Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the 16-tons-and-what-do-you-get? dept.

An Oxfam report claims that the world's eight richest billionaires control an amount of wealth equivalent to that of the world's 50% poorest people. That's a dramatic decline from the 62 billionaires estimated in the previous year's report:

In a report published to coincide with the start of the week-long World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam said it was "beyond grotesque" that a handful of rich men headed by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates are worth $426bn (£350bn), equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people.

[...] Oxfam said the world's poorest 50% owned the same in assets as the $426bn owned by a group headed by Gates, Amancio Ortega, the founder of the Spanish fashion chain Zara, and Warren Buffett, the renowned investor and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway. The others are Carlos Slim Helú: the Mexican telecoms tycoon and owner of conglomerate Grupo Carso; Jeff Bezos: the founder of Amazon; Mark Zuckerberg: the founder of Facebook; Larry Ellison, chief executive of US tech firm Oracle; and Michael Bloomberg; a former mayor of New York and founder and owner of the Bloomberg news and financial information service.

NextBigFuture points out that Oxfam's numbers are skewed by indebtedness.

The Business and Sustainable Development Commission has released a report calling for... sustainable development ahead of the World Economic Forum (from Jan. 17th-20th in Davos, Switzerland):

"Those losing out either economically or environmentally, such as the citizens of smog-choked Asian cities, or socially, through the breakdown of traditional rural communities, are asking whether the costs of our global economy are greater than its benefits," the commission said.

The group's report is a call to action: Corporate leaders must quickly change the way they do business in order to rebuild trust between industry and wider society. Members of the group include Alibaba founder Jack Ma, Mars CEO Grant Reid and Paul Polman, the CEO of Unilever. "We believe radical action is needed," the group said. If businesses need convincing, there's even a monetary incentive: The commission estimates there's $12 trillion to be made in extra growth and savings from sustainable development by 2030. Sectors that could benefit include heath care, clean energy and urban infrastructure.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @10:46PM (#455130)

    The problem is that the average prole thinks a billionaire is just the same, only with more stuff in his house, yet this is totally untrue; a billionaire is merely the figurehead of an enormous organization composed of very many people—and he may well have gotten to that position solely through voluntary trade.

    A billionaire's wealth is merely a fabricated liquidation of that organization; it's not real. His worth isn't money, but rather deference from the thousands of people who work for him of their own free will, trusting that he will lead them all toward ever more wealth.

    What to make of this power? Better in the hands of a billionaire than in the hands of a paper-pushing bureaucrat in government.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GlennC on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:24PM

    by GlennC (3656) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:24PM (#455145)

    The problem is that the "paper-pushing bureaucrat in government" along with their department heads and our "elected officials" are actually working on behalf of the billionaire.

    --
    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:30PM (#455151)

      Then, as always, the problem is not the billionaire; the problem is government.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:14AM (#455167)

        It's a moot point when the people writing the rules are on the billionaire's payroll and a good many people vote for politicians promising to deregulate and lower taxes for the wealthiest.

        At this point, it's more or less impossible to bribe a politician as you'd have to literally give them a sack of money with instructions. But, paying off their debts is OK as is giving them expensive loaner cars and huge amounts of campaign money and then hiring them after they leave office.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:44AM (#455178)

          So, with government you have 2 choices: Either a monopoly on violence controlled by a know-nothing paper-pushing bureaucrat, or a monopoly on violence maneuvered by a know-nothing paper-pushing bureaucrat on behalf of a billionaire; sounds like government is a bad idea.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @12:54AM (#455182)

            And without government you have an effective monopoly on violence by the billionaires.

            Assuming you are the OP at the top of the thread you must understand that the vast organization that defers to the billionaire would appropriate so much ability to do violence that your personal ability wouldn't just be dwarfed, it would be snuffed out. Remember the Pinktertons? Now take their unconstrained violence and add all modern military tech.

            I can only assume you aren't that OP.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:06AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:06AM (#455186)

              Good. 8 competing, secular billionaires, rather than 1 quasi-religious Uncle Sam.

              Besides, if a billionaire decided to use violence to expand his organization, then that organization would be... a government—get it yet?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:17AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:17AM (#455220)

                Besides, if a billionaire decided to use violence to expand his organization, then that organization would be... a government—get it yet?

                So what you're saying is that governments are inevitable, and Ancaps may as well be wishing for unicorns?

                If men were ruled by unicorns...

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:21AM (#455235)

                Secular? You can hope... And what world do you live in where the trappings of power don't always enable people to use violence to achieve their means. Government is the group we choose to keep our community together, it is a natural extension of being human. Some can deny that structure, but such groupings always come about. Corporation, government, kingdom, city, or village...

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:30AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:30AM (#455261)

                  The key is to develop an organization under a culture that respects voluntary association (e.g., voluntary trade).