SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Wealth inequality stands at its highest since the turn of the 20th century - the so-called 'Gilded Age' - as the proportion of capital held by the world's 1,542 dollar billionaires swells yet higher. The report, undertaken by Swiss banking giant UBS and UK accounting company PwC, discusses the roles technology and globalization play in the status quo, and appears two weeks after the IMF recommended that the rich should pay more tax to address the enormous disparity.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Madness takes its toll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:43AM (18 children)
The game has been won.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:05PM
I just lost The Game. :\
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:16PM (16 children)
I could be wrong (there are various traps of ideology to stumble through such as a resurgence of authoritarianism and the usual economic thrashing of progressive thought - such as this story's obsession over income inequality), but the error of my ways isn't going to be revealed by people who don't have a clue what the world is like now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:42PM (3 children)
But, we're not building wealth. Most of our "wealth" is tied up in the stock market and is increasingly invested in companies that don't produce anything. If you account for the way that stock valuations are done, you'd find that we have a small fraction of the wealth that we seem to have. The moment people en masse try to get their money out of the markets is the moment people realize that we haven't actually built up anywhere near the wealth that we think.
And what's worse is those stocks are based on planning for the next quarter because that's roughly how long most people hold them for, the board is more concerned about pissing them off than the long term good of the company in most cases.
It's more or less a scam people look at their stock portfolio and their property and assume that it's wealth and it sort of is, but you can only tap those if most other people aren't because other wise the valuation tanks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:49PM (2 children)
Covered that here [soylentnews.org]. If it's not really wealth, then why count it as such for determining wealth and income inequality?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:14PM (1 child)
Because in terms of income inequality, it's not the amount of stocks you own, it's the amount of money that those stocks are generating whether they're reinvested or the earnings are collected. That's the basis on which people get taxed on stocks in the US, there's a few minor fees, but that's about it. The money that you have tied up in it is a reasonable measure over short time periods as long as there are no major events distorting it.
In terms of determining wealth, that's rather questionable, it's mostly a dick measuring contest as you're not going to be able to sell those stocks for anywhere near what they're worth unless you're selling small batches over long periods of time.
But, really, the point you're refusing to acknowledge here is that we can't all cash out our stock holdings and get the money the market cap out of it. That's just not how stocks work, a few small investors can, but if everybody tried there'd be a run on the stocks and the market would crash like it did in 1929.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:52PM
Dividend is taxed twice - first as corporate taxes and second as income, not as capital gains.
So wealth of the 1% is smaller than advertised. Who knew?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:37PM (11 children)
So not till a fair portion of us are dead.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:59PM (10 children)
So what? Googling around, I see numerous posts of yours that show you care about a future beyond the next quarter. Maybe you ought to care about this future as well even though many people won't live to see it.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:14PM (9 children)
I do care about the future even after I'm gone, but I'm not a masochist. We can bring prosperity sooner and we should.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:17PM (8 children)
Well, let's have a look at your snake oil then. What's the magic fix that'll bring several billion people quickly to developed world status?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:44PM (5 children)
Right now, I'm focusing on keeping the developed world at developed world status. As usual, you're focused on moving the goalposts. Do tell, why is it necessary to screw everyone over to develop the 3rd world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:29PM (4 children)
So who's been moving the goalposts? Here's what I originally wrote in this thread:
then
Sounds very consistent to me: wealth building, developed world status for most of the world - all the same thing. Now let's consider your posts in this same thread:
and then
You've backtracked from "bring prosperity sooner" to "keeping the developed world at developed world status", which is classic moving the goalpost rhetoric. Further, I'm not interested in merely stabilizing the developed world (merely maintaining the status quo won't somehow "bring prosperity sooner", but rather keep that prosperity away indefinitely from those who don't already have it), but bringing the many benefits of the developed world to everyone in the world.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:19PM (3 children)
Given that TFA is talking about the developed world, it's not much of a stretch for me to expect the comments to be on-topic.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:42PM (2 children)
"World" not "developed world".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)
The world is witnessing it, but the billionaires aren't in the 3rd world. The taxes would come from the developed world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:25PM
Well, who was claiming that they're all in the Third World? There are a fair number [wikipedia.org] in the developing world, it's not a phenomenon exclusive to the developed world, though obviously the developed world is inordinately endowed with them. For example, Slim Carlos is Mexican and the sixth richest person in the world.
From the link, there are just over 2000 billionaires in the world, with China having over 300 and India over 100.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:04PM (1 child)
What's the magic fix that'll bring several billion people quickly to developed world status?
Disobedience. Our own submissiveness/subservience is the only thing stopping us. It is the direct cause of all our poverty. The prison is our own making. And the truth is that we can turn on a dime if we want to [youtube.com]. So, yes, we can do it quickly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:40PM
No, it's the sheer incompetence. Let us keep in mind that people can already vote for leaders that reflect their interests throughout most of the world. They can spend less than they earn. The combination of the two is a usual way to empower people.
So we're to expect that these many incompetent people will rebel in a way that quickly makes things better? I think that's nonsense. Maybe after the years of inevitable power struggles and betrayals of principle, a Napoleonic strong man will emerge to tell the masses where to go. Or maybe it'll be Pol Pot. Interesting times.