SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Understanding 'Moneyland' — the offshore world of the super-rich
Many of the world's problems — from declining public services to corruption — can be explained in two words: offshore wealth. That's according to investigative journalist Oliver Bullough, who is working to unravel the intricate global web of money and power. To try and de-mystify the idea, Bullough came up with his own word: Moneyland. "I invented 'Moneyland' to try and get my own head around this problem, basically," he says.
[...] One of the greatest stumbling blocks in addressing the issues around offshore tax havens, Bullough says, is that the very term is relatively ambiguous and generally difficult to conceptualise. "'Offshore' isn't a place, it's not the British Virgin Islands or Hong Kong or whatever," he says. "'Offshore' just means not here; elsewhere. It's a legal construct that essentially means something can hide without being anywhere in particular."
To try and de-mystify the idea, Bullough came up with his own word: Moneyland. "I invented 'Moneyland' to try and get my own head around this problem, basically," he says. Moneyland — also the name of Bullough's book on the issue — makes up roughly 10 per cent of the world's wealth, he says. "If you look at its economy, it is the third biggest economy in the world after America and China, it's absolutely massive." Bullough declares London to be the likely capital of Moneyland, followed closely by New York. According to Oxfam, the top three-and-a-half dozen people in the world this year owns the same amount of stuff as the bottom 3.5 billion people in the world.
How far does the Gini curve have to bend before something snaps?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:28PM (1 child)
No. You specifically said, in a declarative mode:
...and there aren't. There are more. You didn't say "it is false to presume that there are two ditches to fall into", you said "there are two ditches to fall in."
My point was, and remains, that your declaration was false.
If you meant to say something else, that's fine, just say so. But go back and read your own words: that's what you wrote.
Further, your point WRT the excluded middle was:
...one which I agree with, as far as it goes (but not with the implication that this is even close to equally bad.) But it's not the point you made afterwards which I responded to with the assertion that you had presented same type of fallacy, which was a claim that there were "two ditches to fall in", and those ditches were not that the poor and rich were greedy, but rather that they were progressive and conservative extremist mindsets.
Your original post reads to me as if it were trying (and definitely failing) to cast that poor people were greedy and so this was comparable to rich people being greedy; clearly, this is disingenuous right out the door (and that's why I called you on it) as the obvious and toxically excessive greed of the rich is far more consequential than the arguably necessary greed of most of the poor who are just trying to make it to the next goalpost, which is always near — all too near.
Do you understand where I'm coming from now?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday October 17 2018, @04:29AM
I said that immediately after warning the reader to avoid the fallacy of the excluded middle. Having given that advice, I proceeded to give another example of that fallacy. I'm sorry if my style is above your reading level, perhaps you would prefer those of RealDonaldTrump.
"...and there aren't. There are more."
And why would you expect statements labeled as fallacious to be literally true? Or to put it another say, yeah, and?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?