Richest 85 PEOPLE own as much as HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION

Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world
As World Economic Forum starts in Davos, development charity claims that growing inequality has been driven by a 'power grab' by wealthy elites

The world's wealthiest people aren't known for travelling by bus, but if they fancied a change of scene then the richest 85 people on the globe – who between them control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population put together – could squeeze onto a single double-decker.

The extent to which so much global wealth has become corralled by a virtual handful of the so-called 'global elite' is exposed in a new report from Oxfam on Monday. It warned that those richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world's population.

The wealth of the 1% richest people in the world amounts to $110tn (£60.88tn), or 65 times as much as the poorest half of the world, added the development charity, which fears this concentration of economic resources is threatening political stability and driving up social tensions.

It's a chilling reminder of the depths of wealth inequality as political leaders and top business people head to the snowy peaks of Davos for this week's World Economic Forum. Few, if any, will be arriving on anything as common as a bus, with private jets and helicoptors pressed into service as many of the world's most powerful people convene to discuss the state of the global economy over four hectic days of meetings, seminars and parties in the exclusive ski resort.

Winnie Byanyima, the Oxfam executive director who will attend the Davos meetings, said: "It is staggering that in the 21st Century, half of the world's population – that's three and a half billion people – own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all fit comfortably on a double-decker bus."

Oxfam also argues that this is no accident either, saying growing inequality has been driven by a "power grab" by wealthy elites, who have co-opted the political process to rig the rules of the economic system in their favour.

In the report, entitled Working For The Few (summary here), Oxfam warned that the fight against poverty cannot be won until wealth inequality has been tackled.

"Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table," Byanyima said.

Oxfam called on attendees at this week's World Economic Forum to take a personal pledge to tackle the problem by refraining from dodging taxes or using their wealth to seek political favours.

As well as being morally dubious, economic inequality can also exacerbate other social problems such as gender inequality, Oxfam warned. Davos itself is also struggling in this area, with the number of female delegates actually dropping from 17% in 2013 to 15% this year.

How richest use their wealth to capture opportunites

Polling for Oxfam's report found people in countries around the world - including two-thirds of those questioned in Britain - believe that the rich have too much influence over the direction their country is heading.

Byanyima explained:

"In developed and developing countries alike we are increasingly living in a world where the lowest tax rates, the best health and education and the opportunity to influence are being given not just to the rich but also to their children.

"Without a concerted effort to tackle inequality, the cascade of privilege and of disadvantage will continue down the generations. We will soon live in a world where equality of opportunity is just a dream. In too many countries economic growth already amounts to little more than a 'winner takes all' windfall for the richest."
Working for the Few - Oxfam report Source: F. Alvaredo, A. B. Atkinson, T. Piketty and E. Saez, (2013) ‘The World Top Incomes Database’, http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/ Only includes countries with data in 1980 and later than 2008. Photograph: Oxfam

The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades, the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens, anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available, said the report.

This "capture of opportunities" by the rich at the expense of the poor and middle classes has led to a situation where 70% of the world's population live in countries where inequality has increased since the 1980s and 1% of families own 46% of global wealth - almost £70tn.

Opinion polls in Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the US, UK and Netherlands found that a majority in each country believe that wealthy people exert too much influence. Concern was strongest in Spain, followed by Brazil and India and least marked in the Netherlands.

In the UK, some 67% agreed that "the rich have too much influence over where this country is headed" - 37% saying that they agreed "strongly" with the statement - against just 10% who disagreed, 2% of them strongly.

The WEF's own Global Risks report recently identified widening income disparities as one of the biggest threats to the world community.

Oxfam is calling on those gathered at WEF to pledge: to support progressive taxation and not dodge their own taxes; refrain from using their wealth to seek political favours that undermine the democratic will of their fellow citizens; make public all investments in companies and trusts for which they are the ultimate beneficial owners; challenge governments to use tax revenue to provide universal healthcare, education and social protection; demand a living wage in all companies they own or control; and challenge other members of the economic elite to join them in these pledges.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Charts in the article


I think that is statistic shows exactly what is wrong with this world. In the end, people simply won't stand for it and will take matters into their own hands, and the rich will call them terrorists.

They are lucky and they own a lot of money.

But why do you say it is wrong sassy?

If your neighbour had something you didn't, would that be wrong?

Where would you like the line to be drawn?

If you can't see, if it isn't instinctive, you're a lost cause.

Sassy wrote:If you can't see, if it isn't instinctive, you're a lost cause.

sassy, if you don't want to discuss your post, don't post it.

I am trying to get your thoughts out in to the open so I can respond.

The information is there. The point was to inform people in case they didn't know. That statistic is completely and utter deplorable and is growing all the time.

The WEF's own Global Risks report recently identified widening income disparities as one of the biggest threats to the world community.


The discussion isn't able what level of disparity is acceptable, it is about how we can change what is going on so that the world doesn't go into meltdown.

There has been "income disparity" for as long as humans have existed - you can see "income disparity" in groups of apes and monkeys where some individuals have more power and benefits that others in the group.

Equally as long there have been efforts to remove it and make all men equal - with a uniform lack of success.

Who is talking about equality? 85 people have as much as half the world? Are you seriously trying to justify that?

Sassy's right, folks. Yes, there will always be income disparity -- it's a fact of life. But surely we can do better than this kind of radical disparity.

I've always wondered, what do the world's richest 85 people do with all that money -- eat it? Wipe their asses with it? Masturbate to it? Probably the last one ... but seriously, what do they need with all that? How much money is enough? Why should billions of people suffer while a spoiled few have more money than they could possibly ever use?

Absolutely right. VIVA LA REVOLUTION  ::rambo:: ::rambo:: ::rambo:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::lightsab:: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sassy's right, folks. Yes, there will always be income disparity -- it's a fact of life. But surely we can do better than this kind of radical disparity.

I've always wondered, what do the world's richest 85 people do with all that money -- eat it? Wipe their asses with it? Masturbate to it? Probably the last one ... but seriously, what do they need with all that? How much money is enough? Why should billions of people suffer while a spoiled few have more money than they could possibly ever use?

Ben you have put your finger right on it - what does having all that money mean? What is the disparity in real terms?

Well these people have enough food.
They have full health care.
They can keep their environment at the preferred temperature.
Possibly may be safer - but that would be hard to quantify.

At this point I am struggling. What they really have is far more symbols - but the symbols do not actually mean anything. What is the real difference between a ferrari and any other vehicle even one put together from bits of multiple other broken ones? Both provide transport without physical effort that is all - the fact that one looks shiny and red and the other like a heap of rusting metal is irrelevant. Having lots of ferraris means even less - one person can only travel in one car at a time. Same argument extends to boats planes and spacecraft - only one can be used at a time.

What is actually being said is that these people will have a greater life expectancy and that live will be more physically comfortable - but those qualifications are not limited to 85.

Is the actual disparity between these 85 and the rest of humanity any greater than that between the alpha chimp and the lowest in the group? We perceive it to be greater because the number of symbols is greater but when boiled down all those symbols equate to is life expectancy and how comfortable that life is.

Sassy wrote:If you can't see, if it isn't instinctive, you're a lost cause.

I see we advocate theft from those with more than you. Great solution not.

Your envy pours out of every pore.

I might add Sassy were this money to be taken by force and redistributed when it gravitated back to a few again would you steal it again and again.

Who decides what is too much. You Lefties I presume. I have heard some lefties say that beyond £50k is too much.

Finally let me say this these people can't take it with them to the next life death duties will redistribute the bulk of this as well you know.

Your envy is palpable your motives all too clear.

Envy? You are so joking, I couldn't live with that amount of money knowing what was happening to the rest of humanity. And if you can't see how sick it is for 85 people to have all that when there are so many in such terrible situations, you have no morals, no concience, no empathy, no humanity. But we knew that anyway.

China has to be one of the biggest offenders. While not being a single person, their gold reserves are now the largest of any country in the world. They have their millionaires buying up properties and businesses in the UK, Europe and the US, while at the same time keep their people (peasants rather) living in the most abject poverty. Surely they have more than enough so that everyone there can live in relative comfort. Don't even start me on North Korea!

Tess, you gave me such a fright using that avatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, Clarkson, it's very common for rich people to grapple with guilt for having so much while they know that billions don't have enough to survive on:

It's a Halloween miracle: A member of the 1 percent is fighting for the rest of us, and probably spooking the hell out of his own kind.

Wealthy people need to stop whining about the taxes they pay, realize their success is mostly dumb luck and pay even higher taxes to help the less fortunate, Bill Gross, the billionaire founder and chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., wrote to his wealthy investors on Thursday.

"Having gotten rich at the expense of labor, the guilt sets in and I begin to feel sorry for the less well-off," Gross writes in his latest monthly missive, entitled "Scrooge McDucks," posted on the website of PIMCO, the world's biggest bond fund. His letters are usually colorful and sometimes self-critical. But this one is notable for its direct mockery of his own wealthy peers and clients:

"Admit that you, and I and others in the magnificent '1%' grew up in a gilded age of credit, where those who borrowed money or charged fees on expanding financial assets had a much better chance of making it to the big tent than those who used their hands for a living."

But Gross is not just assuaging his personal guilt by penning a cri de wallet: He suggests the soaring income inequality of the past few decades is a serious problem for the entire U.S. economy ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/bill-gross-scrooge-mcducks-taxes_n_4182039.html

I understand, you place a lot of importance on the concept of ownership. But if you and I washed up on a desert island that had one coconut tree, and I grabbed a stick and declared that I owned all the coconuts, I doubt you'd politely roll over and starve.

Oh Tess, please change it ... I beg of you ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh Tess, please change it ... I beg of you ...

Tee hee - couldn't resist! Okay I'll change it.

Thank you, bless you

And welcome aboard, by the way.

sphinx wrote:
There has been "income disparity" for as long as humans have existed - you can see "income disparity" in groups of apes and monkeys where some individuals have more power and benefits that others in the group.

Equally as long there have been efforts to remove it and make all men equal - with a uniform lack of success.

  

STOP talking such a load of tripe, Sphinx...

YOUR opinions only show that you have NO idea about the subject..

YOUR gibberish above simply exposes how far out of your depth you are on this this topic...   

Oh, and as far as life expectancy goes -- there are large parts of this world where you can only expect to live to your late 40s or early 50s. I PROMISE you something could be done without affecting the lifestyles of the rich and famous one iota. Sitting on billions while others starve is a crime, and if you can't see that, you're lost.

Clarkson wrote:

Sassy wrote:If you can't see, if it isn't instinctive, you're a lost cause.

I see we advocate theft from those with more than you. Great solution not.

.............................

  

DRINKY doesn't give a damn that it was inevitably THEFT of some kind that gave MOST of those 85 individuals their wealth in the beginning...

DRINKY is all in favour of companies stealing as much of the public resources and public monies that they can..

DRINKY'S rants go to prove that he IS quite happy to see his wealthy "betters" stealing to their hearts content ~ BUT ONLY as long as it's his "Lords and Masters" that do the stealing. preferably through the guise of a multinational corporation. OR perhaps a "Royal Family"..

GOD FORBID if the workers and the downtrodden should ever take it into their collective heads to drag back a share of that unearned wealth that spineless Drinky's heroes and idols have gradually stolen out from under the rest of us over the centuries !  ::lightsab:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and as far as life expectancy goes -- there are large parts of this world where you can only expect to live to your late 40s or early 50s. I PROMISE you something could be done without affecting the lifestyles of the rich and famous one iota. Sitting on billions while others starve is a crime, and if you can't see that, you're lost.

I'm afraid that there appears to be quite a few that are lost!

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and as far as life expectancy goes -- there are large parts of this world where you can only expect to live to your late 40s or early 50s. I PROMISE you something could be done without affecting the lifestyles of the rich and famous one iota. Sitting on billions while others starve is a crime, and if you can't see that, you're lost.

Yeah I seem to remember someone else saying something similar in 1984 encouraging people to throw billions at the starving - with the result that err......uh......

Oh yeah we still have just as many starving although not as many as the population increase between then and now - so the population has simply increased with no change in how many are starving.

Unfortunately the answer to the worlds problems is not throwing money at them.

You haven't got it at all.   Read the OP again.   The inbalance is growing BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY USE THE MONEY TO MAKE THEMSELVES RICHER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POORER.   Throwing money at something doesn't even enter into the equation. And the reasons why throwing money didn't work, was because big conglomerations and banks put their interests first and do things like making a country sell it's food supply in order to pay debt, which, because of the interest rates, they never get to the bottom of paying. You really should read about it.

Yes isnt it strange that the point at which Bob Geldof started pouring millions into feeding the starving his income boosted massively because of it so he now has more money than if hadnt bothered.

sphinx wrote:Yeah I seem to remember someone else saying something similar in 1984 encouraging people to throw billions at the starving - with the result that err......uh......

Oh yeah we still have just as many starving although not as many as the population increase between then and now - so the population has simply increased with no change in how many are starving.

Unfortunately the answer to the worlds problems is not throwing money at them.  

Actually, the money has been making progress. Not enough progress has been made, but we are making strides in the fight against global hunger:

Between 2011 and 2013, a total of 827 million people were hungry in developing nations; that's 169 million less than the same statistic 20 years ago.

More than 60 countries have reached, or are expected to reach, their Millennium Development hunger targets, and the Global Hunger Index released this week shows that overall, sub-Saharan Africa has a better score than South Asia. That is a twist on the thinking that Africa has the worst levels of hunger and it is a show of progress for the continent.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/10/why-are-so-many-people-still-hungry-20131017102112795784.html

Jean Ziegler was until recently (2000-2008) the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and subsequently, in a similar function, he served on the Advisory Committee to the UN Human Rights Council. He is also a vocal critic of global capitalism's effects on the developing world, especially Africa.

The last few days he has been doing the media circuit promoting his new book, "Mass Destruction: The Geopolitics of Hunger" (the French title) or "We Let Them Starve: The Mass Destruction in The Third World" (the German title). There's no English title available yet.

Ziegler is a well-known Swiss author and politician — his writing is prolific and ever since his first publication (Sociology of the New Africa, 1964), he has taken on the cause of the developing world, against imperialism, capitalism, and injustice. In 1964, as a young academic, he chauffeured Che Guevara around Geneva when the Cuban revolutionary visited the UN.

His combative and at times polemical style has earned him much admiration, but also vilification, and legal persecution. As a socialist member of the Swiss parliament, he particularly attracted the ire of Switzerland's liberal-conservatives, closely related to big business, and of course the major Swiss banks, for denouncing their hiding away of stolen funds, such as those of former dictator Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, of those of Jewish people who perished in the holocaust, and of all kinds of dubious origin that ended up in Swiss banks.

While his fighting spirit, his relentless engagement for justice across the world, and his international standing have earned him respect, he has remained a thorn in the side of Switzerland-based businesses (such as Nestlé) who he has accused of active participation in practices that kept developing countries poor and dependent.

With this in mind, it is then quite understandable that business journalist Philip Löpfe's interview with Ziegler for newsnet, the online presence of the Swiss newspapers Basler Zeitung and the Zürich-based Tages-Anzeiger, would be a challenging affair. And yet, the combative and perhaps provocative personality of Ziegler and his engagement with poor countries alone do not fully explain the nature of the questions he faced. Rather, Löpfe's questions seem to reflect the same strained arrogance as those whose profiteering from global misery was usually explained away as natural and which has now, as global neoliberalism struggles and inequalities become more glaring, been opened up to closer scrutiny and contestation.

Some excerpts from the interview, which I translated from the German:

Ziegler: According to the UN World Food Programme, there is enough food in the world for 12 billion people. If today people are still starving, then this is organized crime, mass murder. Every five seconds, one child under the age of ten dies, one billion people are permanently and heavily undernourished.

Löpfe: [Your] book's title is "We let them starve". I am not aware that I let anyone starve.

Ziegler: That is true, but we are all accomplices. We allow multinational food corporations and speculators to decide every day who is eating and living, and who is starving and dying.

Löpfe: What should the individual do? Donate money? Eat less meat?

Ziegler: It is mainly about becoming politically active in order to put an end to the murderous activities of food speculators and multinationals. We can do so, we live in a democracy.

Löpfe: Food speculation has existed for thousands of years. What is wrong when a farmer seeks insurance against bad harvests or when a baker ensures that his supply of flour is stable?

Ziegler: Nothing. But that is not the point ... The commodities market was 'financialised'. Speculators are making billions, while millions of people starve to death.

[...]

Löpfe: How could we avoid such speculation?

Ziegler: We could exclude all non-producers and non-consumers from the commodities exchange – in this sense only the farmer and the baker, through the commodities exchange, engage in trade with each other.

Löpfe: However, the experts have agreed that during emergencies, such as droughts and floods, and so on, commodities exchange and trade should remain open. It was disastrous that during the famine of 2008 some countries blocked the export of rice.

Ziegler: Famines, such as in 2008 and 2011, are additional disasters; they add to the daily massacre of hunger, the so-called 'silent hunger'. It is true that at the time rice exporting countries such as Thailand and Vietnam closed their borders. Governments were afraid of riots in their own countries. That is understandable. But for a country like Senegal, importing 75% of its rice, it was a disaster.

Löpfe: Why is a country like Senegal forced to import rice? The majority of its population are still subsistence farmers.

Ziegler: It remains a fact that in terms of percentage of the population, there are no more starving people anywhere than in Africa. About a third of the population's men, women and children are permanently undernourished.

Löpfe: Could one not argue in a provocative way that Africa is not starving because of the speculators but because it is too poor for the speculators: there is nothing to be earned there.

Ziegler: No, no. African countries have incredible civilisations, based on agriculture, with much knowledge and very fertile soils.

Löpfe: Why is it that Africa is the continent where most people starve and which imports more than a quarter of its food supply?

Ziegler: Because the colonial pact is still enforced.

Löpfe: Isn't this a bit too simple? Colonialism has been over for more than half a century.

Ziegler: But there still is a small upper class, dependent on rich countries, and extremely corrupt. Again Senegal: The country exports peanuts and at the same time imports three quarters of its food requirements.

Löpfe: Why?

Ziegler: Because the colonial pact was never broken. The Senegalese farmers are forced to grow and exports peanuts because the revenue serves to pay for foreign debt. At the same time, Europe sells its food surplus at dumping prices on the African markets. How can a small farmer survive under these conditions?

Löpfe: African farmers are not very productive. Their productivity is less than 10 percent of Europe's agriculture. Are they not just lazy?

Ziegler: On the contrary. Nobody works harder than farmers in Africa. They just cannot thrive because they are not supported: no irrigation, no seed, no draft animals, no tractors, no fertilizer, nothing.

[...]

So there you have it. Like the now jobless Greeks, if only those poor people weren't so lazy...

But there is more to this story. Löpfe's 'provocative' questions — especially his last one — might be seen as a thinly disguised nod to the media owners who have recently acquired one of the papers in which the interview was published.

Georges Bindschedler, co-investor in the rather cynically called 'Medienvielfalt Holding' (Media Diversity Holding) makes it clear why it was necessary to acquire the newspaper.

In an interview last year, he elaborated on their 'mission'. He suggests that the 'liberal music' is not heard loud enough in the Swiss media landscape, and hence Swiss voters fail to understand important political issues, and vote the wrong way, one might add. In particular, he was referring to the rejection by Swiss voters of the rationalisation of a national health care system earlier this year, which according to some analysts would have led further down the slippery slope to a two-tier system – one for the rich, and one for the poor.

As everywhere in the world, corporate control of the media is not about safeguarding the diversity of opinions, as he claims, but about propagating more neoliberal, pro-business values and ideas.

Perhaps it is a sign of the times that even in Switzerland, the sheltered island of wealth and prosperity, neoliberal capital feels the need to step up its propaganda efforts.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve


China is gradually taking African mineral resources. They do help in some ways, but they take the minerals in return, minerals that are Africa's life blood. Then the oil. China and America both want it. Starvation in Africa has never been about Aid, it's always been about business interests.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yeah I seem to remember someone else saying something similar in 1984 encouraging people to throw billions at the starving - with the result that err......uh......

Oh yeah we still have just as many starving although not as many as the population increase between then and now - so the population has simply increased with no change in how many are starving.

Unfortunately the answer to the worlds problems is not throwing money at them.  

Actually, the money has been making progress. Not enough progress has been made, but we are making strides in the fight against global hunger:

Between 2011 and 2013, a total of 827 million people were hungry in developing nations; that's 169 million less than the same statistic 20 years ago.

More than 60 countries have reached, or are expected to reach, their Millennium Development hunger targets, and the Global Hunger Index released this week shows that overall, sub-Saharan Africa has a better score than South Asia. That is a twist on the thinking that Africa has the worst levels of hunger and it is a show of progress for the continent.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/10/why-are-so-many-people-still-hungry-20131017102112795784.html

The multi nationals would love people to think Aid is not helping and stop giving, that way they have a tighter hold and can demand more.

"Having that money is disgusting"

"You don't need money to be happy"

"now give us some"

pmsl

 

And you don't even get that its the power that is the problem and the way so few people are manipulating the world.

Sassy wrote: 

And you don't even get that its the power that is the problem and the way so few people are manipulating the world.

And a big lizard flew in to the second tower, right?

These are facts. See post on Zeigler above. There is a massive amount of evidence that has been verified and is recorded multi national business. It is not a conspiracy theory.

And the power split would be the same regardless of money.

The is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. How do you think they have the power, because they are superbeings, or being they have the money to buy it.

BigAndy9 wrote:"Having that money is disgusting"

"You don't need money to be happy"

"now give us some"

pmsl

Seriously, man, I know you are not that stupid. Can you not see the nuance that Sassy & I have been arguing? We're not talking about people who are all relatively at the same level of wealth and one group wants the other group's stuff because they're stingy. We're talking about 85 inordinately wealthy people compared to billions of truly destitute people.

Is that really so hard to understand; did I make it too complicated? I think you've got some troll DNA in your genome ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:"Having that money is disgusting"

"You don't need money to be happy"

"now give us some"

pmsl

Seriously, man, I know you are not that stupid. Can you not see the nuance that Sassy & I have been arguing? We're not talking about people who are all relatively at the same level of wealth and one group wants the other group's stuff because they're stingy. We're talking about 85 inordinately wealthy people compared to billions of truly destitute people.

Is that really so hard to understand; did I make it too complicated? I think you've got some troll DNA in your genome ...

No, just alien lol

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:"Having that money is disgusting"

"You don't need money to be happy"

"now give us some"

pmsl

Seriously, man, I know you are not that stupid. Can you not see the nuance that Sassy & I have been arguing? We're not talking about people who are all relatively at the same level of wealth and one group wants the other group's stuff because they're stingy. We're talking about 85 inordinately wealthy people compared to billions of truly destitute people.

Is that really so hard to understand; did I make it too complicated? I think you've got some troll DNA in your genome ...

And you are doing what exactly, to right this wrong, Ben?

Sassy wrote:The is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.   How do you think they have the power, because they are superbeings, or being they have the money to buy it.

And how do they get the money in the first place?

How do the likes of Gates, Jobs, etc got their money in the first place? Cause they is clever? Well I dont see a professor Hawking on the rich list and I am pretty sure he is clever too.

The fact is some human beings are born with the ability to manipulate people and circumstances - they inevitably become rich - this ability to manipulate is what we mean when we say "power". While it usually can be achieved by an ordinary person equipped with endless money that is not always the case as demonstrated by those with inherited wealth that loose vast amounts of it. Power leads to money - money does not automatically lead to power. You are confusing cause and effect.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION  ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: 

WTF else and I supposed to say  ::dunno:: 

Its unbelievable isn't it!

Well Sassy as usual a moan but no solution proffered by you. The inventors of the Tetra pack are billionaires. Do you propose we state in adavance if your invention is too clever and in the opinion of the comrades you will mean too much we will confiscate it?

If someone were to discover a simple means of producing fusion power they would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Should we discourage all inventive folk by making it clear in advance you will not be allowed to keep the proceeds of your invention.

Perhaps you can explain how you will take this money of people if they do not reside in the UK. Do you propose to extradite them on crimes of being too rich in the opinion of the comrades.

You simply rail against what is patently been going on since the beginning of time.

I might add even if you were given your fair share of the spoils you are simply to thick to retain it and some persons considerably more able than you and more enterprising would be rich a few years later.

Are you not content with death duties as a means of levelling the disparities?

Finally you presume that these folk just sit on their billions you are wrong for the most part. Bill Gates was worth $70 billion he is giving most of it away. Likewise many other very rich folk like to give their money away to causes "THEY" think are worthy. They don't need some screaming banshee wailing about their riches and being so arrogant as to say the comrades should decide on what it is spent.

Clarkson wrote:Well Sassy as usual a moan but no solution proffered by you. The inventors of the Tetra pack are billionaires.  Do you propose we state in adavance if your invention is too clever and in the opinion of the comrades you will mean too much we will confiscate it?

If someone were to discover a simple means of producing fusion power they would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Should we discourage all inventive folk by making it clear in advance you will not be allowed to keep the proceeds of your invention.

Perhaps you can explain how you will take this money of people if they do not reside in the UK. Do you propose to extradite them on crimes of being too rich in the opinion of the comrades.

You simply rail against what is patently been going on since the beginning of time.

I might add even if you were given your fair share of the spoils you are simply to thick to retain it and some persons considerably more able than you and more enterprising would be rich a few years later.

Are you not content with death duties as a means of levelling the disparities?

Finally you presume that these folk just sit on their billions you are wrong for the most part. Bill Gates was worth $70 billion he is giving most of it away. Likewise many other very rich folk like to give their money away to causes "THEY" think are worthy. They don't need some screaming banshee wailing about their riches and being so arrogant as to say the comrades should decide on what it is spent.

It's proven that overpaid CEOs are a drain on the world economy, and that income inequality leads to all sorts of horrible social ills -- and anyone with half a brain knows the solution to this is what we have always done, which is to tax the rich more than the lower economic classes, to strengthen the social safety net and to make other worthwhile investments like health care, public infrastructure, education, etc.

@clarkson
Society (the people) decided that those number mean something, Society can decide they don’t any more.

you seem to think Rich people have some inherent, innate superiority.
they are not, they have just been winning a game of monopoly, If society get sick of the game (because for so many of us there is no point playing, we don't have enough money to buy Old Kent Road) then we can get together and FLIP THE BOARD

VIVA LA REVOLUTION ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan:

And as quickly as possible!

MORE Stats

1. Half of the world’s wealth is owned by 1% of the population.

2. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the richest have fallen in 29 of the 30 counties for which data is available. This means the wealthy are not only making more but paying a smaller percentage in taxes.

3. Wealthy individuals and companies hide $21 trillion in wealth in a web of tax havens around the world. This exceeds the total GDP of the United States.

4. Global corporations rountinely use their clout to avoid paying taxes in Africa, where poverty is most acute.

5. In the U.S. the top 1% captured 95% of the growth after the 2009 financial crisis. The bottom 90% actually became poorer.

bump for test

seems ok to me as well

I'd highly recommend checking out the documentary "Born Rich" if you've never seen it. It will show you that the vast majority of the very wealthy were essentially born that way; I was also struck by one billionaire who was asked how much money would be enough for him and he responded, with no humor whatsoever, "It's never enough." Almost sounded like an addict.

Here's a quote from one of the rich kids in the docu:

"Did you ever have an encounter that rubs you the wrong way? It's whoever pisses you off. And I'm up at boarding school. And this kid's from like some shit town in Connecticut. You know, I don't know. I can just say, fuck you, I'm from New York. I can buy your family, piss off. And this is petty, and this is weak. And this is very underhanded, but it's so easy, you know."

You can see the whole thing (or at least most of it) on YouTube:

So they all earn it do they? Didn't have time to watch a lot, but it's good the lad from the Johnson and Johnson family is questioning it.