World inequality

This is appalling!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

This is appalling! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
Yes it is. So many problems are viewed as being very difficult to deal with but in fact it looks like simply sharing fairly could make an enormous difference in a lot of cases. Why isn't there more demand for doing just that? I really don't know.

You need to go no further than reading Shock Doctrine. It’s all explained there. And I would only add, just because Fascism/Nazism was defeated in WW2 doesn’t mean they were eradicated. The remaining corporate fascists and their underlying conservative philosophy realized how not to proceed, or rather, learned that to proceed you need to package your plan up as patriotic, religious/righteous, and charitable. Seriously, read Shock Doctrine.

Lots of people have tried to fix this exact problem over the centuries but the most successful efforts have been some combination of socialism and capitalism. You need a system that acknowledges the fact that some people are more gifted than others and to get the most out of them they have to be rewarded while at the same time providing an opportunity for the less gifted but still hard working majority to make a descent living all the while providing a basic safety net for those who are disabled and a less generous safety net for those who are unwilling to work.
Everyone complains about the system we have but I am not sure there is any magic bullet. You would need some breakthrough idea and a citizenry that has the willingness to experiment with the understanding that experiments can sometimes go wrong and make things much worse.

From this Guardian article here]

Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.
Bold added by me. The message:
“The message is that rising inequality is dangerous. It’s bad for growth and it’s bad for governance. We see a concentration of wealth capturing power and leaving ordinary people voiceless and their interests uncared for."
The gap between the richest and the rest:
The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast."
With such enormous inequalities, whither political, economic, technological, religious and social utopia?
Lots of people have tried to fix this exact problem over the centuries but the most successful efforts have been some combination of socialism and capitalism. You need a system that acknowledges the fact that some people are more gifted than others and to get the most out of them they have to be rewarded while at the same time providing an opportunity for the less gifted but still hard working majority to make a descent living all the while providing a basic safety net for those who are disabled and a less generous safety net for those who are unwilling to work.
That sounds fine. But the point is for some reason inequality has increased enormously with wealth concentrated on an incredible scale within 2 % of people. That's got nothing or at least very little to do with getting the most out of people by rewarding them.
Everyone complains about the system we have but I am not sure there is any magic bullet. You would need some breakthrough idea and a citizenry that has the willingness to experiment with the understanding that experiments can sometimes go wrong and make things much worse.
Well there is something seriously wrong leading to tremendous suffering globally. Rewards should be in line with what would create the desired outcome of getting the best out of certain people. There is no need for the damaging and obscene inequality that we have. It should be a top priority to deal with it. What else is more important? Well CC would say global warming, well perhaps I don't know but this is at least second. There is no single better way to reduce suffering than simply share the wealth fairly. Well I'm sure it's not simple really, but we should be trying to do it. I really can't be bothered to vote, I'm sure you think that's bad, but the reason is there is no political party that shows any sign of being interest in tackling the main problem which is inequality. I guess that is because they are funded by the rich.
Well there is something seriously wrong leading to tremendous suffering globally. Rewards should be in line with what would create the desired outcome of getting the best out of certain people. There is no need for the damaging and obscene inequality that we have. It should be a top priority to deal with it. What else is more important? ... There is no single better way to reduce suffering than simply share the wealth fairly.
And what is "fairly"? You are never going to get everyone to agree on that. It all sounds so simple until you get down to the details. Everyone is happy to complain but I have yet to see anyone come up with a workable solution. Before we tip the leaky boat you need to show me that we have a better one to hop into. Eventually it may get bad enough that there could be some sort of revolt but revolts are chaotic and only rarely result in an improvement for the average citizen. Most revolts do nothing more than replace one corrupt lopsided system with another one that's just as bad or worse if history is any example. The first step to fixing something is to recognize the problem and bring it to the attention of others (complaining), but complaining has limited utility if it isn't quickly replaced by reasonable solutions, better ideas and the ability to get the public to support them.

Just a note from history. Wealth management was also a problem in ancient Egypt for example. The wealth would gather with the temples, who owned most the good lands and controlled most the people and trade. It was the Pharaoh’s job to keep the earth in balance and the people happy. It was said that earth got out of balance because of greed. It is said that about every twenty-five to thirty years the Pharaoh would have to re-balance the earth. The re-balance was accomplished by the Pharaoh redistributing the land and wealth among the people.

Just a note from history. Wealth management was also a problem in ancient Egypt for example. The wealth would gather with the temples, who owned most the good lands and controlled most the people and trade. It was the Pharaoh’s job to keep the earth in balance and the people happy. It was said that earth got out of balance because of greed. It is said that about every twenty-five to thirty years the Pharaoh would have to re-balance the earth. The re-balance was accomplished by the Pharaoh redistributing the land and wealth among the people.
And yet the pharaoh still had enough wealth to build his temples and pyramids. Something tells me the wealth distribution did't make it all the way to the top.
This is appalling! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
I recognize the 'global problem' of wealth inequality. To be honest, I am not very informed in the field of international economics but recognize the need to have objective approach. 1. Hypotheses: a. The world inequality or accumulation of wealth stresses poorest regions on Earth endangering lives of billions b. Even though 130 billion is given to aid corporations make over a trillion of profits essentially making things worse for third world country people 2. What are the loopholes which enable corporations to make profits from the rich countries? 3. Can we hold them accountable? I am just asking questions.
Just a note from history. Wealth management was also a problem in ancient Egypt for example. The wealth would gather with the temples, who owned most the good lands and controlled most the people and trade. It was the Pharaoh’s job to keep the earth in balance and the people happy. It was said that earth got out of balance because of greed. It is said that about every twenty-five to thirty years the Pharaoh would have to re-balance the earth. The re-balance was accomplished by the Pharaoh redistributing the land and wealth among the people.
And yet the pharaoh still had enough wealth to build his temples and pyramids. Something tells me the wealth distribution did't make it all the way to the top. I would have to say that after the re-balancing the Pharaoh got richer. After all, the first born of every animal and man belonged to the Pharaoh and an amount of the harvest also went to the Pharaoh, their tax system. It is my belief that many of temples and pyramids building projects were more of a social project. It was a time when the people partied a lot. The temples had great entertainment. I think they had to create work in the off harvest season to handle the all the alcoholic and gambling problems they had. Sort of a warfare system. I have read where people would work a second job to be able to afford to be a slave at a temple. The Temples had great food, and entertainment and a good health care system for the workers.
Just a note from history. Wealth management was also a problem in ancient Egypt for example. The wealth would gather with the temples, who owned most the good lands and controlled most the people and trade. It was the Pharaoh’s job to keep the earth in balance and the people happy. It was said that earth got out of balance because of greed. It is said that about every twenty-five to thirty years the Pharaoh would have to re-balance the earth. The re-balance was accomplished by the Pharaoh redistributing the land and wealth among the people.
And yet the pharaoh still had enough wealth to build his temples and pyramids. Something tells me the wealth distribution did't make it all the way to the top. I would have to say that after the re-balancing the Pharaoh got richer. After all, the first born of every animal and man belonged to the Pharaoh and an amount of the harvest also went to the Pharaoh, their tax system. It is my belief that many of temples and pyramids building projects were more of a social project. It was a time when the people partied a lot. The temples had great entertainment. I think they had to create work in the off harvest season to handle the all the alcoholic and gambling problems they had. Sort of a warfare system. I have read where people would work a second job to be able to afford to be a slave at a temple. The Temples had great food, and entertainment and a good health care system for the workers. Since you show an interest in this you may want to look into one of the Great Courses titled "The Other Side of History" by Robert Garland. Its an interesting look at history from the viewpoint of the average citizen through the ages. Its a very different perspective than the one we get from traditional history lessons that look at leaders and wars. Its available at Audible if you have an account.
This is appalling! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
Yes it is. So many problems are viewed as being very difficult to deal with but in fact it looks like simply sharing fairly could make an enormous difference in a lot of cases. Why isn't there more demand for doing just that? I really don't know. Well there's wealth disparity and then there is income disparity, also. The latter serves to exacerbate the former. Our POTUS, in the State of the Union, last night, advocated many strategies that could help with income disparity (which BTW has increased now for the past 35 years or so). It is has been politically unviable, for a while now, to take the actions he advocated. (Although reforming healthcare has probably helped, there are forces that would do away with that, if possible.) With Republican ideological dogma being what it is, and the US having a Republican Congress and an essentially Republican Supreme Court, and close to 1/2 the population willing to vote Republican, and with our system of politics, in which those with wealth have the most influence on policies,... demands for less disparity are likely to be ineffectual, even here. And we are repeatedly told that we have the best system in the world. So the rest of the world must really be in trouble.

[There is analysis done by Ralph Nader which touched on wealth inequality?
RALPH NADER: Well, he was too vague on that. What he should have done is said that Ronald Reagan supported capital gains and dividend taxes like ordinary income, so there wasn’t this split where the rich get lower tax on thei capital gains or dividend. And he didn’t tie in any idea of revenues for the public works program that he touted.
You know, Amy, State of the Union speeches are signaling presentations. They signal by what they say, how they say it and what they don’t say. And on that criteria, it wasn’t a very coherent speech. He stressed civil liberties and never mentioned what he’s going to do about the renewal of the notorious PATRIOT Act provisions. He said that there should be more oil and gas production, and then he warned about climate change. He said there should be strengthening unions and voices of workers, and then he took it away with the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which exports jobs, and he wants to ram through Congress a voiceless fast track that prohibits amendments and labor from having a role in that deliberation.
And he didn’t even mention the hundreds of billions of dollars of commercial fraud on Medicare and Medicaid and patients in the private sector—hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate crime he never mentioned. He could have done a convergence with the Republicans on auditing the Pentagon, which sounds dull, but it’s a huge issue that the rank and file on both sides support, in contrast to the leadership in Congress. He could have easily converged, because as senator, Senator Obama teamed up with Senator Coburn, the Republican, to put the full text of hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate contracts online, so competitors, taxpayers, the media, the academia can analyze and prune the huge waste, fraud and corruption.
Also notice that he said again, “Close down Gitmo.” We’ve heard that song before. Again, he didn’t mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all.
And I think what is most troubling is what he avoided saying, like he desperately needs funding for his programs, like day care and so on. And he didn’t mention the squeeze on the IRS budget by the Republicans, so the IRS now cannot begin to collect what they say is $300 billion of evaded taxes every year. That’s $300 billion of evaded taxes, not avoided taxes, which David Cay Johnston will be talking about.
So, I think he missed a lot of opportunities. And it was not specific enough. It was not coherent enough. And he could have gone for more convergence with the Republicans, as I point out in great detail in my book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Coalition to Dismantle the Corporate State.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/21/ralph_nader_on_what_was_missing
Much of President Obama’s State of the Union address focused on the economy and efforts to bolster the middle class with a push for education, child care and tax breaks. But did he go far enough? We speak to Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic and former presidential candidate. His latest book is called “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.”
JUAN GONZLEZ: We continue our look at President Obama’s State of the Union, in which he laid out his vision for his final two years in office. Much of his speech focused on the economy and efforts to bolster the middle class with a push for education, child care and tax breaks.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So what does middle-class economics require in our time? First, middle-class economics means helping working families feel more secure in a world of constant change. That means helping folks afford child care, college, healthcare, a home, retirement. And my budget will address each of these issues, lowering the taxes of working families and putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year.
Here’s one example. During World War II, when men like my grandfather went off to war, having women like my grandmother in the workforce was a national security priority. So this country provided universal child care. In today’s economy, when having both parents in the workforce is an economic necessity for many families, we need affordable, high-quality child care more than ever. It’s not a nice-to-have; it’s a must-have.
So it’s time we stop treating child care as a side issue or as a women’s issue, and treat it like the national economic priority that it is for all of us. And that’s why—that’s why my plan will make quality child care more available and more affordable for every middle-class and low-income family with young children in America, by creating more slots and a new tax cut of up to $3,000 per child, per year.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama last night in his second-to-last State of the Union address. For more, we’re joined by Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. His latest book is called Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. And joining us from Rochester, David Cay Johnston, investigative reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize while at The New York Times. He’s currently a columnist for Tax Analysts and Al Jazeera, as well as a contributing editor at Newsweek. His latest book, Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality. He’s joining us from PBS station WXXI in Rochester.
Ralph, let’s begin with you. The whole issue of tax cuts and taxing the rich?
RALPH NADER: Well, he was too vague on that. What he should have done is said that Ronald Reagan supported capital gains and dividend taxes like ordinary income, so there wasn’t this split where the rich get lower tax on their capital gains or dividend. And he didn’t tie in any idea of revenues for the public works program that he touted.
You know, Amy, State of the Union speeches are signaling presentations. They signal by what they say, how they say it and what they don’t say. And on that criteria, it wasn’t a very coherent speech. He stressed civil liberties and never mentioned what he’s going to do about the renewal of the notorious PATRIOT Act provisions. He said that there should be more oil and gas production, and then he warned about climate change. He said there should be strengthening unions and voices of workers, and then he took it away with the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which exports jobs, and he wants to ram through Congress a voiceless fast track that prohibits amendments and labor from having a role in that deliberation.
And he didn’t even mention the hundreds of billions of dollars of commercial fraud on Medicare and Medicaid and patients in the private sector—hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate crime he never mentioned. He could have done a convergence with the Republicans on auditing the Pentagon, which sounds dull, but it’s a huge issue that the rank and file on both sides support, in contrast to the leadership in Congress. He could have easily converged, because as senator, Senator Obama teamed up with Senator Coburn, the Republican, to put the full text of hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate contracts online, so competitors, taxpayers, the media, the academia can analyze and prune the huge waste, fraud and corruption.
Also notice that he said again, “Close down Gitmo.” We’ve heard that song before. Again, he didn’t mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all.
And I think what is most troubling is what he avoided saying, like he desperately needs funding for his programs, like day care and so on. And he didn’t mention the squeeze on the IRS budget by the Republicans, so the IRS now cannot begin to collect what they say is $300 billion of evaded taxes every year. That’s $300 billion of evaded taxes, not avoided taxes, which David Cay Johnston will be talking about.
So, I think he missed a lot of opportunities. And it was not specific enough. It was not coherent enough. And he could have gone for more convergence with the Republicans, as I point out in great detail in my book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Coalition to Dismantle the Corporate State.

This is appalling! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
Yes it is. So many problems are viewed as being very difficult to deal with but in fact it looks like simply sharing fairly could make an enormous difference in a lot of cases. Why isn't there more demand for doing just that? I really don't know. StephenLawrence, I think that a lot of that wealth is digital money. Made up in computers. Wanting to understand the America money system I spent some time researching the subject. One thing I did was to follow the working career of a NSA banker. Whose career took him around the world in business operating clandestine operations for varies government departments. He is now a billionaire Philanthropist. But just like all the other operations, it is a front for the NSA. He may qualify on the list of rich people you are talking about, but it is a front for the government. For example we have been in an economical war with China for the last sixty years and it is still going on. I have a question for you. If people or businessmen were in control of the wealth. Why did the price of oil drop at a time it would hurt Russia. It is all political. No businessmen or billionaires would drop or over produce the oil like is being done today. President Regan couldn’t get a report on anything from the government that was correct or right, or that he could trust. Why would it be any different today for you and me?

Consider the Nordic model.
From the wiki here]

The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.
Universalist welfare state:
These include support for a "universalist" welfare state (relative to other developed countries) which is aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility and ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights, as well as for stabilizing the economy, alongside a commitment to free trade. The Nordic model is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximizing labor force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.
Best governed in the world?
In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism’s harsher effects, and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world."
The happiest nations?
The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.
Hybrid economics?
Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" economics which features a blend of capitalist and socialist visions. According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies intended to improve capitalism as opposed to a system to replace capitalism. Kenworthy advocates for the U.S. to make a gradual transition to an economic system similar to those of the Nordic countries.
But, from this article in the FT here] Concern rises as cracks appear in Nordic model
But among Nordic political and business leaders concerns are increasingly emerging about the model’s sustainability. In a series of interviews with the Financial Times, they pointed to mounting challenges from immigration, stagnating productivity, rising inequality and sluggish economic growth in Finland and Denmark as many called for urgent fixes.
Need for change?
But even Sweden’s prime minister is convinced of the need for change if the Nordic model is to survive. “There are some ingredients that I believe we have built into the system – trust, equality," he says. “But it doesn’t come as a birthright, it needs to be continually developed."[/quot]

That’s interesting Kkwan.
One thing that strikes me is it tells us quite a lot about happiness, since they are quite cold countries and that itself is a negative for happiness.

Well there is something seriously wrong leading to tremendous suffering globally. Rewards should be in line with what would create the desired outcome of getting the best out of certain people. There is no need for the damaging and obscene inequality that we have. It should be a top priority to deal with it. What else is more important? ... There is no single better way to reduce suffering than simply share the wealth fairly.
And what is "fairly"? You are never going to get everyone to agree on that. You will never get everyone to agree on that. But there are certain facts nevertheless. The only justification for not treating people equally (in terms of sharing) are consequential reasons. So there are facts about when we've gone way beyond that.
The first step to fixing something is to recognize the problem and bring it to the attention of others (complaining), but complaining has limited utility if it isn't quickly replaced by reasonable solutions, better ideas and the ability to get the public to support them.
Well, we need to see why certain people and areas are ending up much poorer than others. To a certain extent we need to change the rules. "Yes but how" you say. OK fair enough but why aren't we much more interested in trying to work that out? If we work out what rules are doing the damage we can see what to change. But apart from that we can simply redistribute wealth more. There is no point in a lot of people having so little they are miserable and others having much more than can help them to be happy. It benefits nobody at all. One concrete proposal I'd have is a maximum wage.
The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.
The concept of Nordic model is viable to a certain extend to address topics like income inequality but, I think, there are nuances: USA is just LARGER and change in policy is more difficult due non homogenous features: states have different access to resources, different geographic features, different climate features, and different worldviews of the populace. If the Nordic model is capable to provide incentive to work for everyone while keeping the market features including competition. Something else to consider 1. What would be the tax rates in the North Model if one would increase public services? 2. What counter arguments may be offered by extreme capitalists like Koch brothers? 3. What would the system of checks and balances be? 4. How would the major corporations behave in the Nordic model? I am talking about corporations which depend on cheap labor in China (ex: Walmart, JC Penney, Dillards, MACY, and so on) 5 How would oil companies behave whose responsibility to satisfy the interests of share holders and investors? 6. Even if, Bernard Sanders, the proponent of Nordic model or 'social democrat' runs', how can he provide counterarguments to proponents of 'free market fundamentalism' model like Koch brothers? They have more monetary resources than he does and would be able to invest into public relations industry which understands psychological techniques to control public opinion and persuade them to support market fundamentalism.(Americans for Prosperity comes to mind) 7. Given the high tax burdens, would the general public accept 40-50 % taxes? 8. Give the term 'social cohesion', I doubt the USA public would like it. Based on my observations, our culture is narcissistic, pseudo individualistic, greedy, and features this 'huckster business oriented worldview with the modus operandi of deceiving once another' (high divorce rates, short attention span, commercialization with dollar sign on everything). I afraid, the social democracy would not work for people with such a mindset. Now, this is just a far fetched hypothesis based on observations with relatively small sample size. I have not been able to observe people in states like California, NE, and NW parts of the United States. In short my hypothesis would be that Oklahoma and Alabama may not accept social democracy but Rhode Island and Oregon would. 9. Free Education: the for profit corporate institutions would fight this in United States. Look at the textbook costs: 200 $ for one book for Biology, 95 $ for clickers, and 75$ lab manuals and so on. However, middle class may find it viable. 10. Collective sharing and labor protection: this will not work for states like Oklahoma due mindset of people I described in 8 I would support Social Democratic Features due my personal beliefs but the populace of my country, USA, would not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model