Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
theguardian.com
Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
1–10 of 114 posts
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#2"The report shows that a person needs only $3,210 (£2,100) to be in the wealthiest 50% of world citizens. "
Prices between country are adjusted to Power parity purchases (PPP)
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#3Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#4Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
Most normal countries aren't aiming for equality, they are just aiming for not-massive-inequality.
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#5Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
The lower-classes care about it now, and the middle classes are beginning to care more about it; and many of them don't care about the type of evidence you have mentioned. This is why left-wing politics is seeing a resurgence with Corbyn in the United Kingdom and Sanders in the United States.
The happiest countries in the world are those where income equality between the residents of the country is more evenly distributed, people want fairness. The greater concentration of wealth to fewer people and businesses will likely in the near future cause further social upheaval amongst the masses, i.e. those that consider the current system unfair.
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#6Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
The wealth distribution is remarkably skewed. Today it might not mean anything but give it a few years of people having no money yet having bills, loans, mortgages, etc. to pay with no possibility of retirement and you have yourself a prime situation for another French revolution or oppressive police state.
It's not something that you can just let sit, it's going to get bloody if it is not addressed soon. We have seen this everytime in history. It is not possible to sustain such levels of income inequality.
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#7Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
It's fine for some to own nothing in order to have bigger economy on the whole world? Who are we competing with Mars? What a billionaire need more than billion for anything?
You comment just funny since it's the perfect billionaire's first world problem.
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#8Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
It's fine for some to own nothing in order to have bigger economy on the whole world? Who are we competing with Mars? What a billionaire need more than billion for anything? You comment just funny since it's the perfect billionaire's first world problem.
I'm all for less inequality but putting in artificial caps doesn't do any good either.
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#9Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?
It is actually, because we know that relative equality is a bigger contributor to happiness than any sort of absolute growth. Put simply, people would rather be poorer and in the "same boat" as others than be slightly wealthier but face massive inequality. So if you think part of the job of the economy is to maximize human happiness it absolutely matters. http://inequality.org/happiness-and-inequality-study/
Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%
#10[deleted]