Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

Politics International Politics
1

Richest 2% own ‘half the wealth’
The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world’s population own barely 1% of global wealth.

There have of course been many studies of worldwide inequality.

But what is new about this report, the authors say, is its coverage.

It deals with all countries in the world - either actual data or estimates based on statistical analysis - and it deals with wealth, where most previous research has looked at income.

What they mean by wealth in this study is what people own, less what they owe - their debts. The assets include land, buildings, animals and financial assets.

Different assets

The analysis shows, as have many other less comprehensive studies, striking divergences in wealth between countries.

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and some countries in the Asia Pacific region, such as Japan and Australia.

These countries account for 90% of household wealth.

The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.

And it uncovers some striking differences in the types of assets that dominate in different countries.

In less developed nations, land and farm assets are more important, reflecting the greater importance of agriculture in those economies.

In addition, the report says the weighting is the result of “immature” financial institutions, which make it much harder for people to have savings accounts or shares.

In contrast, some citizens of the rich countries have more debt than assets - making them, the report says, among the poorest in the world in terms of household wealth.

However, they are presumably better off in terms of what they consume than many people in developing countries.


The people at the top of the tree are enjoying the best things in life

In richer nations, landowners can afford not to farm their properties

Many the world’s poorer children will have very little to look forward to

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

Under the law of Socialism this wealth would be spread to the masses EQUALLY.

2

You’re missing the point. I am one of those 2% because I grew up in Western Europe in a clean, safe environment with great educational opportunities.

I don’t have lots of money because I am too lazy and stupid to earn/generate lots.

However, I am an English teacher. I have studied linguistics. I have 10 years’ experience. I get paid more than a new English teacher with fewer qualifications because I am worth more, to a school. I’ll be more of an asset in another 10 years. Which is why I earn less than my boss. I don’t generate as much wealth for my company as he does. I work hard so that I can improve at what I do and some day earn more money. I’m fucked if I’m gonna share my salary with a 22 year-old teacher. And I don’t ask my boss for his money either because he has earned his salary increases. What I will do is give money to a child who has no food to eat.

Come on, it’s easy. It’s not fool proof, but it’s better than your solution.

3

king wu wrote:

Yeah, right! Like in Zimbabwe, eh? :s

4

So you’re not going to the upcoming Fredfest, king wu? Pity, they’re having third world baby, the other, other white meat. You could get a taste for it. It really is quite delicious. Perhaps a tad lean, but it is better for you than pork.

Certainly popular in the more troubled periods of your beloved workers paradise, so it’s not just a rich thing.

Cheers.

HG

5

If you read the actual report (here) you can see that to be in the top 10 percent of the world, you have to have either $61041 (nominal) or $88035 (PPP adjusted) of wealth. To be in the top 1%, you need $514512 or $523264 of wealth. To be in the top half, you need $2161 of wealth.

Remember this is wealth, not income. So basically just about every college-educated American who owns a home is already in the top one or two percent. I’d imagine that most middle-class Taiwanese families who own homes would be above the ten percent line.

My guess is that if you have access to the Internet, you have more than $2161 of wealth. You’re part of the problem.

6

[quote=“king wu”]
Under the law of Socialism this wealth would be spread to the masses EQUALLY.[/quote]
The Law of Socialism: Level the playing field by making everyone equally poor.

7

Moreover. . .

How many people does Bill Gates employ?

How much money does the Gates Foundation contribute annually to global health and development programs?
(Vaccinnes, immunization, eradication of diseases, HIV research, education, agricultural development, etc)

At least US$1.5 billion
(making it the largest charitable organization in the world, giving as much for health programs as the UN’s World Health Organization does)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Mel … Foundation

8

That’s not quite accurate, TSC.

You are right, of course, about making everyone poorer on aggregate. But it is not the case that everyone is equally poor. The top 1-2% of the population who are party leaders (and their families and cronies) still live a life of relative luxury. So “poorer” yes, “equally poor” no.

H

9

I don’t believe earned wealth should be forcibly confiscated because, after all, it’s earned.

Natural resources, on the other hand, such as arable land, living space, water, mineral wealth should be commonly owned in my belief including income derived from their use.

This would be a radical change from current economic systems and practices and would, I believe, eliminate or largely reduce the causes of poverty.

Rather than a communistic system of false redistribution though in which the state actually retains control of these natural resources and the people get to use them and benefit from them at the pleasure of bureaucrats in Beijing, Hanoi or Pyongyang, a quasi-capitalist system of shareholder ownership would clearly be more efficient and equitable such as the annual dividend income residents of Alaska derive from state mineral resources. Individuals would truly own their share of natural resources that they needed to meet their needs but no one could own more than they personally needed and natural resources held beyond personal use – mineral resources, farm land – would be shareholder property paying yearly dividends.

So rather than a Hobson’s choice of eat the rich versus eat the poor which Communism vs. Capitalism represent, a new third option which synthesizes these old, discredited choices in a dialectical process which should be near and dear to the heart of any true communist represents the truly viable future.

10

What a load of bunk.

If all the land was commonly owned who would build homes? Who would plant forests, and clean up the water supplies so that they could breed fish?

What about the earned wealth that is currently invested in land and other natural resources? Would I be compensated for giving this up to the common good?

If I build cheap housing and benefit from the rent, someone is benefiting from the cheap housing. If I build a company and employ people they benefit from having employment. We must encourage the top 2% to invest more in growth. there is nothing wrong with responsible wealth. Charitable giving is fine but it only goes so far.

11

[quote=“Edgar Allen”]What a load of bunk.

If all the land was commonly owned who would build homes? Who would plant forests, and clean up the water supplies so that they could breed fish?

What about the earned wealth that is currently invested in land and other natural resources? Would I be compensated for giving this up to the common good?

If I build cheap housing and benefit from the rent, someone is benefiting from the cheap housing. If I build a company and employ people they benefit from having employment. We must encourage the top 2% to invest more in growth. there is nothing wrong with responsible wealth. Charitable giving is fine but it only goes so far.[/quote]

Corporations, including natural resource based corporations, are now predominantly owned in common and the model seems to function but their shareholders aren’t required to do the actual labor to make these corporations work. Hired managers would build the homes, plant the crops, mine the minerals etc. and should and would be paid for their services. This ‘share the natural wealth’ model also seems to be functioning adequately in Alaska with energy resources so simply expanding the shareholder base to include everyone fortunate enough to have been born in a country blessed with adequate natural resources isn’t all that radical or foolish.

The real issue here is natural resources necessary for survival and well-being and whether it’s bunk or not to question the fact that 2% of the world’s people control 50% of its natural wealth which they had nothing to do with creating. (Hired managers would build the homes, plant the crops, mine the minerals etc. and should and would be paid for their services.)

In a communist system, no one really owns anything and so everyone is pauperized equally. In a capitalist system, one person could theoretically own all the non-government-owned natural resources – including those necessary for survival – and set whatever conditions for usage he or she chooses. So, for example, he or she could set rents far above the means of 98% of the population and be perfectly within his rights. In practice, it’s more like 2% controlling most of the wealth and market forces ameliorating their natural inclination to charge as much for the right to access as possible but I fail to see how that’s not regarded as strange in a world in which people are actually suffering from hunger and homelessness because of such a system.

If a transition were to occur to some new, more equitable distribution system which led to the end or reduction of endemic poverty, current owners of large amounts of natural wealth would certainly need to be compensated for the change in the rules of ownership.

12

Socialism depends on everyone palying the same game. Now if we had been cloned, like the storm troopers, then socialism might be possible. But whilst I have the ability to mis-trust my neighbour, and my neighbour has the capacity to steal from me, socialism is never going to work. Well, unless there are some pretty hardcore overlords to put the fear of God into us.

I remember Busta Rhymes once defending the money he spent on music videos. ‘Hey, I don’t keep poor people poor. Your governement does that. Industries do that. I just try and cheer those poor f*ckers up.’
If 2% own half the wealth. And 1% own the other half, what do the other 97% of the people own?

13

Tom

If my maths is correct 0, zip, nada, not a thing.

14

Hang on, I screwed it up.

2% own half the wealth.

Half the people own 1% of the wealth.

So 53% of the people own 53% of the wealth. Seems like there isn’t a problem when you look at things that way!

Taxation and less corrupt governance would reduce the inequality in the Phillips curve.

15

I’m no commie or even socialist but I used to wonder during history class why so many people went hungry and homeless during the Great Depression.

It wasn’t as if there wasn’t enough arable land, water and places to live all of a sudden yet hordes of people were hungry and homeless.

It’s the same thing now. People are going without everywhere on planet earth but it’s not as if the resources to meet their needs don’t exist.

Am I overcomplicating this? Viewing it from an unnecessarily Dickensian perspective? Should I just party on and forget about it because it’s just too complicated to do anything better than we’re already doing?

16

That’s not quite accurate, TSC.

You are right, of course, about making everyone poorer on aggregate. But it is not the case that everyone is equally poor. The top 1-2% of the population who are party leaders (and their families and cronies) still live a life of relative luxury. So “poorer” yes, “equally poor” no.

H[/quote]

I thought that went without saying. Canada is full of millionaire socialist politicians who can’t wait to share my piddly $30 000 per annum. As Fred Smith said:

17

The US has gone back to the same wealth dist. that existed in like 1910. Wasn’t that that age of the Robber Barons?

18

Ah but the trickle down . . . or should I say pissed on from a great height.

HG

19

[quote=“TomHill”]Hang on, I screwed it up.

2% own half the wealth.

Half the people own 1% of the wealth.

So 53% of the people own 53% of the wealth. Seems like there isn’t a problem when you look at things that way![/quote]

Perhaps that’s one interpretation. But others might view it as meaning 52% of the people own 51% of the wealth. :idunno:

. . . and there’s the inequity King Wu was rightfully lamenting. :wink:

20

Sorry to correct your maths Tom.
2% own 50%
50% own 1%
Therefore 52% own 51%
The remaining 48% own 49% of the wealth.

Using two definitions of average (median and mean) this sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately the mode is skewed towards poverty with the peak somewhere around US$1 per day income and knack all assets.

Isn’t it all meaningless anyway? Some of the happiest families I have met have nothing, and some of the unhappiest individuals have been loaded.