Do you people's that we constantly drain those making money and give it to those that waste it just so you can feel good?
What would happen is that green house gases would rise by power of 10 annually. Our resources would be quickly depleted, shortages of food would soon follow, clean water would become a source of global conflict. Few great things about Communism
What would it look like??? I would look like poverty. 10 dollars an hour is currently well below the poverty line in most western countries.
the real question is... would it be possible for everyone to have this wealth, if there were not wealthy people taking risks to generate it... which is why they have so much of the wealth... would we have the wealth we do today if instead we were all relatively equal with smaller dips up and down... I don't think we would be... think of it this way, look over there on the desk next to you, or perhaps the device you're reading this on... your cellphone... would it exist without the massive amount of debt it took for someone to finally crack the code and create that item... would it exist if we didn't have a long history of invention creating wealth and furthering the next invention... would we literally be back to the beginning of america and any other country... a land of farmers, where 90% of people farmed... and only 10% had other occupations... because wealth was far less important back then, you grew or made what you needed for survival... thats what life was back when we had "equality" the most averaged... society didn't change until wealth created an economy for people to leave the farm and be in other new and emerging industries... so we could make the case that without wealth of people growing over time unfairly, it never would have created todays modern society, we'd all still be farmers making our own way, with just a few rich folks... P.S. just realized I got caught responding to another dead thread revived by "waltky"
Ah, a new global economic conference is going on, and so we have the inevitable, bogus "wealth disparity" studies coming from the sewer pipe of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex. So, every one of these "studies" I've ever read is morbidly and laughably flawed in methodology, no reason this latest one shouldn't be also. Prove me wrong, I dare you, but I know you won't because you lefties aren't in the least interested in truth or honesty, but in bleating out the liestats like a repetitive TV insurance commercial. Here's how they LIE to all of us: 1. They do not account residential real estate, or very often any real estate in "wealth" calculations. This is because it would be extremely difficult to do with any accuracy, so to bolster their lies and distortions, they just leave it out. Including real estate would have a -dramatic- effect on the liestats. 2. They do not account public goods, libraries, parks, senior centers, lakes, community, state and federal assets of all stripes that we all "own" equally in use due to being taxpayers (or if Democrats, many not paying taxes). Including public goods would have a -dramatic- effect on the liestats. 3. They do not account personal property as wealth, so riddle me this, would you rather have an Iphone for $500 and enrich the wealthy, or would you rather have the $500? Simple question. Tens of millions of people decide, of their own unfettered choice, that they'd rather have the Iphone, yet the Iphone is NOT CALCULATED AT ALL AS WEALTH. That's right, automobiles, big TVs, subscriptions to internet, cable, phone, appliances, literally ALL the modern conveniences that our poor in the US have in spades compared to the rest of the world are not counted as wealth. Seem absurd to you? It should because it is. Welcome to the shabby distorted reasoning of the Complex academy. Frankly, I'd rather have internet access than the $60 a month. The $$ are just placeholders, the internet access is something I can and do use constantly. Were personal property including service access (utilities) included in the wealth disparity liestats, they would look -vastly- different than they do. What they do is concentrate -only- on financial wealth, which of course the rich have most of because everyone else is standing in line to trade their $$ for miracles, Iphones and the equivalent. It's a rigged game, a stacked deck, don't play and don't be fooled. So realizing the above, do you feel bent over a little when you see the latest liestudy that the 1% own as much as the XX% combined? YOU SHOULD. Why do we take 90% of what percolates out of our utterly corrupt social sciences departments seriously? The answer is that many don't, and those that do are grasping desperately at anything to justify their continued greed and desire to steal from others. It's about time here for another spate of "wealth inequality" threads from the LW, and I will simply cut/paste this post into each one I find.
If the top 56 billionaires gave up half their wealth to the poorest half of the population, world poverty would be eradicated. That's how extreme the distortion of wealth is.
