The 85 richest people have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest according to this Oxfam study. Oxfam-Wealth]
Also:
Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
This disparity of wealth and income correlates with many sorts of social ills.
But our contemporary Conservatives seem to believe that this disparity is the fault of those at the bottom and suggest that the poor and the dwindling middle class should simply be encouraged to lift themselves up.
Never, never, never would they (openly) support any social policies that would endanger those at the top from continuing to increase their relative wealth.
They will not even support social policies that could increase the absolute wealth of those at the top while also increasing the wealth of those at the bottom.
But really. How much wealth is enough? It seems to me that, at some point, one would have sufficient wealth to provide for any natural need that they and their loved ones could have (that was actually attainable). Beyond that, it seems to me that more wealth would simply be a means for exerting control over others.
It seems to me that with extraordinary wealth comes extraordinary power. I’ve heard that with great power comes great responsibility. But this, IMO, is just a moral rule of conduct, that is not necessarily followed by those with power. Hence, the extraordinarily wealthy may or may not have any inherent sense of responsibility for others, that motivates them.
So with the extraordinarily wealthy who don’t have a guiding sense of responsibility for others, if there are, also, no (or limited) social contingencies, in place, that protect the poor from the wealthy, then the poor are at their mercy.
The 85 richest people have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest according to this Oxfam study.
Oxfam-Wealth]
Also:
- Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
- The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
- In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
It's exactly as it should be, Libertarians and other capitalists would say.
Lois
But really. How much wealth is enough? It seems to me that, at some point, one would have sufficient wealth to provide for any natural need that they and their loved ones could have (that was actually attainable). Beyond that, it seems to me that more wealth would simply be a means for exerting control over others.
It seems to me that with extraordinary wealth comes extraordinary power. I've heard that with great power comes great responsibility. But this, IMO, is just a moral rule of conduct, that is not necessarily followed by those with power. Hence, the extraordinarily wealthy may or may not have any inherent sense of responsibility for others, that motivates them.
So with the extraordinarily wealthy who don't have a guiding sense of responsibility for others, if there are, also, no (or limited) social contingencies, in place, that protect the poor from the wealthy, then the poor are at their mercy.
It's quite likely that some sort of pathology is involved, the very wealthy may in fact see themselves as always needing more in a pointless pursuit of absolute security through wealth.
When you look at how damaging such a unbalanced state is for all of us in the long term, it really doesn't seem as if many people are operating at a rational level.
People like Bernie Madoff are good examples, he's still unable to accept that what he did was wrong and the people responsible were those that "forced" him to take their money. It's kind of scary when you do consider that people with so much power through their vast wealth probably have little in the way of genuine critical thinking ability. They could be going much more on instinct which is no longer appropriate to the kind of environment we've largely turned the world into.
Whatever the cause, the result is a socio-economic structure that is becoming increasingly more asymmetrical, something that nature will inevitably correct, probably in a very chaotic fashion.
But really. How much wealth is enough? It seems to me that, at some point, one would have sufficient wealth to provide for any natural need that they and their loved ones could have (that was actually attainable). Beyond that, it seems to me that more wealth would simply be a means for exerting control over others.
It's quite likely that some sort of pathology is involved, the very wealthy may in fact see themselves as always needing more in a pointless pursuit of absolute security through wealth.
When you look at how damaging such a unbalanced state is for all of us in the long term, it really doesn't seem as if many people are operating at a rational level.
No Fuzzy. This must be looked at as a political issue. It isn't a pathological issue. 90%(just a guess) of people would behave the same way if they could.
It's natural. The only thing to check it is politics and laws.
You have to approach this issue rationally. Wealth is power. People love power.
Only politics or force can check power.
It's quite likely that some sort of pathology is involved, the very wealthy may in fact see themselves as always needing more in a pointless pursuit of absolute security through wealth.
When you look at how damaging such a unbalanced state is for all of us in the long term, it really doesn't seem as if many people are operating at a rational level.
No Fuzzy. This must be looked at as a political issue. It isn't a pathological issue. 90%(just a guess) of people would behave the same way if they could.
It's natural. The only thing to check it is politics and laws.
You have to approach this issue rationally. Wealth is power. People love power.
Only politics or force can check power.
Since we're just making up numbers, I posit that 90% is way off. Most people are perfectly happy if the people around them are happy. They aren't out to conquer the world. Nor are they so paranoid that they need the money to make themselves feel secure. Even people who luck into a big income without inventing the next big thing or working 80 hour weeks, simply quit while they are ahead. It is a sort of sickness to accumulate that much stuff.
It's exactly as it should be, Libertarians and other capitalists would say.
Confirmation bias.
And you obviously don't have a clue as to what libertarianism is. You've created a straw man argument, which means you have no argument. You can't argue any actual points, so you create something you think you can argue against. A cowardly tactic.
Sound familiar?] ;-)
It's exactly as it should be, Libertarians and other capitalists would say.
Confirmation bias.
And you obviously don't have a clue as to what libertarianism is. You've created a straw man argument, which means you have no argument. You can't argue any actual points, so you create something you think you can argue against. A cowardly tactic.
Sound familiar?] ;-)
Simply mocking someone's argument is not an argument either. And it doesn't follow that Lois has no argument from the lack of details presented so far.
The 85 richest people have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest according to this Oxfam study.
Oxfam-Wealth]
Also:
- Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
- The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
- In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
And these are the people who insist they are being overtaxed!
It's exactly as it should be, Libertarians and other capitalists would say.
Confirmation bias.
And you obviously don't have a clue as to what libertarianism is. You've created a straw man argument, which means you have no argument. You can't argue any actual points, so you create something you think you can argue against. A cowardly tactic.
Sound familiar?] ;-)
Tell me what you think libertarianism is since you are so sure I don't know what it is. Enlighten me! Tell me what I have wrong since you can apparently read my mind.
Lois
It is a sort of sickness to accumulate that much stuff.
No it is not a sickness.
Don't be ridiculous.
What is the type of disorder? Do you have a name for it?
Viewing it as some sort of sickness is a way of living with blinders on. It's a way of convincing yourself that you're ok
and the Uber-wealthy are somehow defective. A neat little subconscious trade-off to make yourself feel better as you plainly see
people living the Supreme Good Life and controlling your life for their gain.
I would definitely say that this form of "blindness" is a more of a sickness...as long as we're throwing ideas around...
You need a certain gap between the best and worse off for people to be motivated to behave in certain ways and for people’s happiness, they need to have hope for the future.
But there is no reason to go beyond that and if we do some people simply have more than their fair share and others less. Being rich rarely makes people happy whilst not having enough does make people unhappy.
The situation is sadly ridiculous.
You need a certain gap between the best and worse off for people to be motivated to behave in certain ways and for people's happiness, they need to have hope for the future.
But there is no reason to go beyond that and if we do some people simply have more than their fair share and others less. Being rich rarely makes people happy whilst not having enough does make people unhappy.
The situation is sadly ridiculous.
More important than its ridiculousness, is that it is bad for the economy. Extraordinary amounts of wealth are being held in off shore accounts (as tax shelter). But besides avoiding supporting the economy by providing their share of taxes, there is a lot of money that could be stimulating the economy that is not, because some extraordinarily wealthy folks don't want to risk losing any of it.
World wide, we're talking at least $21 Trillion, maybe up to $31 Trillion. And that amount was from a report from almost 2 years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/
More important than its ridiculousness, is that it is bad for the economy. Extraordinary amounts of wealth are being held in off shore accounts (as tax shelter). But besides avoiding supporting the economy by providing their share of taxes, there is a lot of money that could be stimulating the economy that is not, because some extraordinarily wealthy folks don't want to risk losing any of it.
World wide, we're talking at least $21 Trillion, maybe up to $31 Trillion. And that amount was from a report from almost 2 years ago.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/
Exactly Tim. If you don't want to call it a sickness, at least call it bad money management. It could only be good if you don't care anything about the next generation, or at the rate things are going, the younger generations alive today, I believe that would be labeled psychopathic. If you say you do care, and the way you show you care is to hoard wealth and only use it to benefit a select few then you have some variety of OCD. Either way, you're looking at some short term goal of feeling better and ignoring the longer term consequences of your actions. I'd just call that stupid, but maybe the DSM has a different term.
Of course I'm saying this on the theory that everyone who contributes in any way to a society should also benefit from the contribution. Just a quick rule of thumb, the lowliest worker's pay should be somewhere around 1/20th of the highest. And we should take care of those who are hurt by sudden changes, like factories closings or drought. If we do that, all people will make good decisions about the future because they will see they live in a compassionate world filled with opportunity. Sounds crazy, but that is exactly how the middle class grew in Europe and created the modern world you now benefit from.
In 1968, the minimum wage was at its highest in terms of purchasing power. Unemployment was 3.6%. In terms of today’s (well actually 2 years ago) dollars, the minimum wage should be $10.55 to be equivalent to what it was in 1968. (I would argue it should be significantly higher to jolt us out of the lingering recession.) http://truth-out.org/op-ed/item/10489-the-725-minimum-wage-is-too-low-for-21st-century-america
BTW, I turned on the Fox Business Network earlier today, to see, if as I expected the markets would continue their downward course from late last week. The analyst and moderator were perplexed at the market’s anemic response today to positive market indicators that came out this morning. Apparently, it hasn’t occurred to these dumb@sses, that the Russian and European economies are in clear and present danger of being torpedoed by Putin’s excursions into Ukraine (which will, if it happens, adversely effect the rest of the world’s economies).
Next they have a panel of four “experts” who are discussing the problems of the ever-growing income divide, and they all blame it on Obama and on poor people who don’t do what they need to do to become rich. Their solutions were that the poor should go out and get the right college education, and of course their #1 solution is that we should lower taxes. They should rename their channel the Fox Dumb@ss Business Network.
It is a sort of sickness to accumulate that much stuff.
No it is not a sickness.
Don't be ridiculous.
What is the type of disorder? Do you have a name for it?
Viewing it as some sort of sickness is a way of living with blinders on. It's a way of convincing yourself that you're ok
and the Uber-wealthy are somehow defective. A neat little subconscious trade-off to make yourself feel better as you plainly see
people living the Supreme Good Life and controlling your life for their gain.
I would definitely say that this form of "blindness" is a more of a sickness...as long as we're throwing ideas around...
It's people going go extremes. They seem to lack boundaries. It IS a form of antisocial behavior. I would call it social blindness and extreme self-centeredness. Many do it for the excitement, like racing cars or skydiving. But to them it's a lifestyle, not a hobby. I don't think they are necessarily leading the "good life." Many are extremely unhappy and depressed and form dysfunctional relationships. Being driven can be a symptom of depression. It's more like an addiction to a drug, which IS a disease.
Lois