# Almost half of the world�s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.



## alingva

*Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.*



> The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest *85 people* in the world
> 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.


http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfa...apture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.pdf

And an infographic about Canadian richest people "The 99% vs The 1%"


----------



## sags

I don't see how this continues...........and doesn't cause problems of all kinds.


----------



## m3s

All these infographics are bad enough as is but for sure it is far worse than shown... Forbes lists etc are known to be inaccurate because of all the tax havens and financial secrecy etc. There are many places and ways to hide your wealth. Good luck to the youngins.


----------



## Just a Guy

You know these videos keep popping up all the time...

Yet, instead of changing people, it becomes a crutch. Cries of "get the government to change things" always arise. 

Making money isn't hard in my opinion. If an idiot like me can succeed in making money in business, real estate and stocks, anyone else should be able to as well.

The most difficult part, nearly impossible in fact, is getting other people to even try to make money. 

My real estate buddies always yell at me when I tell people how I've been making money at it (there aren't many properties out there that are cheap enough to do it, so they fear more competition). I just laugh when they do though, because in all the years I've been talking to people, I only know one guy (now a partner) who actually went out and bought a place. Several got to the "looking" stage before backing out, but most just wanted me to do it for them.

I don't think anyone can start a business, that takes a certain personality, but my investing approach (buy and hold companies I know and understand that have a reasonable price) seems to have worked quite well (I'm sure it's not the best approach, but it's made more than index funds). 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you don't like a situation, you should go out and change it. Finances is one that you can control to some extent.

Oh, and before people start going on about how you need money to start... I got injured, I lost my income for several years, and was dead broke living on credit cards with a family and no safety net. All that did was inspire me to find ways to make money without working. I also don't have any special education or anything...unless you count common sense. 

Instead of complaining about others and waiting for the government to take things from others and give it to you, get off your butt and earn it yourself. I know a bunch who have, it doesn't seem hard.


----------



## doctrine

The average Canadian, i.e. the one making $40k a year, is in the 1% of the world's richest population.


----------



## richard

It reminds me of that time in France when they had a revolution because all the poor people were mad that their AC went out for a few days when there were rolling blackouts in summer and they couldn't watch TV so they drove over in their leased Escalades and stormed the rich peoples' mansions, which turned out to be pretty easy because of their cheap all-wood construction. Hope that doesn't happen again.


----------



## Just a Guy

Even when people do revolt, having things given to you doesn't seem to work. Ask the Chinese or Russians how well that equality stuff worked out...seems they just shuffled the minority "haves" around.


----------



## Nemo2

Just a Guy said:


> Even when people do revolt, having things given to you doesn't seem to work. Ask the Chinese or Russians how well that equality stuff worked out...seems they just shuffled the minority "haves" around.


Regardless of the 'system', (or whatever the 'system' is called......_nom du jour_), the people in charge will always be the people in charge.


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> I don't see how this continues...........and doesn't cause problems of all kinds.


On this we agree.


----------



## OptsyEagle

I don't know why this surprises everyone. The pyramid shaped curve for the distribution of wealth, is a fundamental constant in our way of life and is essential for it to work as well as it does.


All wealth is, "is the ability to convince someone else to do something for you or give you something that was theirs". That is all wealth is and all it will every be. For it to work, for anyone to be rich, there must be many people that are poor. You cannot have one without the other. How can you be rich, if there is no one that is poor that wants what you have. I didn't invent this, but I do think that it is important to understand how it works.

Now, many civilizations have rejected this and attempted to change the pyramid shape of the wealth curve. The first problem is that if you simply take money from one person and give it to the other to spend, it becomes purely inflationary. If there is not a consequential increase in the production of goods and services, by redistributing this money, it will only raise the prices of the goods and services, as this increase in money bids for the same amount of goods and services available. What is worse, is that by giving the money to the poor, it not only does not increase the available goods and services, in the economy, but actually decreases it by reducing the incentive for the poor to want to work.

So you can take the money from the rich and give to the poor all you want. All you will get is more poor. It will not really help them. With all the economics studies and understanding of these things, why do people still get surprised that it is essential that some people have to have more then others, for everyone to have the maximum amount.


----------



## Nemo2

^ +1


----------



## sags

There has always been wage and wealth disparity, and there always will be.........but I think the points these studies are raising is the gap in both wealth accumulation and wages is widening at an alarming rate. 

For 85 people to control 50% of the world's wealth is just insane. That number of people could fit on any one street in North America.

Extend the growth of the gap outwards a few years..........and how can the economy or society survive?

Will farmers continue to grow food...........if they can't earn a living at it?

Will any workers continue to work in any field...........if they can't earn a living at it?

Do the 1% wealthy consume enough to offset the falling consumption of the other 99%?

If it reaches the point where people can't survive and prosper by working, they will lay down their tools and consider their time better spent doing things that lead to their own survival...........not the survival of the 1%.

Without the other 99%...............the 1% can't survive. 

But the 99% could survive without the 1%.

Most of us are in the middle or lower classes, but even for those in the upper 10% or so........everyone is losing ground at a constant rate of loss. 

People can say.......I earn my own living.........so tough luck to others, but even they can't grow their own food, provide security against threats, provide emergency medical care, provide resources for themselves to stay warm in winter, plow their own snow covered roads, or do all the tasks required for their own survival.

These are big open ended questions............with possible severe consequences for everyone, including the wealthy.


----------



## OptsyEagle

sags said:


> There has always been wage and wealth disparity, and there always will be.........but I think the points these studies are raising is the gap in both wealth accumulation and wages is widening at an alarming rate.
> 
> For 85 people to control 50% of the world's wealth is just insane. That number of people could fit on any one street in North America.
> 
> Extend the growth of the gap outwards a few years..........and how can the economy or society survive?
> 
> Will farmers continue to grow food...........if they can't earn a living at it?
> 
> Will any workers continue to work in any field...........if they can't earn a living at it?
> 
> Do the 1% wealthy consume enough to offset the falling consumption of the other 99%?
> 
> If it reaches the point where people can't survive and prosper by working, they will lay down their tools and consider their time better spent doing things that lead to their own survival...........not the survival of the 1%.
> 
> Without the other 99%...............the 1% can't survive.
> 
> But the 99% could survive without the 1%.
> 
> Most of us are in the middle or lower classes, but even for those in the upper 10% or so........everyone is losing ground at a constant rate of loss.
> 
> People can say.......I earn my own living.........so tough luck to others, but even they can't grow their own food, provide security against threats, provide emergency medical care, provide resources for themselves to stay warm in winter, plow their own snow covered roads, or do much of anything else..........if they are too busy working.
> 
> These are big open ended questions............with possible severe consequences for everyone, including the wealthy.


The only better structure is if only 1 person owned 50% of the worlds wealth and the other 84 people were available to work.

Will farmers continue to grow food .... if he wants to eat he will and provided no one comes along and hands him food easier then growing it.

As long as the GDP in society grows, the 99% will have more to consume and therefore they will. The best way to produce that increased GDP, is to quit taking money away from the rich, who were going to invest it into more productive ventures, and give it to the poor, reducing their incentive to want to work.

I could go on and on, but the main point is, once people understand that there will always be poor people in our society. As well, we have a cross section of higher IQ individuals and lower IQ individuals. It shouldn't take long for some bleeding heart to come across a low IQ individual, who undoubtedly will be in the bottom of the wealth curve, and end up looking at a pretty heart wrenching existence. 

This is expected. It should not be fixed by blaming it on the rich and consequently confiscating their wealth, to the detriment of the longer term growth of the economy. Fixing that guys plight is a title for another thread (he/she actually has a physical disability (low IQ), not a financial problem). The main point is, that the maximum economic growth and therefore the highest production of goods and services, will always be produced by having a sharply pointed wealth distribution pyramid.


----------



## m3s

OptsyEagle said:


> All wealth is, "is *the ability to convince someone else to do something for you* or give you something that was theirs". That is all wealth is and all it will every be.


This is all true and I agree with everything you said in theory, but it doesn't necessarily mean the current system has solved what civilization failed to do before. Once you have wealth it's easier to accumulate more so the curve will continue to get steeper and steeper, which is actually the point of the OP.

If the curve keeps shifting at the rate it is right now the system will eventually crash (as has happened to every booming civilization in history) The question is whether we try to tame this system to make it more sustainable, or we wait for the inevitable bust.. It doesn't necessarily mean you are superior if you were able to accumulate wealth because you were born in a prosperous time and place either.. If you go too far everything can be reset. Those who sacrifice and work harder and are obsessed with money should have that incentive I agree, but the vast majority who just want to live and work a normal life do have a breaking point. What is different this time is the poor have far more ability to live as if everything is normal, it's called unprecedented debt. We all know about the upcoming retirement and pension situation, right? What about the youth employment if they can't retire?

Capitalism is essentially a game but at the end of the day, Monopoly money is no good to you if guns and ammo rule the streets. Now please look at your definition of wealth again! Our neighbours to the south unfortunately happen to be some of the most gun-crazed and armed civil population out there.


----------



## Eclectic12

OptsyEagle said:


> ... Will farmers continue to grow food .... if he wants to eat he will and provided no one comes along and hands him food easier then growing it...


The riots during the Great Depression suggest that there's a breaking point where the number of those who can't make a living will try something else.





OptsyEagle said:


> ... The main point is, that the maximum economic growth and therefore the highest production of goods and services, will always be produced by having a sharply pointed wealth distribution pyramid.


If the sharply pointed wealth distribution is so great and beneficial - then why all the fuss with unions back in the days of 1900's or so, when there were private police and company owned towns?


IAC - you are ignoring that there are lots of places in the world where there is nobody handing anything out, there are plenty who would like to make a living but when the gov't or guerrilla soldiers stop in town to clean it out of food and youth - it's really the poor who having their meager means confiscated.


Cheers


*PS*

You do realise that the Guamalean people who wanted a six day work week were branded communists by their military (i.e. the rich), the US multinationals that wanted to avoid any reforms and the US State Dept - despite the CIA reporting the reforms being instituted by the president were capitalist not communist in nature? Not that it stopped the CIA from staging a coup to ensure US multinationals were not affected by the reform.


----------



## Just a Guy

Remember too it's all relative...compared to the poor of places like South America, India, Africa, China, etc. the "poor" of Canada (even the homeless) are pretty well off.


----------



## dogcom

For the rich people who have worked hard took risks and such they have deserved the rewards and will continue to help the economy.

Those who print money, get insider knowledge, fix and rig the system, lend money to anyone for bonuses or way overpaid CEO's who aren't very good and destroy their companies add nothing to society yet take away the wealth. Not to mention sanctioned fraud they can get away with and so on. 

This work of theirs has caused massive unemployment around the world and threatens societies with riots and such by people who can barely survive and have little hope. The worst case is if these elites take us to a world war signing up the desperate and away we go. Another choice could be electing governments more in tune with Nazi Germany as the masses get fed up and look for something radical to repair the situation.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Quite an improvement over the world of 300 years ago when 100% of everything was owned by royalty including all the land and people.


----------



## Nemo2

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Quite an improvement over the world of 300 years ago when 100% of everything was owned by royalty including all the land and people.


Now, to be fair, the Pope and the Catholic Church had a couple small properties too.


----------



## OptsyEagle

Eclectic12 said:


> The riots during the Great Depression suggest that there's a breaking point where the number of those who can't make a living will try something else.
> 
> If the sharply pointed wealth distribution is so great and beneficial - then why all the fuss with unions back in the days of 1900's or so, when there were private police and company owned towns?
> 
> 
> IAC - you are ignoring that there are lots of places in the world where there is nobody handing anything out, there are plenty who would like to make a living but when the gov't or guerrilla soldiers stop in town to clean it out of food and youth - it's really the poor who having their meager means confiscated.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> *PS*
> 
> You do realise that the Guamalean people who wanted a six day work week were branded communists by their military (i.e. the rich), the US multinationals that wanted to avoid any reforms and the US State Dept - despite the CIA reporting the reforms being instituted by the president were capitalist not communist in nature? Not that it stopped the CIA from staging a coup to ensure US multinationals were not affected by the reform.


Hey, I am not saying that we don't need rules and laws to go along with the current structure, but the fundamental basis will most likely end up being a pyramid shape wealth distribution curve, if we want to maximise productivity. I and probably all those 85 wealthy people at the top know that having starving and angry people in our streets is not in anyone's best interest.

That being said, if the wealthy simply hand over the wealth, or the poor take it, that is not in anyone's best interest either, although to the uneducated, it can sound like a pretty good plan and has historically gained a lot of votes at election times. It is just too bad that an education is not a requirement in the right to vote.

Anyway, it is going to require regulation, laws and education if we are going to bring the two groups of people, the rich and the poor, together on this. But when it is all done, if it is to be sustainable, some small group of people are going to have to have a lot more then a much larger group of people. The larger the disparity, the better off everyone will be.


----------



## sags

It has been well documented through studies, that the more wealth a person accumulates.........the stronger the sense of entitlement grows.

In one University study, students were set up playing the Monopoly game.

http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/

One student had to go by the regular rules of the game......while the other student collected "double" the amount to start and for passing GO, and had the use of 2 dice instead of one, which enabled going around the board faster, collecting more money, and being able to buy properties quicker.

The outcome was inevitable........but the interesting part was the behavior of the student with the "special" rules.

They not only started to boast about winning the game,.......... but claimed more than their share of the snack foods that were provided.

People with wealth are afforded opportunities that others don't have.

The US real estate crash is a good example, of hard working people losing their homes..........and wealthy investors in private hedge funds swooping in to "pick up the bargains".

The hard working member of the 99% lose their home............and the 1% increase their wealth, simply because they have money.

Private hedge fund Blackstone is the largest holder of privately owned rental homes in the US.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/wall-street-buying-foreclosed-homes

And so it goes.


----------



## m3s

Just a Guy said:


> Remember too it's all relative...compared to the poor of places like South America, India, Africa, China, etc. the "poor" of Canada (even the homeless) are pretty well off.


I wonder if a Roman ever said that? The "relatively poor" in NA are taking on more and more debt and money is being printed out of thin air. While we have let's call it economic turbulence or uncertainty, all those "poorer places" have more potential for economic growth. The fall of the Roman empire probably created opportunity for others as well.


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> The US real estate crash is a good example, of hard working people losing their homes..........and wealthy investors in private hedge funds swooping in to "pick up the bargains".
> 
> The hard working member of the 99% lose their home............and the 1% increase their wealth, simply because they have money.
> 
> Private hedge fund Blackstone is the largest holder of privately owned rental homes in the US.
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/wall-street-buying-foreclosed-homes
> 
> And so it goes.


Yes, let's ignore the sense of entitlement that every American has the right to own their own home. The fact that many of these "hard working" Americans continually refinanced 110% of the value of their homes! never understood the basics of the math behind the balloon payment, and continually bid up housing prices because they were given the tools of their own destruction without understanding how to use them....the fact that these places were filled with toys and gadgets paid for by consolidation loans...

Yes, those damned rich people screwed them...

Of course, I borrowed money to buy cheap places that provide income to me. I didn't buy if I felt the prices were too high, I only buy "luxury" goods when I can pay for them, and usually only if they're on sale...same tools, different outcome. Of course I also stayed awake for the grade 10 social studies lecture on "wants vs. needs".

It used to be people waited until they could afford things...now we're entitled to have everything now.

Bread and circuses...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Nemo2 said:


> Now, to be fair, the Pope and the Catholic Church had a couple small properties too.


I stand corrected.


----------



## Longwinston

I don't get this study. Just because there are fantastically rich people, how does that make me poorer? Shouldn't having lots of rich people around be a good thing? Shouldn't we want more rich people? Warren Buffet being rich doesn't make me poor, in fact, just the opposite if you invested with his company.

I don't get the implied envy or unfairness of it. Fact is, world poverty in inflation adjusted terms has improved tremendously over the past 30 years due to the same reasons that there are some billionaires - capitalism.


----------



## sags

_Longwinston _

There is a finite amount of wealth in the world, so if 85 people own 50% of it..........that is 50% you will never own.

As more wealth is being created..........it is growing their share larger...........wealth you will never own.

How long could the consumption of 85 people keep the world economy going do you think?

_Just a Guy_

Yes people bought homes they couldn't afford and shouldn't have bought.

And then they took on debt and filled them up with stuff.

Who benefited?

Who owns the shares in the banks, who collected the fees and interest........and then got bailed out the US government?

Who owns the majority of shares in the companies that manufactured the "stuff" people bought?

Who are the lenders who collected the interest and fees from the debt?

Who bought the foreclosed homes at low prices..........and rent them out to those who lost their homes?

After you have some money..........earned or inherited...........getting richer requires little effort.


----------



## Nemo2

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/


----------



## Eclectic12

OptsyEagle said:


> Hey, I am not saying that we don't need rules and laws to go along with the current structure, but the fundamental basis will most likely end up being a pyramid shape wealth distribution curve, if we want to maximise productivity. I and probably all those 85 wealthy people at the top know that having starving and angry people in our streets is not in anyone's best interest.


Trouble is as soon are one is discussing the world - this automatically includes countries whose recent past had the rich whipping up the military/para military into an anti-communist, lawless frenzy where, teaching widows how to sew to support their children literally resulted in being raped & killed. Helping the poor automatically meant one was a rebel or at best, anti-gov't - regardless of the truth.

Now that "peace" has been established, the shop owner starting to do well had to move out of the neighbourhood as the gangs were asking too much in protection money.



Never mind the untouchables in India or North American companies using sub-standard safety practices as "hey, they should be grateful they have a job - it's not our problem that the mess created has destroyed the local food chain".


So take a complicated situation and AFAIKT, write it off as "that's the way it is" is similar to ignoring the entitlement issue.




OptsyEagle said:


> ... That being said, if the wealthy simply hand over the wealth, or the poor take it, that is not in anyone's best interest either, ...


Who says that a straight handover was the only option?

Where banks in some countries have terrible fees - microcredit gives the opportunity that is otherwise not available.



OptsyEagle said:


> Anyway, it is going to require regulation, laws and education if we are going to bring the two groups of people, the rich and the poor, together on this. But when it is all done, if it is to be sustainable, some small group of people are going to have to have a lot more then a much larger group of people. The larger the disparity, the better off everyone will be.


 ... not sure how you regulate those that are using a gun ... though with the lawsuits already started or being filed against mining companies for their abuses, there might be some benefit.

IAC ... it's a complicated picture with lots of white, black and grey hats involved.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Longwinston said:


> ... Shouldn't having lots of rich people around be a good thing? Shouldn't we want more rich people?
> Warren Buffet being rich doesn't make me poor, in fact, just the opposite if you invested with his company...


Depends on what's being done.



> Should the "right" of a foreign corporation to make a profit trump governments' attempts to create local jobs, improve environmental regulations or establish laws that raise royalty rates?
> 
> Most Canadians would say no.
> 
> But that's what the Conservative government is pushing poor countries to accept if they want Canadian investment.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yves-engler/foreign-investment_b_4099382.html


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy

sags said:


> _Just a Guy_
> 
> Yes people bought homes they couldn't afford and shouldn't have bought.
> 
> And then they took on debt and filled them up with stuff.
> 
> Who benefited?
> 
> Who owns the shares in the banks, who collected the fees and interest........and then got bailed out the US government?
> 
> Who owns the majority of shares in the companies that manufactured the "stuff" people bought?
> 
> Who are the lenders who collected the interest and fees from the debt?
> 
> Who bought the foreclosed homes at low prices..........and rent them out to those who lost their homes?
> 
> After you have some money..........earned or inherited...........getting richer requires little effort.


Who said they couldn't borrow to buy bank stocks? Who said they couldn't buy cheaper places and rent them out? Who took a gun to their head and told them to waste their money? Everyone one had access to cheap money. In the states, you didn't even need a pulse to get a loan for a while there. What you spend it on is what's important.

You can't legislate stupidity. You take the money from the "rich" and give it to the poor, chances are the poor will be poor in a few years and the old rich will be rich again. Take a look at the lottery winners, how many are poor after several years?


----------



## Nemo2

I came down through India to Sri Lanka, (then Ceylon), in 1963, (spent my 21st birthday there)......saw lots of children who had been deliberately mutilated, (legs coming straight out sideways from the hips, feet twisted upside down, chest bones deformed, like that), so that they could become beggars................I returned in 1985 and saw none of that......there were, (by our standards), low paying jobs, so that it was more profitable to put the children to work.

Were they better off, or worse off, and was it 'our' fault? 

The world's a tough place.


----------



## Just a Guy

Maybe we should raise minimum wage to $100/hr. Of course your coffee would now cost about $30/cup, and then people would complain that they aren't paid enough...vicious circle. I know many fast food chain owners who can't hire any locals because they don't pay enough...better to be on welfare I guess...they ship in many people from overseas who are more than willing to work for those wages...they support themselves, and even send money back overseas to help support their families. True, they work damn hard and long...but they also keep your coffee cheap.

My comment about the relative wealth of Canadians is important, we now live in a global economy...outsourcing to another country isn't the only thing we have to worry about, we import replacement workers who are overjoyed to benefit from the relative wealth.


----------



## sags

Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the US.......are often quoted as saying that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, was a bad idea and would be the downfall of democracy.

But what is left unquoted..........is that Jefferson was talking solely about one's lifespan on this earth. He was not talking about inter-generational wealth transfers to future family. He and others founders went on to say that the wealth accumulated by each generation belonged to that generation only, and inheritances should be taxed away.

Thomas Paine went so far as saying land inheritances should be taxed and distributed to everyone over the age of 21.

They believed that land should not be transferred upon one's demise, but should transfer to the next generation.

The founders of America were cognizant of the fact that concentrated wealth among a few people is a dangerous concept that affords those individuals too much power and influence.

If future generations didn't earn the money through their own labor..............what right do they have to it?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers


----------



## Nemo2

sags said:


> If future generations didn't earn the money through their own labor..............what right do they have to it?


What right do others have to it?


----------



## Just a Guy

They also didn't have income tax to hinder that wealth generation...


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the US....
> Thomas Paine went so far as saying land inheritances should be taxed and distributed to everyone over the age of 21.
> ...
> The founders of America were cognizant of the fact that concentrated wealth among a few people is a dangerous concept that affords those individuals too much power and influence.


Those same founding fathers were staunch advocates for personal responsibility, limited government, and capping the fiscal and monetary powers of the govt.
You are misinterpreting their advocacy for inheritance taxes - it is not an argument in favor of income distribution, but for secularism.

Secularism not as in the bullshit equality of all religions as espoused by the social democrats, but as in separation of religion, state, and economy, and concentration on life on this earth.

Those ideals of individual responsibility would also disqualify the precious ideals of the left social democratic movement, which you love, such as the welfare state, collective bargaining, govt. provided cradle to grave services, etc.


----------



## sags

The left social democratic movement is only necessary because America didn't follow the examples set out from the founding fathers.

Corrupt capitalistism changed all that............and greed replaced need.

The concepts you mention only partially balance the scale. It is constantly trying to fix a broken system.

I agree, it would be a much better world if they weren't necessary............but that isn't the reality.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

sags said:


> Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the US.......are often quoted as saying that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, was a bad idea and would be the downfall of democracy.
> 
> But what is left unquoted..........is that Jefferson was talking solely about one's lifespan on this earth. He was not talking about inter-generational wealth transfers to future family. He and others founders went on to say that the wealth accumulated by each generation belonged to that generation only, and inheritances should be taxed away.
> 
> Thomas Paine went so far as saying land inheritances should be taxed and distributed to everyone over the age of 21.
> 
> They believed that land should not be transferred upon one's demise, but should transfer to the next generation.
> 
> The founders of America were cognizant of the fact that concentrated wealth among a few people is a dangerous concept that affords those individuals too much power and influence.
> 
> If future generations didn't earn the money through their own labor..............what right do they have to it?
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers


And that is why none of them left anything to their relatives, they left it all to the government to be distributed to the poor. Oh wait.

"They believed that land should not be transferred upon one's demise, but should transfer to the next generation."

If there is a ray of sense or meaning to this statement I can't make it out.


----------



## dogcom

It all comes down to rule of law for everyone which includes the top elites which it doesn't right now because no one has gone to jail over the 2008 crisis and so on. So level playing field for all and then education, helping small business to thrive and productivity. I think many here mistaken many of the rich today as productive people, who through hard honest work have got ahead or way ahead in life.


----------



## Eclectic12

dogcom said:


> ... I think many here mistaken many of the rich today as productive people, who through hard honest work have got ahead or way ahead in life.


... as soon as the scope is the world - there's lots of black hats, including the North American ones in the mix.


Cheers


----------



## Siwash

and centuries ago 99% of the wealth was owned by .01% 

What's your solution? Communism?


----------



## richard

sags said:


> There is a finite amount of wealth in the world, so if 85 people own 50% of it..........that is 50% you will never own.
> 
> As more wealth is being created..........it is growing their share larger...........wealth you will never own.


You will never breathe 99% of the air in the world, but that won't diminish the quality of your life.



sags said:


> After you have some money..........earned or inherited...........getting richer requires little effort.


Why are there so many people who have a good income and don't get rich?


----------



## Just a Guy

Because it's the most heavily taxed form of income. The only person who benefits for a wage is the wage earner. If you own a business, you're creating jobs and/or products and services which benefits multiple people, so it isn't taxed as heavily.

If people weren't so greedy as to only earn money for themselves, then the government wouldn't be forced to try and redistribute wealth from the greedy to the many...


----------



## alingva

Wealth is not a problem. I have no problem with wealthy, extremely wealthy or super wealthy. I would like to live in a society where everybody is a millionaire (not because there is hyperinflation). Problem is that when you own the world you are above any law, you are the God and you do whatever you want to increase your wealth. You do not care about people since nobody can stop you. This is the problem.
Here is another infographic 10 Corporations Control Almost Everything You Buy


----------



## Longwinston

_"There is a finite amount of wealth in the world, so if 85 people own 50% of it..........that is 50% you will never own.
As more wealth is being created..........it is growing their share larger...........wealth you will never own.
How long could the consumption of 85 people keep the world economy going do you think?"_

To be honest Sags, I am not sure where to start on this. First admission, I have no idea if the amount of wealth on the world is finite or not. I do know that if it is, we are no where near that finite amount. 

Let me ask you a question. If someone invents the cure to cancer tomorrow and that inventor gets fabulously wealthy - Do you think you would be poorer or richer for that person being wealthy?
I hope you are getting my point. It is very hard to quantify human ingenuity. It's not like we all are a pile of bones and flesh that consume and then die. We, collectively, invent and make things better and better. I mean, that's why capitalism is the system to be in. 

Is capitalism perfect? Of course not, but the struggle to get to perfect is the pathway to hell. 

I wish they taught this stuff in school.


----------



## Longwinston

sags said:


> Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the US.......are often quoted as saying that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, was a bad idea and would be the downfall of democracy.
> 
> But what is left unquoted..........is that Jefferson was talking solely about one's lifespan on this earth. He was not talking about inter-generational wealth transfers to future family. He and others founders went on to say that the wealth accumulated by each generation belonged to that generation only, and inheritances should be taxed away.
> 
> Thomas Paine went so far as saying land inheritances should be taxed and distributed to everyone over the age of 21.
> 
> They believed that land should not be transferred upon one's demise, but should transfer to the next generation.
> 
> The founders of America were cognizant of the fact that concentrated wealth among a few people is a dangerous concept that affords those individuals too much power and influence.
> 
> If future generations didn't earn the money through their own labor..............what right do they have to it?
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers


You are boxing with shadows Sags. The 'extremely wealthy' are almost all nouveau riche. Look it up.

You're argument says that we are poorer off as a society for having had Steve Jobs do what he did. 
I hope you are able to realize how obviously incorrect that is.


----------



## Longwinston

I would encourage everyone to read the following:

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_pt_ll0_012217/#section=myth-one

Capitalism is the answer, not the problem.


----------



## Just a Guy

alingva said:


> Here is another infographic 10 Corporations Control Almost Everything You Buy


So, knowing this, why do people keep asking the question... "what should I buy as a good investment?" 

Experts say you should only own between 10-15 stocks as it's difficult to follow more...


----------



## dogcom

Longwinston where is the capitalism in the US when all markets are being rigged. Capitalism has left the US and the poor are poorer because of bubbles blown up in the markets since the 90's by the Fed.


----------



## Longwinston

You say that is capitalism but what you describe is government regulations/interventions.

Curious why you are then blaming 'capitalism'.


----------



## m3s

Longwinston said:


> I would encourage everyone to read the following:
> 
> http://annualletter.gatesfoundation....ction=myth-one
> 
> Capitalism is the answer, not the problem.


So did you even read it yourself? First of all, declaring capitalism is the solution is pretty bold without even any substantiation. Like everything else in life, too much of anything good eventually becomes a problem. Second, the article you linked is Bill Gates encouraging foreign aid.... that's the complete opposite of capitalism!..

According to your link, the USA only spends 1% on foreign aid and that most basic world problems could be solved with more. IE more balance away from the unfettered capitalism. A certain balance of regulated capitalism is a good thing I agree. 85 people owning half of the world is tipping the scales. The power curve will only continue to get steeper in an uncontrolled free market.


----------



## daddybigbucks

Maybe this is how kings/queens came to be.


and we are all back to being peasants.


----------



## sags

It sure looks like a lot of "inherited" money on this short list. Add in all the "siblings" mentioned in this list and it grows bigger.
You could add Paris Hilton, the Kennedys and others to the list of inherited wealth.

_Liliane Bettencourt qualifies as the world's richest woman (and ninth richest indiviual) after a dramatic rise in the value of her 30% holding in cosmetics group L'Oreal, which *her father founded*. Famous for her family feuds, the 90-year old is the world's ninth richest person with a fortune worth $30bn (£18bn), though she suffers from dementia and no longer sits on the board.

Christy Walton is the richest of the Walton clan and 11th richest in the world. She *inherited* $28.2bn when husband John died in an airplane crash in 2005. Her lead over other Waltons follows a side investment by John in solar panel maker First Solar. Like her sister-in-law Alice, she received nearly $350m in Wal-Mart dividends after taxes in 2013.

Success in the confectionary business pushed Jacqueline Mars to joint number 36 with her brother John and Forrest. They *inherited* the maker of Mars and Snickers bars in 1999 when their father died.

Australian Georgina Rinehart, like the Mars siblings, is worth $17bn. Charity is not her middle name. In her self-published book she recommended all Aussie workers accept the $2-a-day wages commonly paid in Africa.

Susanne Klatten *inherited* a 12.6% stake in car maker BMW. Along with her brother Stefan Quandt (81st richest in the world) and mother Johanna Quandt she owns almost 50% of the company. A trained economist, Klatten is Germany's richest woman with assets worth $14.3bn (and 58th richest in the world).

Karl Albrecht (number 18) owns all of Aldi Sud, Germany's largest discount supermarket chain. With stores across Europe and the US, he outstrips his brother Theo, who *inherited *the other half of the business. Aldo Sud is worth $26bn while Aldi Nord is worth almost $19bn.

Dieter Schwarz (number 29)* inherited *Lidl, the discount retailer that had $85bn in revenues in 2012 and is the second biggest discounter behind Aldi. Dividends are donated to a charitable company that Schwarz controls. The Schwarz Foundation supports education and daycare facilities for children, according to Forbes.

Michael Otto and his four siblings (61st in the world) are another German success story. They share ownership of Otto Group, a conglomerate they *inherited* that includes a US home furnishings retailer and German toy chain myToys.

Abigail Johnson, who is a *third-generation* executive at Fidelity Investments, the second-largest US investment fund manager. Her estimated 24% stake gives her an asset worth $12.7bn and a place at number (74.)_

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/24/85-richest-people-in-the-world-men-women


----------



## Longwinston

m3s said:


> So did you even read it yourself? First of all, declaring capitalism is the solution is pretty bold without even any substantiation. Like everything else in life, too much of anything good eventually becomes a problem. Second, the article you linked is Bill Gates encouraging foreign aid.... that's the complete opposite of capitalism!..
> 
> According to your link, the USA only spends 1% on foreign aid and that most basic world problems could be solved with more. IE more balance away from the unfettered capitalism. A certain balance of regulated capitalism is a good thing I agree. 85 people owning half of the world is tipping the scales. The power curve will only continue to get steeper in an uncontrolled free market.


Aid is important and helping people who are poor has no contradiction to capitalism at all. Quite the opposite. Bill Gates would not be able to do what he is doing without capitalism, certainly not to the huge effect that he is. It’s the same reason western countries are able to give aid in the first place. I don’t see the contradiction that you are I guess. I would say that you have a different definition of capitalism than I do.

Aid is a result of capitalism not a way to cure 'unfettered capitalism'. I have no idea what you are trying to say there. 
Are you saying that the only reason there are poor people is because of capitalism?


----------



## Longwinston

Sags, 273 out of the 400 Forbes top billionaires earned their money opposed to inheriting it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincar...e-forbes-400-billionaires-earned-their-money/


----------



## m3s

Longwinston said:


> Aid is a result of capitalism not a way to cure 'unfettered capitalism'. I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
> Are you saying that the only reason there are poor people is because of capitalism?


Aid is not the result of unfettered capitalism, aid is the socialist component of the system. You said "capitalism is the answer, not the problem" while linking to a billionaire advocating for more socialism. If capitalism is the answer as you say, then free enterprises would ideologically sort out poverty without government aid. The only way I can see capitalism being the answer, would be if the free market could actually decide what is right without government intervention. People would have to chose for themselves not to support socially irresponsible business.. yet everybody bought and wears blood diamonds, clothes from sweat shops etc We certainly wouldn't be bailing out the GMs and Bombardiers. How is that capitalism?


----------



## Longwinston

m3s said:


> Aid is not the result of unfettered capitalism, aid is the socialist component of the system. You said "capitalism is the answer, not the problem" while linking to a billionaire advocating for more socialism. If capitalism is the answer as you say, then free enterprises would ideologically sort out poverty without government aid. The only way I can see capitalism being the answer, would be if the free market could actually decide what is right without government intervention. People would have to chose for themselves not to support socially irresponsible business.. yet everybody bought and wears blood diamonds, clothes from sweat shops etc We certainly wouldn't be bailing out the GMs and Bombardiers. How is that capitalism?


How is aid socialism? Lol
I agree bailing out GM and bombardiers is not capitalism. You are fighting shadows as well. 
Have a good weekend


----------



## bgc_fan

Longwinston said:


> Aid is important and helping people who are poor has no contradiction to capitalism at all. Quite the opposite. Bill Gates would not be able to do what he is doing without capitalism, certainly not to the huge effect that he is. It’s the same reason western countries are able to give aid in the first place. I don’t see the contradiction that you are I guess. I would say that you have a different definition of capitalism than I do.
> 
> Aid is a result of capitalism not a way to cure 'unfettered capitalism'. I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
> Are you saying that the only reason there are poor people is because of capitalism?


Bill Gates is a one of, and a result of very specific set of circumstances that are likely not to happen again. Oddly enough, I would argue that his success was opposite to some principles of capitalism.

1) IBM was looking for an OS
2) IBM was under an anti-trust investigation brought by it's actions against Amdahl. (Government intervention)
3) It can be speculated that as a result of the anti-trust suit, IBM would not be able to lock exclusivity onto the OS. Or you can believe that IBM did not realize the possibility of clones and thought that the OS would be useless without IBM hardware.
4) Gates' mother was on the United Way executive that included the IBM CEO and was able to match Bill with IBM. (note that the Gates came from money)
5) Bill recommends David Kildall's CP/M, but no agreement was ever reached.
6) Bill promises a copy and was able to get a hold of a clone of CP/M, modify it, and then sell it to IBM. (note source code was fairly open and freely available to some extent).
7) IBM doesn't lock the OS down and Microsoft was free to take it and develop it for clones.

What does this all mean? That not everyone has the same opportunities, and is somewhat tilted. I.e. If his mother didn't run in the same social circles as the IBM CEO, Microsoft would remain a third rate software company that develops language development software.


----------



## m3s

bgc_fan said:


> What does this all mean? That not everyone has the same opportunities, and is somewhat tilted.


A quote from the Bill Gates article: "I have believed for a long time that disparities in health are some of the worst inequities in the world—that it is unjust and unacceptable that millions of children die every year from causes that we can prevent or treat. I don’t think a child’s fate should be left to what Warren Buffett calls the “ovarian lottery.” If we hit this goal of convergence, the ovarian lottery for health outcomes will be closed for good."

If Bill Gates was building Microsoft jobs in Africa to reduce the "ovarian lottery" then ok, capitalism would be the ideological miracle system alone. Sounds more to me like he is advocating socialism and financial aid rather than more unrestrained profits for Microsoft. The "bill and melinda foundation" is not exactly making him richer.

I've worked in some of the poorest places where these VVIPs were always coming to "see how things really are for them self" Truth is they come for a day or two to see the dog and pony show. Great for him for all he's done, but what does his wealth give him to tell me "how things really are"? Why is he trying to convince the taxpayers instead of his network of billionaires?


----------



## Longwinston

I find it odd that the unstated contradiction of the left is that government is good but corporations are bad. Why? They are both run by people. Fallable people. Only the government is much more dangerous as they are far more powerful. Yet, to the left, government can do no wrong and corporations can do no right. 

It's even more astounding when you consider this is an investment site as well as the bloody history of the 20th century where communism and socialism killed more humans than anything yet dreamed up in all of human history. 
yet here we are in 2014 demonizing corporations and advocating increased government control as a good thing.

It truly boggles the mind.


----------



## m3s

Longwinston said:


> It's even more astounding when you consider this is an investment site as well as the bloody history of the 20th century where communism and socialism killed more humans than anything yet dreamed up in all of human history.
> yet here we are in 2014 demonizing corporations and advocating increased government control as a good thing.
> 
> It truly boggles the mind.


Advocating a balance of control actually. Not totalitarianism, nor corporations with hollowed out puppet governments. Money is power

It boggles my mind why people insist to keep fighting the last war. Cold war is over. Everything looks fine now, but destabilizing in another direction.


----------



## Nemo2

Government is not your friend.....at least with corporations you can take your business elsewhere.


----------



## dogcom

Wasn't it the rule of law, constitution, capitalism and democracy that made western countries great. In the US some high up are not following the law and getting away with it, running over the constitution and democracy is money given to politicians by special interests. No wonder the US is going down the drain very quickly.


----------



## peterk

Longwinston said:


> I find it odd that the unstated contradiction of the left is that government is good but corporations are bad. Why? They are both run by people. Fallable people. Only the government is much more dangerous as they are far more powerful. Yet, to the left, government can do no wrong and corporations can do no right.
> 
> It's even more astounding when you consider this is an investment site as well as the bloody history of the 20th century where communism and socialism killed more humans than anything yet dreamed up in all of human history.
> yet here we are in 2014 demonizing corporations and advocating increased government control as a good thing.
> 
> It truly boggles the mind.


I can find no fault in this.


----------



## Ebin

I find it odd that there are people who demonize the government systems that build the roads to factories and schools that provide educated workers and hospitals that ensure that workers can keep worker while corporations pollute, overthrow governments for their own benefit and use the resources of a country without paying into it. 

I think it goes both ways - both government and corporations can be good and evil. Some think it tilts too much to one side and it's exceedingly easy to find examples of either gone wrong (and gone right). I don't see how this being an investment site means that we idealize corporations and demonize government - we should hold both accountable, our returns are dependent on both acting well.

We should be judging the consequences of how having 85 people control half the wealth affects us and society and not passing judgment on just the fact that 85 people control half the wealth (that may be a good thing or bad thing by itself). I tend to think that having a healthy, flourishing middle class keeps the corporations humming.


----------



## bgc_fan

m3s said:


> If Bill Gates was building Microsoft jobs in Africa to reduce the "ovarian lottery" then ok, capitalism would be the ideological miracle system alone. Sounds more to me like he is advocating socialism and financial aid rather than more unrestrained profits for Microsoft. The "bill and melinda foundation" is not exactly making him richer.
> 
> I've worked in some of the poorest places where these VVIPs were always coming to "see how things really are for them self" Truth is they come for a day or two to see the dog and pony show. Great for him for all he's done, but what does his wealth give him to tell me "how things really are"? Why is he trying to convince the taxpayers instead of his network of billionaires?


I'm probably misreading what you're saying. Is your point that he isn't advocating capitalism as a cure-all, and is trying to have taxpayers pick up the tab to 'uplift' the poor? 
While the Bill and Melinda foundation isn't making him richer, the fact is it does work across purposes. I believe the foundation is heavily invested in pharmaceuticals, which in turn work to have their drug patents extended into perpetuity so that generic drugs cannot be marketed. It is an issue in Third world countries that have issues with AIDS and would require large amounts of funds to purchase to treat the infected.
There is also a bit of a conflict of interest where the foundation 'donates' MS products to schools which essentially add to MS's bottom line.


----------



## sags

Clearly the current situation is on the minds of the "big thinkers" around the world. The European politicians have been vocal on their concern for quite some time, no doubt due to the fact they have to deal with citizens with a history of volatility.

_Roubini also mentioned the twin problems of a "*backlash against globalization*" and a "*gilded age of inequality*." The latter has been a watchword at Davos this year and has become the key focus of President Barack Obama's final term in office. In a speech to a think-tank in Washington D.C. last month, Obama described it as the "*defining issue of our time*." _

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101357494

*Edited to stay on subject.


----------



## newtothegame

One thing is for sure... The guy worth $100,000,000 will maybe own two homes and four cars, and will buy what he can consume. And that is fine. How he earned his worth is none of my business.

However, a dwindling middle class will affect us all. Our economy is consumer driven, and if people have money to buy more crap, my share values go up also.

Quite often greed takes over in the pursuit of wealth, and we forget what actually propels those returns in the first place.

We have all played Monopoly as kids, right? The board game? The object is to bankrupt all other players. That's how you win. However, the game is then over... In the case of the board game, it is easy to reset and start again.


----------



## m3s

bgc_fan said:


> Is your point that he isn't advocating capitalism as a cure-all, and is trying to have taxpayers pick up the tab to 'uplift' the poor?


Bill Gates keeps calls it capitalism but it's mostly philanthropy with the guise of "creative capitalism". If you read his article, he says the US government spends less than 1% on foreign aid he clearly advocates for more tax money many times... Now tell me is handing the poor their basic human needs from taxes and trying to reduce inequality unfettered capitalism... or is that not what those evil Scandinavians call socialism?! Canada is one of the more socialist countries in the world by the way.

Quote from Bill Gates speech:


> We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.


Government with full control of everything is bad, and corporations with full control is equally as bad. People who don't understand that statement still have their head in the past. Socialism is not evil and neither is capitalism, they are both ideologies. If you are up on current affairs, the control that multi national corps are obtaining is the real concern today. They stretch far beyond government jurisdiction and they have the money (power) As money concentrates, power is transferred from democracy to a fewer and fewer.


----------



## namelessone

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...almost-half-of-them-are-newcomers-poll-shows/

If people are not willing to learn how to fish, what good is giving them the fish ? Most people are capable of learning but it's up to them. 

I started from -$20000 from student loan. I make less than $40000/year on the job. Now in my early 30s, my net worth is 100k. I forecast I'll become a millionaire in 15-20 years with the same salary of $40000/year.

How? I educate myself. I read a lot and think a lot. My motto is never give up learning.


----------



## Nemo2

^ :encouragement:


----------



## Eclectic12

m3s said:


> ... If Bill Gates was building Microsoft jobs in Africa to reduce the "ovarian lottery" then ok, capitalism would be the ideological miracle system alone. Sounds more to me like he is advocating socialism and financial aid rather than more unrestrained profits for Microsoft. The "bill and melinda foundation" is not exactly making him richer.


That's the tone I read in the the parts I've read so far ... I'm just not sure it's socialism. Isn't part of socialism organising the production within the country base on state control, where capitalism organising production based on private owners who are aiming for profit?

I don't recall any calls by Gate for all production to be changed so I'm thinking it's more accurate to call it "charity" or "philanthropy". 




m3s said:


> ... Why is he trying to convince the taxpayers instead of his network of billionaires?


From what I've read, he is talking to other billionaires ... his points on US gov't aid seemed to be that the bad news is being blown out proportion to the good that has been accomplished and that the baby is easily thrown out with the bath water when several layers of double standards are in play.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Longwinston said:


> ... It's even more astounding when you consider this is an investment site as well as the bloody history of the 20th century where communism and socialism killed more humans than anything yet dreamed up in all of human history.
> 
> yet here we are in 2014 demonizing corporations and advocating increased government control as a good thing.
> 
> It truly boggles the mind.


My mind is boggled that you think corporations are being demonized.

The implication that capitalism / corporations are all that are needed to fix poverty, which generated examples of corporations causing problems for the poor. I'll check the thread but I don't anyone saying that all corporate actions hurts the poor.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

namelessone said:


> ... If people are not willing to learn how to fish, what good is giving them the fish ? Most people are capable of learning but it's up to them...
> 
> How? I educate myself. I read a lot and think a lot. My motto is never give up learning.


Good for you ... but again, that is a focus on the developed countries where the original post talked about the world.

If you were born into a family that needs someone to spend six hours a day fetching water, could you have done as well?
I'd also bet that where the local school has one book for the entire school - you probably would have a much more difficult time gaining that knowledge. That is assuming, of course, that you weren't needed to scrounge for food or take care of crops.

Would you have done this well if someone in your family had to spend six hours a day getting water (which might not be safe to drink but that's all there is)?


There are lots of examples around the world where a fishing was taught and the community changed.


Cheers


----------



## namelessone

The point of my discussion is for those people who complain they're getting poorer or not getting richer faster than the rich people because other people's fault. e.g. The 99% vs. The 1% in Canada. 

If you're replying my post regarding the world's less developed world, that's a strawman. Of course I won't accomplish what I can accomplish today than if I were living in the stone age.





Eclectic12 said:


> Good for you ... but again, that is a focus on the developed countries where the original post talked about the world.
> 
> If you were born into a family that needs someone to spend six hours a day fetching water, could you have done as well?
> I'd also bet that where the local school has one book for the entire school - you probably would have a much more difficult time gaining that knowledge. That is assuming, of course, that you weren't needed to scrounge for food or take care of crops.
> 
> Would you have done this well if someone in your family had to spend six hours a day getting water (which might not be safe to drink but that's all there is)?
> 
> 
> There are lots of examples around the world where a fishing was taught and the community changed.
> 
> 
> Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy

I know a man, never had an education beyond grade 5, was a farmer, partnered with his brother. His brother also didn't have a lot of school, and was your typical "country bumpkin", knew nothing about business, repairs, or anything...walked he fields all day and weeded.

The first man however, was a natural engineer, could build or repair anything, knew everything about farming and business made them both very wealthy. Never saw him read a book, or get advice, he just naturally figured things out...with the exception of getting his pilot's license...he owned his own plane, travelled to Europe every year, was very successful. 

They eventually had a falling out at the end of their farming days the one guy lived on the farm as it slowly degraded and continued to walk the fields for people who leased the land (at incredibly low prices). The other moved into town, bought several rental properties and continued to grow his wealth even after retiring from farming. One died rich several years later, the other died poor a few years after that even though they split things evenly (and profitably) only about 10 year earlier.

People like that will be successful no matter what, people like his brother will need to be taken care of no matter what. Starting from a point of weakness may slow you down, but it won't stop you. 

In your water hauling example, the successful person will figure out a way to get someone else to haul the water while they do something more productive, and build from there..wealth is not an overnight process.


----------



## Eclectic12

namelessone said:


> ... If you're replying my post regarding the world's less developed world, that's a strawman. Of course I won't accomplish what I can accomplish today than if I were living in the stone age.




There's nothing in the post to clearly identify you are referring to the developer world only compared to some of the other posts.
If there had been - I would have skipped on to the next post.

Cheers


----------



## sags

Parable of the Vineyard..............

A farmer owns a vineyard and needs to hire people to gather the grapes.

He offers $100 dollars a day to the grape pickers.

Some workers arrive at 6 pm and work until 6 pm.

Other workers arrive at 12 noon and work until 6 pm.

And one arrives at 5 pm and works until 6 pm.

At 6 pm all the workers line up for their pay and the farmer gives each one of them $100.

"Wait", some complain. "I worked all day..........many hours for that $100 and that guy only worked for 1 hour and got paid the same $100".

"Yes", said the farmer, "but I told you the pay was $100 per day, and that is what I paid you. So, I have not cheated you out of anything. If I decide to pay the worker who only worked 1 hour at the same rate..........that is my business and not yours. Can I not spend my money as I wish"?

Moral of the story...........is don't worry about the "lazy" employee down the hall, as the obligations to you have been met.

Matthew 20 1-16


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> ... In your water hauling example, the successful person will figure out a way to get someone else to haul the water while they do something more productive, and build from there..wealth is not an overnight process.


... and I don't think you understand the example.

There's no one else to convince to haul water because everyone in town has the same issue. I'm not talking about having enough water (or clean for that matter) but having a fraction of what's needed.


There are certain basics such as having dependable electricity, clean water, sanitation, access to libraries etc. opens up time and opportunity to go beyond subsistence.


Cheers


----------



## richard

sags said:


> Parable of the Vineyard..............


After that everyone showed up at 5:59, eventually causing a wine shortage so bad that people resorted to using vinegar... that explains things


----------



## Just a Guy

Eclectic12 said:


> ... and I don't think you understand the example.
> 
> There's no one else to convince to haul water because everyone in town has the same issue. I'm not talking about having enough water (or clean for that matter) but having a fraction of what's needed.
> 
> 
> There are certain basics such as having dependable electricity, clean water, sanitation, access to libraries etc. opens up time and opportunity to go beyond subsistence.
> Cheers


I don't think you understand how some people think. To the entrepreneur, or whatever you want to call them, there is always a way, it may not be obvious...

For example, you think that I was referring to getting one person to do the work, what if he convinced the village to each make one extra trip in return for something he manages to produce...like maybe building some sort of pump.

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”
― Henry Ford


----------



## sags

Kevin O'Leary voiced his opinion that the wealth gap was wonderful because it inspired people to greater heights.

Amanda Lang responded......."so you think someone earning $1 a day wakes up dreaming to be Bill Gates"?

I think Amanda has it about right, as per usual. People expending all their physical energy trying not to avoid starvation, aren't focused on starting a small business.

For them..........failure isn't an option.


----------



## Just a Guy

I've been dead broke and living off credit cards, because I was self employed, I didn't qualify for any social programs, I was also injured... Must say it inspired me to change... I also had no room for failure.

I suppose, as I've already stated, that it depends on the person.


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> I don't think you understand how some people think. To the entrepreneur, or whatever you want to call them, there is always a way, it may not be obvious...


Strange ... junior achievement and other things I've done for profit suggest otherwise ... 




Just a Guy said:


> ... For example, you think that I was referring to getting one person to do the work, what if he convinced the village to each make one extra trip in return for something he manages to produce...like maybe building some sort of pump.


Do it really matter?

What is the possible produce that's offered?

It's not water ... it's not food (he can't feed his family), it's not wood as cooking is done dung, it's not a pump as there's no metal/wood and it's not hand digging a well as the water is 900 feet down through rock.

Add to that that our fictional entrepreneur is most likely sick from the water carried illnesses from the contaminated water and doesn't have a great immune system as have one meal a day is doing well.

Is this the situation everywhere?
No but it is far too common.


Cheers


----------



## RBull

sags said:


> Kevin O'Leary voiced his opinion that the wealth gap was wonderful because it inspired people to greater heights.
> 
> Amanda Lang responded......."so you think someone earning $1 a day wakes up dreaming to be Bill Gates"?
> 
> I think Amanda has it about right, as per usual. People expending all their physical energy trying not to avoid starvation, aren't focused on starting a small business.
> 
> For them..........failure isn't an option.


Yeah, much as I am a capitalist I'm inclined to agree on this. What inspires people is not so much the increasing size of the gap but is any person who has real opportunity to achieve/secure what someone doing better has.

O'Leary is way too radical in his views and very often looks silly trying to support them.


----------



## Just a Guy

Eclectic, 

Let's just agree to disagree...your world view is a lot more limited than mine. I could keep coming up with examples, you could keep shooting them down...

Your a glass half empty, I'm more a half full when it comes to business. I like the challenge of finding ways to succeed.

If your junior achievement was so correct, explain the pet rock, and the millionaire it produced. Some people can always think of new ways to make money where others will fail.


----------



## richard

RBull said:


> Yeah, much as I am a capitalist I'm inclined to agree on this. What inspires people is not so much the increasing size of the gap but is any person who has real opportunity to achieve/secure what someone doing better has.
> 
> O'Leary is way too radical in his views and very often looks silly trying to support them.


He did mention one other thing before he went off on a tangent - it's good that there are a lot of people doing well. And what he didn't add is that a lot of them are self-made. Maybe not a utopian scenario, but when you consider that it's better than an emperor/king and a bunch of people with hereditary titles it sure looks like progress. The rest of the commentary sounds like it's made for TV  We can and should expect that the progress will continue to spread. Maybe not all in our lifetimes though.


----------



## sags

Watching some of the debates before and after Obama's speech last night, there wasn't anyone disputing the growing wealth gap or income disparity. The debate between politics on the right or left........and between different economists............was what to do about about it.

Liberals want the government to take a more active role in redistribution of wealth.........and Conservatives want to lessen regulation and taxes to grow the economy.

Probably a mixture of both will be the ultimate solution, but neither side is in denial there is a problem.

Wealth disparity, or perhaps more income disparity would be more appropriate, is a problem for the economy if wealth and income continues to flow to a small number of people and if left unabated will create severe problems of liquidity for consumers in the future.

The numbers they discussed have at least awakened an interest from different sides of the political spectrum, and different economic theories..........as incomes have clearly failed to keep up with productivity gains.

Officially inflation barely exists..........but every consumer knows that "their" cost of living keeps rising, though their income doesn't.

At least if it is agreed there is a problem........perhaps a solution can be found.


----------



## Addy

So what happens to the Kevin O'Learys when money is worthless? I suppose they have things set in place to help with this? Bunkers, loads of food saved up, survivalist skills and such? It's a genuine question I have, and I'm assuming "wealth" in this post means money and assets?


----------



## Nemo2

Addy said:


> So what happens to the Kevin O'Learys when money is worthless? I suppose they have things set in place to help with this? Bunkers, loads of food saved up, survivalist skills and such? It's a genuine question I have, and I'm assuming "wealth" in this post means money and assets?


If it ever comes to that there'll be roaming bands of well armed barbarians, and those with hoarded supplies will be hit first.......little point in robbing people who have nothing.


----------



## lightcycle

Nemo2 said:


> If it ever comes to that there'll be roaming bands of well armed barbarians, and those with hoarded supplies will be hit first.......little point in robbing people who have nothing.


Unless the 1%ers have shelves of food, toilet paper and ammo, they probably won't be hit first either.

It'll be the Loblaws and Canadian Tire stores that will be the target. Not the Lambos and the granite countertops of the ultra-HNWIs.


----------



## Just a Guy

According to "a modest proposal" by swift, the poor are worth a lot more than most people give them credit for...and in these days of obesity, they could be worth a fortune...

Maybe it's a secret plot by the rich...the evolution of farming.


----------



## Pluto

Just a Guy said:


> Yes, let's ignore the sense of entitlement that every American has the right to own their own home. The fact that many of these "hard working" Americans continually refinanced 110% of the value of their homes! never understood the basics of the math behind the balloon payment, and continually bid up housing prices because they were given the tools of their own destruction without understanding how to use them....the fact that these places were filled with toys and gadgets paid for by consolidation loans...
> 
> Yes, those damned rich people screwed them...
> 
> Of course, I borrowed money to buy cheap places that provide income to me. I didn't buy if I felt the prices were too high, I only buy "luxury" goods when I can pay for them, and usually only if they're on sale...same tools, different outcome. Of course I also stayed awake for the grade 10 social studies lecture on "wants vs. needs".
> 
> It used to be people waited until they could afford things...now we're entitled to have everything now.
> 
> Bread and circuses...


I agree that it was foolish for many US folks to get mortgages and houses they can not afford,
but the issue is deeper than that. Some big mortgage companies (One of which was Country Wide Credit, I think) had a policy of giving *every one* who came in the door a mortgage regardless of income. And it wasn't the foolish home buyers lying on applications, it was the mortgage lenders staff who exaggerated income (lied) to get them the money. My point is, we can blame the corporations too for that debacle, not just the foolish home buyers. And who the heck is responsible for regulating that industry? Why not blame them too? 

I believe that Marx analyzed the problem accurately, but his solution - state ownership of the means of production and equal distribution of goods and services - was an obvious total failure. So lets not go there with this Oxfam study on wealth distribution. Even so, it seems like unfettered, unregulated capitalism is just as bad. I believe in taxing the rich and middle class and using some of that to help the disabled, the weak, and poor even if the poor got that way via a foolish decision. I'm a capitalistic, but I filter out all the Beyond Good and Evil will to power stuff, and the social Darwinism, and replace it with some sharing and caring.

I doubt very much that taxing the rich and giving some to the poor is inflationary. Develop a heart.


----------



## dogcom

If you look in Canada where we didn't let the bankers go wild and get rich look how that turned out. Rich bankers in the US created tons of poor people and destroyed the tax payers. I am sure many on the forum were upset the poor bankers in Canada couldn't go wild so they could have their share prices climb at the time. Also these would be the same forum buddies complaining about public unions or wasting tax payer dollars. The destruction the bankers would do would have been many multiples to tax payers that any public union or whatever could have done. I should say I am not in favour of overpaid public unions, I am just saying people seem to think that being rich no matter what damage it causes is ok because they somehow got rich.


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> ... your world view is a lot more limited than mine ...


This seems to be confirming that my suspicion that we are talking about different things.

What you refer to as my "world view" is from my perspective - one particular extreme situation of the broad range that occur around the world. 

It is extreme enough to make any sort of entrepreneurship difficult, if not impossible. 




Just a Guy said:


> ... Your a glass half empty, I'm more a half full when it comes to business ...


Nope ... my glass is full for North America ... the glass is affected by the local situation.




Just a Guy said:


> ... If your junior achievement was so correct, explain the pet rock, and the millionaire it produced ...


You will have to ask the pet rock and any associated millionaires to explain why they've crashed the party as they weren't invited. :biggrin:


These were examples of doing what was alleged I had no understanding or experience of. [It's quite fun to make 100 to 150% in two days while others have the same info and miss the opportunity.]

... definitely on different pages here ...




Just a Guy said:


> ... Let's just agree to disagree.


 ... will do ...


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy

Pluto said:


> I agree that it was foolish for many US folks to get mortgages and houses they can not afford,
> but the issue is deeper than that. Some big mortgage companies (One of which was Country Wide Credit, I think) had a policy of giving *every one* who came in the door a mortgage regardless of income. And it wasn't the foolish home buyers lying on applications, it was the mortgage lenders staff who exaggerated income (lied) to get them the money. My point is, we can blame the corporations too for that debacle, not just the foolish home buyers. And who the heck is responsible for regulating that industry? Why not blame them too?


Actually, I believe it was a George Bush mandate to get every American their own home. I believe he changed legislation to make that a reality. Last time I checked, the 1%ers can't elect a majority government on their own! even with our pathetic voter turnout. I guess they got the government they deserved...


----------



## Just a Guy

Eclectic, 

If you want to see successful entrepreneurs from impoverished nations look at the success stories from some of those micro lending sites...

I remember one about some women who used to carry water all day who, with a $100 loan, created a cooking oil business that employs many of their villagers now. 

There are other stories about success that didn't even use the lending programs, just did it themselves...


----------



## Eclectic12

Just a Guy said:


> ... If you want to see successful entrepreneurs from impoverished nations look at the success stories from some of those micro lending sites...


... which supports my point that there are parts of the world where outside intervention is needed.

... since we've agreed to disagree, I'll stop now.


Cheers


----------



## Longwinston

Just a Guy said:


> Actually, I believe it was a George Bush mandate to get every American their own home. I believe he changed legislation to make that a reality. Last time I checked, the 1%ers can't elect a majority government on their own! even with our pathetic voter turnout. I guess they got the government they deserved...


Bill Clinton actually with republican help. Good intentions and path to damnation and all that. That's what is lost. Housing crisis was caused, ultimately, by bad government regulation.

The wealth gap is a recurring canard of the left. It comes up every other decade or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Sure wish we had leadership like this.


----------



## Nemo2

Longwinston said:


> Good intentions and path to damnation and all that. That's what is lost. Housing crisis was caused, ultimately, by bad government regulation.
> 
> The wealth gap is a recurring canard of the left. It comes up every other decade or so.


Barney Frank, (Democrat...of course), forced 'affordable housing' regulations on Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae which made them issue mortgages, (something like a $TRILLION worth), to those financially ineligible to own houses or to repay their loans.

More failed 'social engineering'.


----------



## Nemo2

Longwinston said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
> 
> Sure wish we had leadership like this.


:encouragement:


----------



## sags

In that clip, Margaret Thatcher's proposition that closing the "wealth gap" would result in the rich being poorer and the poor being poorer, enforces the idea that the poor are entirely dependent on the rich for their well being, and therefore have no ability to raise themselves out of poverty on their own.

Taken to the extreme, her view of the world was that if the wealthy owned 100% of the wealth.........the poor would be much better off.


----------



## james4beach

Neo-cons love the idea of the rich dominating the poor.

Typical "conservative" voters tend to naively think that one day, _they_ will get rich and therefore worry about the plight of the rich, as if they're going to join the ranks. They won't of course. Not even close... and one day they may realize that the policies they supported just helped bolster the already fabulously wealthy, at their own detriment.


----------



## james4beach

In fact I'll go as far as to say, a core strategy used by conservatives is to convince average people that they too have a shot at riches, and joining the upper class.

That's the idea behind one of Thatcher's famous quotes: *"The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners."*

See the implication there is that hey there you, joe sixpack, the guy with the truck or the guy who works in the oil industry... we're going to help _you_ become a wealthy person, *an owner*, an elite. Funny stuff!!

I've worked with tons of computer workers who seem convinced that they're inches away from striking it rich and starting the next Amazon or something. Sure... one in a million will. More likely, 20 years later they will still be a slave worker doing mundane technical work while the real owners starve them of wages. No overtime pay. And occasionally some pay with some worthless stock, like NT.

Yet conservatives manage to convince people of this fantasy, even poor people!

Support the conservatives long enough and you'll lose your job security, social safety nets, public services, and things like Employment Insurance. Harper has already started cracking down on EI. He's certainly wiping out government services. Because hey you, guy with the truck, you don't need EI... you work hard for your money. You sweat and bleed, you don't need papa government to give you baby treatment --- you're enough of a MAN to make do without handouts like EI.

Ha! It's hilarious

When I lived in Australia, you saw the same conservative messages directed at blue collar workers. There everyone was a "hard working bloke"


----------



## valueindexer

sags said:


> In that clip, Margaret Thatcher's proposition that closing the "wealth gap" would result in the rich being poorer and the poor being poorer, enforces the idea that the poor are entirely dependent on the rich for their well being, and therefore have no ability to raise themselves out of poverty on their own.
> 
> Taken to the extreme, her view of the world was that if the wealthy owned 100% of the wealth.........the poor would be much better off.


Her point was that under her policies everyone was wealthier than they were before. Anyone who was opposed to her policies was opposed to the poor getting wealthier. Maybe there was some better way that left everyone better off and with a smaller gap but there are many records of socialist policies that have left everyone worse off and that people still support just because they have a smaller income gap. Those who follow the motto "we're not happy until you're not happy" will never be happy.



james4beach said:


> Neo-cons love the idea of the rich dominating the poor.
> 
> Typical "conservative" voters tend to naively think that one day, _they_ will get rich and therefore worry about the plight of the rich, as if they're going to join the ranks. They won't of course. Not even close... and one day they may realize that the policies they supported just helped bolster the already fabulously wealthy, at their own detriment.


Some are delusional for sure. Just like some socialist voters have a foolish idea that once their policies are implemented everyone will be happy and get along. A lot of conservative voters do know they won't win the lottery though. Maybe it's just that they would rather have less on their own terms than have more while having to fit their lives into bureaucratic rules. Do you think it's better to rent a modest but adequate apartment with your own income, or live with your parents in a much more expensive house and not work? It's pretty clear which one is a higher standard of living. Of course those who have more expensive tastes that aren't met by their current income will favor a different policy and will mock those who are happy with less.


----------



## Longwinston

sags said:


> In that clip, Margaret Thatcher's proposition that closing the "wealth gap" would result in the rich being poorer and the poor being poorer, enforces the idea that the poor are entirely dependent on the rich for their well being, and therefore have no ability to raise themselves out of poverty on their own.
> 
> Taken to the extreme, her view of the world was that if the wealthy owned 100% of the wealth.........the poor would be much better off.


No, her point was that her socialist colleague didn't care how well off or not the poor were, just that he didn't like the fact that there were any rich people. Politics of envy - full stop. Scary how many people fall for it.


----------

