Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-got-mine!-And-Yours.-And-Yours.-Annnnnd-yours,-too. dept.

The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017

More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.

That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.

Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.

"The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system," said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:40PM (20 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:40PM (#628872) Journal

    I have no problem with capitalism in itself: my problem is with the wealthy buying laws for the sole purpose of making them wealthy at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy those laws.

    Just like religion and state should be separate, just like civilian police should be separate from military forces, capitalism should be separate from politics: politicians should NOT be able to be bought by those with money, and laws should NOT be able to be made or bent in moneys favour.

    Big money should be kept out of politics, big donations should not be allowed to be made. Politicians should be only allowed to take small donations ($100ish) from individuals.

    AND, i'd like to see those with money make some REAL contributions to the betterment of mankind, not like the fake philanthropy most of them are engaged in. If i had that kind of money, i'd like to be seen as someone who helped mankind be better than it is, not just as a money grubber who bought politicians for their own gain.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:06PM (19 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:06PM (#628879) Homepage Journal

    I agree, right up until here:

    Big money should be kept out of politics...

    Up until the advent of the Internet, speech was not remotely free-as-in-beer if you wanted anyone outside shouting distance to hear it. Thus the absolute necessity to involve money in the process. Whether a billion dollars of political speech comes from one person or a hundred million is irrelevant. Every citizen should be free to speak as widely and often as their means allow them to.

    I'm peachy keen with not allowing corporate coffers to be used in politics though. Corporations are not human beings and should not have human rights or political representation. No taxation without representation is kind of a big thing in the US though, so they need to not be taxed at all if that's the road we go down.

    AND, i'd like to see those with money make some REAL contributions to the betterment of mankind, not like the fake philanthropy most of them are engaged in. If i had that kind of money, i'd like to be seen as someone who helped mankind be better than it is, not just as a money grubber who bought politicians for their own gain.

    Sounds good to me if that's their choice. If you don't demand it of one person, you shouldn't demand it of another though. Check the percentage of poor people that actually attempt to make the world a better place for anyone but themselves and their family, even if only within their available means. I guarantee it's not going to be as high as those of greater means.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:07PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:07PM (#628917)

      Check the percentage of poor people that actually attempt to make the world a better place for anyone but themselves and their family, even if only within their available means. I guarantee it's not going to be as high as those of greater means.

      What exactly are your sources for that claim? What is your guarantee worth?

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:30PM (7 children)

      by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:30PM (#628934) Journal

      Up until the advent of the Internet, speech was not remotely free-as-in-beer if you wanted anyone outside shouting distance to hear it. Thus the absolute necessity to involve money in the process.

      But now, is not so necessary. Your speech can be gotten out much more cheaply today.

      Every citizen should be free to speak as widely and often as their means allow them to.

      But i don't think they should be allowed to 'speak' with big money in the political frame (zone? arena?)
      There, it should be 'by the people, for the people', not just some people. Each person should be able and allowed to 'speak' equally, or you get, by nature, inequality

      I guess, to me, freedom of speech does not include bribery of politicians. Political bribery causes inequality and takes away from the whole U.S. Constitution thing:
      "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
      You can't have Justice if there is inequality of representation, and laws are made to favour one group over another.

      I understand where you're coming from, i think we differ in that (maybe because of my son) i favour the needs of the many over the needs of the one, whereas you see it as more of a "I earned this, let me keep it" thing.
      I'm not communist, i just see that laws should be for everyone and that they should not be able to be bought.

      Meh, two different sides to each sphere: outside and inside, lol.

      Sounds good to me if that's their choice. If you don't demand it of one person, you shouldn't demand it of another though.

      But i do demand it of everyone! :)
      When growing up, watching Star Trek (TOS), the thing that struck me was "Maybe someday, we'll be like this. Better than we are today". Hasn't happened yet, sadly, and won't probably before i die. Kind of sad. I wanted to be on the Enterprise and be surrounded by 'better', lol.

      "Live long, and prosper".

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:03PM (3 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:03PM (#629003) Homepage Journal

        But now, is not so necessary. Your speech can be gotten out much more cheaply today.

        Agreed. I'm as yet unsure how things should be approached in the current era. It's necessary to keep in mind though that corporate censorship of speech would be a significant factor as well though.

        But i don't think they should be allowed to 'speak' with big money in the political frame

        Why? They've not necessarily done anything immoral to warrant slapping a muzzle on them. Individual cases will of course vary.

        I agree with the whole "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" as a personal philosophy. I disagree strongly with it as a matter of civic policy though. Down that road are things like killing those indians over there because they're on some land we want to for the good of the US. Ask around a prison, it's not that far a stretch from theft to murder. Or just read up on any communist regime, paying particular attention to the death tolls that were necessary "for the greater good".

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)

          by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:25PM (#629020) Journal

          It's necessary to keep in mind though that corporate censorship of speech would be a significant factor as well though.

          Agreed.

          Down that road are things like killing those indians over there because they're on some land we want to for the good of the US

          That's one reason to keep big money out of politics: better chance for individuals and groups who are a minority/poor/whatHaveYou to have a voice..... why we need better governance than 'we' currently have.

          Damn.... James T. Kirk for President! :)
          --Paid for by the James T. Kirk for President and getting lots of green female action Committee

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:20PM

          by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:20PM (#629116) Homepage Journal

          Down that road are things like killing those indians over there because they're on some land we want to for the good of the US.

          That's why a good ethical system should place a very high weighting on avoiding the intentional creation of significant harm. Harm is being inflicted on a small group of people to increase the wellbeing and comfort of another.

          Perhaps someone might argue that people were otherwise dying in the US, so we probably need a clause that people should just never be murdered or, more realistically, people should only be killed if they are already the aggressor in a kill-or-be-killed situation.

          A separate point is that its an example of meddling with someone else's already established society when they had previously had zero involvement in yours.

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
      • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:07PM (2 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:07PM (#629102) Homepage Journal

        i favour the needs of the many over the needs of the one

        Hey it's funny that we both posted [soylentnews.org] about exactly this (and referenced Trek) within 14 minutes of each other! Mine is 3rd paragraph from the bottom. : )

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:35PM (1 child)

          by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:35PM (#629159) Journal

          One of the things that attracts me to TOS is the idea that 'we could be better'.

          Corruption makes that not possible, which to me is the real problem with the 1%: making things go THEIR way which is the exact opposite of TOS.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:36PM

            by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:36PM (#629187) Homepage Journal

            Yes, Kirk, McCoy and Spock all seem to be men with strong moral values and they're all inquisitive, deep thinkers. Picard too. It's worth noting that Captain Kirk's two best friends are both scientists.

            Some of the other Starfleet higher-ups Kirk has to deal with aren't always so great. They tend to be more preoccupied with rules for their own sake. Kirk sometimes lies to them as a shortcut I suppose because he believes it's in the greater good. Spock does the same too of course, eventually. Kirk also cheated on his Kobyashi Maru but I don't think he's inherently a selfish person. He rarely screws other people over.

            I struggle to think of any examples of corruption high up in Starfleet. Maybe Matt Decker, but then he had just lost his entire crew? Any corrupt humans I can think of seem destined to become renegades like Harry Mudd.

            So it seems that they created a society where moral fiber, intelligence and inquisitiveness are what gets you to the top, rather than greed, corruption and thirst for power.

            Most of my examples were of Starfleet personnel. We don't see much of Earth politics outside of Starfleet, which is unfortunate.

            --
            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by therainingmonkey on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:42PM (4 children)

      by therainingmonkey (6839) on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:42PM (#628941)

      > Check the percentage of poor people that actually attempt to make the world a better place for anyone but themselves and their family, even if only within their available means. I guarantee it's not going to be as high as those of greater means.

      We'd all like this to be true, but it isn't. As a proportion of their income, the poor give far more to charity than the rich, in the US and in the UK. If anyone has more data, I'd love to see it.

      https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/21/voluntarysector.fundraising [theguardian.com]
      https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/ [theatlantic.com]

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:08PM (3 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:08PM (#629008) Homepage Journal

        A) Your sources are off-the-charts far from unbiased towards your position.

        B) I think Gates alone kind of blew that claim for you.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:04PM

          by Reziac (2489) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:04PM (#629098) Homepage

          And Soros recently blew the living shit out of it for everyone, but I wouldn't exactly call his monetary contributions 'toward making the world a better place'.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Gaaark on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:54PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 27 2018, @09:54PM (#629168) Journal

          But Billy's philanthropy isn't really philanthropy, to me, it is business and profit.

          With Microsoft giving software, B&M Gates give computers to poor schools (Detroit), but it's not charity: there are strings attached. The school can't put Linux on them (not MS approved software), can't use libre office, etc. To me, that's not charity.

          They invest in companies in, say, India that give them amazing ROI, but pollutes the air, ground and water: so they give 'free' immunization shots to the people they are killing.... that's not philanthropy....

          ....not a Gates fan.
          But they get honoured as Great Philanthropists. Fuck off. Gates can lick my nuts. He's in everything for personal profit and "what a great guy!"

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:06AM (#629254)

          You have a unique ability to dismiss any and all evidence you don't like. It is hilarious that you can't see this and pretend to be purely rational.

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:53PM (2 children)

      by Pino P (4721) on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:53PM (#628950) Journal

      Whether a billion dollars of political speech comes from one person or a hundred million is irrelevant. Every citizen should be free to speak as widely and often as their means allow them to.

      I'm peachy keen with not allowing corporate coffers to be used in politics though. Corporations are not human beings and should not have human rights

      Whether a billion dollars of political speech comes from one corporation or ten million shareholders is irrelevant.

      or political representation. No taxation without representation is kind of a big thing in the US though

      Corporations have political representation through those shareholders who are eligible voters.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:09PM (1 child)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:09PM (#629010) Homepage Journal

        Every citizen with a 401k is a shareholder of something or other. Or do you only want to muzzle those who have reason to disagree with you?

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:42AM

          by Pino P (4721) on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:42AM (#629314) Journal

          An investor with a 401(k) pension account exercises his free speech by investing in a corporation with whose ethics he agrees.