SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Common Dreams reports
The world's richest 1 percent now own more wealth than [the remaining] 99 percent combined. This finding comes from Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report for 2015, [redirects to a PDF] released last week. Last year, Credit Suisse found the richest 1 percent of adults owned 48 percent of global wealth. According to the new report, the [richest] 1 percent now hold 50.4 percent of all the world's household wealth.
Credit Suisse's findings are in line with Oxfam's prediction that global wealth inequality is only becoming greater. Last January, we predicted that the richest 1 percent would capture more than half of all household wealth by 2016. It looks like our prediction was right, but that we were too conservative, since it has happened a year early. Alas, our forecast was confirmed, but it's nothing to celebrate.
When you look at the very top of the global wealth pyramid, the situation is much more alarming. When we first calculated in January 2014, the 85 richest individuals own more wealth than the poorest half of the planet. This trend has also worsened since that time. Last January, it was down to 80 people.
The implications of rising extreme wealth inequality are greatly worrying. The highly unbalanced concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer and fewer people impacts social stability within countries and threatens security on a global scale. It makes poverty reduction harder, threatens political inclusion, and compounds other inequalities.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:14AM
That 50.4% buys a lot of security, weapons, bread, circuses.
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:35AM
... and corrupt government officials.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:33AM
Bread? Where have you seen the bread?
Circuses sure... Bread? Not so much.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2015, @08:38PM
Please see the following link to find what was meant by "Bread". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program/ [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia notes: "SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and supplied roughly 46.5 million Americans with an average of $125.35 for each person per month in food assistance."
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2015, @08:41PM
As an aside, I have noticed that linking is broken. The link is broken when ending the URL Tag correctly with a forward slash and greater than sign at the end. An additional forward slash is added at the end or not parsed right or something.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:28AM
As Euripedes said "When a man's stomach is full it makes no difference whether he is rich or poor."
I suspect if the masses keep getting their bread there wouldn't be stuff like the Arab Spring: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/bread-food-arab-spring [theguardian.com]
Even if someone "perfect" were in charge instead of Mubarak he/she still would have been deposed once the country could not afford to give enough people cheap bread.
People may be upset but if their bellies and their families bellies are full will continue to be full very few are going to risk their life and the lives of their families trying to kill those at the top.
But once families are hungry, more and more people may think they have little left to lose.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:28AM
Here, in the US, we have serious comprehension problems with taxes. The left and the right bicker about taxation. They talk about taxing the rich, but everyone on both sides know that the "rich" don't pay taxes at all. Their assets are off shore, in carefully structured holding companies, virtually untouchable by any single government.
The controversy seems to always come back to some level of wealth, that doesn't even approach these wealthiest individuals in the world. Income of $250,000 a year? That's nothing. People who are mere multi-millionaires aren't even part of the discussion, in all seriousness. There are individuals in this world who could feed the ten most impoverished nations on earth, indefinitely, out of pocket change. There are somewhat less wealthy families that could do the same.
Millionnaires are generally just successful business people. Those are most definitely NOT the evil rulers of the world.
I truly wish that we could all get our heads on straight, and begin to understand what the "ruling class" really is, and that it's all of us, against them.
The ultra-wealthy really needs to be brought to heel. Those are the people who are pushing globalization, one world economy, and world government. You can bet your arse that if/when all that comes to pass, they'll be sitting at the top of the pyramid, running everything with an iron fist.
And - for what purpose?
Personally, I might go along with a one world government, if there were some real goal. Say they were working on colonizing the solar system, with plans to spread beyond the solar system. If they were harnessing mankind's assets for some such lofty goal, I might acquiesce to their demands.
In reality, these people continue to acquire wealth for their own personal benefit.
Just how much more benefit can they possibly get? There really is nothing more, once you own a dozen huge sprawling mansions, a couple yachts, and some private jets. What more is there?
It's all about POWER. You and I will live and work and play at the whim of those most powerful individuals. Power - he snaps his fingers, and thousands die around the world.
We are chumps and fools for having allowed these people to acquire so much wealth. We are all owned, to greater and lesser degrees.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:48AM
Yes.
But what I find interesting is that people think that this is somehow unique in the 10k of recorded human history...
Face it. This is what humans are.
The only solution is to cease being human.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:33AM
Fear, the ultimate and illogical motivator of all greed and power-grabbing, is a bestial thing. Acting for the benefit of others is a very human thing. For example: Astronauts risk life and limb in the pursuit of knowledge, working to overcome their own fears, for a greater purpose, on a regular basis. So I think you are wrong. The only solution to greed is to BE human, and NOT be an animal motivated only by selfish fear.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:38AM
This is a lie hollywood tells you to make you feel better.
Look around. What you describe is the exception.
I am talking averages here, not outliers.
I am being a realist here, not a delusional optimist...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:40AM
I formulated my delusional comment around your delusional comment. Now you have moved from the delusional stance of "This is what humans are" to the more reasonable stance of "This is what *many* humans are," a big step. So the real question here is not, "How do we stop being human?" It's "Where did those outliers come from, and how do we work to improve human behavior?" I have an idea: Books. No, ISIS doesn't want to read books and is not curious to learn, but I would wager that every child is curious and not inherently biased. They need books. Hollywood sells hope, but Hollywood did not invent hope. Hollywood did not invent charity, Hollywood did not invent knowledge, nor generosity, people did.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:29PM
Nope.
When describing populations that is exactly how you proceed.
Your method is called cherry picking.
The current and past state of the world agrees with me.
QED on my point.
I completely agree with your idealistic goal for humanity (despite what you may think I am an idealist at heart) but that is an asperational discussion about transforming default human nature into something other than that.
In other words become something other than human...the thing we currently are.
Again. QED.
(Score: 1) by linkdude64 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:16AM
Citing the objective existence of generosity to disprove a black and white statement is cherry picking? I think our operational definition of the word "Human" is what's creating the miscommunication here, and we can't be referring to biology alone, as we are biologically geared to be social creatures. So, claiming to understand with certainty, the "Default" behavior of human nature is a very intriguing thing to me, so please do go on, Euthyphro.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mmcmonster on Sunday October 25 2015, @03:05PM
Let me look at the people around me. They all make $100k/year. I would guess that most make $50k/year.
They all donate to the local food drives and when someone is properly sick (cancer, broken bones, etc.) they make sure they have a little extra money or whatever support they need to get by.
That is being human.
I don't begrudge the hard working who manages to make enough to retire early. The 'millionaire next door'. We all work hard to be that person. In fact, I'm kinda there already. Working to have a better retirement and secure my children's education and well being.
The multi-billionaires are different. The drive that makes the mega-billionaire makes them less human as well.
At some point it's not only too much, but it's too much by orders of magnitude.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:27PM
You would be wrong. While the AVERAGE wage is 50k, the MEDIAN wage (the one that counts) is $27k. For those that struggle with stats that means half of the US makes that or less...while the average just means the total money/number of people: a meaningless figure in this discussion.
This does not change the point - actually the difference brings it home. The wealthy sit at the top insulated from reality while the rest just have to put up with it,
In a 1st world country you tend to be able to put your head up your arse about it because the water level is so high that even the meager amount that trickles down for the middle class is enough to pay the food bill++. But that is more to do with technology.
Any time that water level drops, say due to disaster, you will quickly see how much like a a 3rd world country your economic system is. (e.g briefly during Katrina)
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:09PM
I do agree that the mean income in the US sucks quite badly. The only reason the standard of living in the US hasn't fallen significantly in the last 40 years is that in most couples now both the husband and wife work full time.
Now, couple that with the higher incidence of divorce compared to 40 years ago, and you can see that the country is in for a world of hurt. It would explain the communal living situations that so many people in their 20s and 30s are getting into. Having roommates in their 30s, getting divorced but still living under the same roof for convenience/cost issues, moving back in with their parents making multi-generational households.
Frankly the only out I see is taxing the super-rich more and using the money to give a baseline income for everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @10:37PM
> Any time that water level drops, say due to disaster, you will quickly see how much like a a 3rd world country your economic system is. (e.g briefly during Katrina)
Katrina is the perfect example. All the reporting on the news about mobs, looting and murders was 99% bullshit. [ajrarchive.org] The reality of Katrina was regular people coming together to selflessly help regular people to get through a disaster. Turns out that's what happens in practically every disaster - you might remember all the people rushing to the twin towers on 9/11.
When your own example disprove your theories, its time to dig a little deeper.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday October 26 2015, @05:10AM
But what was your govt and police response? What did those in power do?
How many people died when they did not need to? What was the rebuild like?
And 911 was an international disaster that was used to the fullest to promote even more evil in the middle east.
Not sure why that disproves anything...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hash14 on Sunday October 25 2015, @02:13PM
I think your average humans are normal people.
I think the problem is that the ones who grab power are inherently evil. Some are evil before they acquire that power, others are simply corrupted by it once they have it. And bear in mind that wealth is power (or at least one form of it).
The reason they win is because humans simply aren't good at working together on the scales that we need to in order take out these powerful figures. We don't vote for sensible laws and policies, we don't educate each other very well (or think independently), and we sure as hell don't assemble in masses that are sufficient to take that power back.
So that's why a few evil people will always win out over a community of relatively good people. We wait until it's too late and then it's all gone to hell.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday October 26 2015, @01:34AM
That's a bit too cynical I think, but I can see how it is easy to come to that conclusion. The fact is that our largest and most advanced societies are much better than most of the ones in history, the kingdoms and dictatorships and empires. We have more freedoms, and a greater standard of living than ever before. It's not just because of technology, but also because of social support. I think that we are capable of working together on these large scales. The problems we are encountering today are not due to inherent human traits, it's the economic system we use: it rewards bad behaviour with wealth and, as you say, that grants power. We have laws to try and prevent and catch crime, but that only catches the criminals that aren't good enough. It's like how antibiotics "create" better diseases; if you don't wipe it out the first time, those that survive create more. Except in the case of criminals they don't necessarily make more criminals, just more wealth so that they become stronger and better able to commit crimes. Become wealthy and powerful enough, and you can influence the laws and the law-enforcement to make you even harder to stop. It's the system's fault, not human nature. The fact that so many humans still manage to find the time and resources to do good things despite being penalized for it shows us what human nature is really about. What we need is a new form of economics that rewards good behaviour instead of bad behaviour. Then people will adjust to that and things will be much better.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Murdoc on Monday October 26 2015, @01:25AM
You are so right here. Human beings are capable of greater levels of cooperation and charity than any other animal. Part of that is due to our intelligence, but just being smart doesn't mean that you'll cooperate well. We could all be very cunning in our backstabbing each other, and yet we have created large nations and even groups of nations that are capable of providing aid to other groups and nations. No other animal does this. Sure, we have lots of bad behaviour going on, but that's because we are continuing to use an economic system that rewards bad behaviour. Crime pays, as long as you can get away with it. The law just catches the criminals that aren't good enough, so the ones that are get rewarded with wealth and power. With enough wealth and power you can manipulate the laws and law-enforcement to make you even harder to catch (do CEOs or corporations go to jail?). If we could use a different system that didn't reward bad behaviour, and rewarded good behaviour instead, humans would adjust to that, and our natural abilities to be "good" would flourish.
In fact, the fact that we live in such system that rewards bad behaviour and penalizes good behaviour (volunteers and those that give to charity lose wealth and therefore power as well), and many people still manage to be good (look at all the volunteers and those that give to charity; heck, even open source programmers are a great example of this), is a testament to the very "human" quality we have to try to be good. And there is good reason for that: Being good creates better societies, which in turn give a better standard of living. Do you think we'd have charity and social programs if we were living in a dictatorship?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:22AM
Came here to say the same thing.
It has always been thus. The difference today, is that the definition of wealth does not include other people as slaves.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:09PM
That is because economic research has shown that low wage slavery is far more efficient that an owner having to pay for their upkeep.
They can also wash their hands of their treatment...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:29AM
At least in the US we largely had the problem solved. We had a high tax rate on income and a lower tax on capital gains. The result was that rather than trying to amass so much money that they literally couldn't spend it all, the way to maximize their wealth involved giving back to the community and actually investing in the companies they owned. The end result was that things were better for most people and the rich were still rich enough that they didn't have to work.
A lot of the thievery and fraud that have come to characterize the current era didn't happen back then because there wasn't as much of an incentive to. It still happened, it would be stupid to argue otherwise, but there were limits to how much incentive there was to engage in that sort of thing.
Then you had 30 years of conservative economic policy under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush and the situation changed drastically. The wealth was allowed to flow up to the richest people unabated and the politicians were proud of it. Because it's clearly the supply side that dictates economic growth and not the demand side. And clearly the rich will buy more things just because we need them to in order to keep the economy growing rather than look for investments overseas.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:49AM
This is getting hilarious already.
How many more years of blaming the previous guy, before true-believers allow themselves to see their darling figurehead is a lying bag of it?
As long as the bosses on "your" side of the fake divide get a free pass on anything and everything, just for the lip-service - it will be getting worse. No incentive for them to improve anything, except the wording of lies.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday October 25 2015, @02:31PM
Then you had 30 years of conservative economic policy under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush and the situation changed drastically.
You know what else you had? 60 years of labor competition from the developing world. You need to know what the actual problems are first before casting blame. Non-conservative economic policy would still end up in the same situation.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 25 2015, @05:20PM
That's an excuse. Yes, the margin would have narrowed no matter what economic policy we took, but it's completely ridiculous to suggest that it would have happened this quickly or to this extent with competent economic policy. Not to mention that the quality of life would have sunk this low.
You see it all over the place, businesses that run themselves out of business because they're chasing next quarter's ratings rather than worrying about what happens years down the road. Companies that spend ridiculous amounts of money on extra employees because they're too cheap to pay a wage that would retain the ones that they had long enough for them to get good at their jobs.
Why should any employee work to improve the productivity of the company when they aren't going to receive a raise or really any other benefit? And that's the nub of it. The people who have an incentive to improve the efficiency are too incompetent and greedy to do it and the ones that can have no incentive to. Self-satisfaction and pride in ones work do not put food on the table.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 25 2015, @05:58PM
That's an excuse. Yes, the margin would have narrowed no matter what economic policy we took, but it's completely ridiculous to suggest that it would have happened this quickly or to this extent with competent economic policy. Not to mention that the quality of life would have sunk this low.
There are two things to note. First, I don't buy that the US has "conservative economic policy". The US government wouldn't owe over 70% of the country's GDP in publicly held debt, if that were true.
Second, there's been a lot of wriggling on the hook without any net gain and a huge bunch of policies that claimed to "create jobs" or reduce income inequality when they actually do the opposite. My view is that laissez faire would be better than virtually all efforts to address wage drops, income inequality, or anything else of that nature. There is a certain futility to any economic policy other than laissez faire, namely, that it interferes with the actions of people who simply put, are more competent and knowing than the policy makers.
You see it all over the place, businesses that run themselves out of business because they're chasing next quarter's ratings rather than worrying about what happens years down the road. Companies that spend ridiculous amounts of money on extra employees because they're too cheap to pay a wage that would retain the ones that they had long enough for them to get good at their jobs.
Such a process normally is destructive. We should ask ourselves what incentives are in play to reward such widespread behavior? The answer is that we have labored for around a century to eliminate risk, the harm from bad events, and the negative outcomes from making poor choices. The result is as you state above, a business environment which rewards short term thinkers.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:12PM
You mean NEO-conservative policy which is an oxymoron with a heavy emphasis on the moron part.
Regan began the borrowing tsunami and it has continued thusly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @10:57AM
The first 99% of that recorded history has a vastly different socio-political landscape to what we have today. Before the rise of 20th century societies, we didn't have universal education, accessible mass communications and overabundance of basic necessities. Modern humans in western societies don't sit at the bottom of Marslow's pyramid, to trivially equate their organizational capabilities to those who were is extremely naive.
Mark my words, the 21st century will likely see significant changes in social order under the pressure of the capabilities computing put in people's hands, just like the 20th century saw massive changes in the face of widespread industrialization and the 19th century saw in the face of novel forms of state and military organization.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday October 25 2015, @12:11PM
I tried not being human once. It was great.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:39AM
furfag.
(Score: 1) by Bobs on Sunday October 25 2015, @02:45PM
Face it. This is what humans are.
that is a great attitude!
Other times people have shared this attitude (USA-centric):
Saying you are powerless to affect change is a poor, uninformed decision and is giving up and accepting the status quo. It may feel easier but it doesn't make it right or true.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:18PM
Yes yes, nice rant.
But you've done nothing to disprove the statement that wealth has always been concentrated into the hands of a minority.
In fact, you've pretty well proven the OP's point. Not sure if that is where you thought you were going.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:20PM
Nice straw man, but you have missed the point.
Last 50 years: Corporate influenced governments with wealth in the hands of individuals
before that: robber barons and industrialists
before that: Monarchs, royalty of various flavours and the rise of the merchant class
before that: Monarchs and tribal leaders
Before that: damn dirty apes...
This was about the wealthy/privileged few being at the top shitting down on a population of the ignorant many.
TECHNOLOGY may have may the lot of the many better, but that does not change the pattern.
And anywhere resources dry up, climate changes or war breaks or whatever such there is not enough to go around you will see very quickly how similar a 1st world country is to a 3rd world country. (eg. briefly during Katrina)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VortexCortex on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:31AM
Just how much more benefit can they possibly get? There really is nothing more, once you own a dozen huge sprawling mansions, a couple yachts, and some private jets. What more is there?
You can become a god.
I wasn't going to reply, but since you asked: What you need next is a great disaster. Let's start with importing a bunch of cheap foreign labor to prop up the local debt-based currencies. Next create strife, promote infighting, etc. When the bubble pops the people will fight amongst themselves. Always rationalize this with the delusional "climate change" and "carbon pollution" narratives so the evils seem necessary to fix the "overpopulation problem".
When there's enough strain on the system, have another world war. For the first time in human history we have the capability to reduce the entire civilization back to the stone age (minus the very top elite). After just a few generations the technological wonders of today will be on par with legends of sorcery. The elites who survived and secreted away the means to rebuild and advance our modern society will then emerge with what seems like god like powers to the newly primitive peoples of Earth.
What's interesting to me is the re-purposing of not-so advanced water screen displays [youtu.be] into the not-so-secret [youtube.com] cloud-projection technology. [youtube.com] With which one could actually appear to the people as a larger than life deity from on high. [archive.is]
Through continued the use of planned disasters elites can then keep the population reduced to what they see as manageable, and keep the technological level of the populace at non threatening levels. After all, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Hey, if you don't want to know, you shouldn't ask.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:30AM
DING DING DING DING DING! We have another winnning post! VortexCortex wins the internet today. Power. How much power is enough? Well - some of us want to be gods.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Sunday October 25 2015, @01:02PM
Uh, it's pretty much all or nothing. Those few elite folks can't maintain their standard of living by themselves. Like it or not, a single "elite" family has an enormous supply chain that is literally impossible to maintain without significant middle class labor. If the middle class gets blasted back into the stone age there's no way the elite are going to survive unscathed, even if they have doomsday bunkers that are equipped to last for decades or centuries.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday October 25 2015, @02:27PM
The middle class is being replaced with automation.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday October 26 2015, @05:03AM
I think that the elite don't (for the most part) have the forethought to see that. Most of the elite didn't get that way through intelligence, they got that way because they are sociopaths.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:58PM
For some reason, it sounds like you described the end times of the Roman Empire, but described a modern Western Civilization instead. Weren't they the Western civilization of their era?
Perhaps they couldn't project a deity in the sky with the tools they had at the time, but their demise did come about around the same time as the importation of slave labor, reducing the value of their citizens, they had numerous wars that stretched them thin and served to reduce enlistable population otherwise out of a job, and it lastly was in a steep decline around the same time of the heralding of an important new religion.
Well, we just had an article a few days back about rich people digging vaults. I look forward to seeing which one emerges as a god, so I know who to worship until they can be brought down, provided I don't manage to succumb to the zombie infection prior to the great opening of the vaults of our deity overlords. If we do survive, I make a good macguyver, so any sane people left are welcome to team up with me to bring down the false gods of the new era. Although it'd be just our luck if zombie gods emerged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @04:40PM
You want to know why there is so much income inequality? Let me give you an example. Here is a post I put on Techdirt
"
"The error here is in thinking that property rights are in the interest of the public. They're not, they're in the interests of the owners."
Not always. Sometimes property rights are taken, maliciously, by government in the interest of corporations. Take for example the oil companies (this was here in the U.S.). I knew someone that owned property and later oil was found below it. The government confiscated the owners property and all of the neighboring property taking property away from many people under eminent domain to give that property over to oil companies. The oil companies compensated the landowners three times the value of the property before oil was found on it (a pittance of what the property was worth after oil was found on it). Many of the previous landowners fought this in court and lost. The government & industry got to take their property against their will in exchange for a small fraction of what it was worth. Thieves. You want to know why gas prices are so high? You want to know why a few multi-billion dollar corporations own all the important natural resources? Because they stole it and they continue to steal it (eminent domain). If someone finds natural resources the government will steal it from the owners, under eminent domain laws, to give it to incumbent corporations and private interests and compensate the owners a small fraction of its value. So that individuals can't extract the oil and natural resources themselves, sell it on the market, and drive prices down. This lets a small handful of businesses control the market.
Sorry this is off topic but another thing is big pharma talks about the high cost of drug development due to R&D failure rates. What they don't tell you is how much the burden of failures is carried by small, independent, companies and how the incumbent pharma companies only buy out promising companies and drugs after R&D has shown they have potential. So the incumbents don't take on much of the risks of failures, they lets independents do that, and then they buy out the most promising ones. This prevents newcomers from entering the market and allows incumbents to maintain their dominance. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that (well, unless there is some possible back door dealing between incumbents and the FDA whereby the FDA/incumbent complex will threaten a newcomer that if they don't sell then their drug will likely not get approval, which is very possible) but it does make their cries about expensive R&D costs less valid when they aren't the ones usually bearing the burden.
On top of that the oil and electric companies often get special tax breaks.
"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151013/10570532526/att-lawyers-want-you-to-know-that-atts-ceo-will-never-listen-to-customer-suggestions.shtml [techdirt.com]
A bunch of different landowners owning valuable land with valuable natural resources and selling it on the free market will naturally result in a lot less income inequality than just having a very few individuals own almost all of the natural resources that they got confiscated through eminent domain laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:34AM
....to the federal reserve
(Score: 3, Interesting) by throwaway28 on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:53AM
As much as I might want to be a social animal and join a thundering herd of online commenters who'ld call for a bloody revolution with torches and pitchforks, I don't want to say that.
Because, that would be an inefficient and wasteful use of hatred. It would be like short-circuiting a AA battery. Works, but far less useful than using that same hatred, or same AA battery, to power something else for a longer period of time.
If a metastable situation exists, if a difference in potential energy exists, then there's probably a way to derive useful energy from it. Few megatons of water at the top of a hill ? Turbine with fish bypass, is more useful than just letting it splash freely. Gallon of gasoline and 50 cubic meters of air ? Car engine, is more useful than a lit match. AA battery ? LED flashlight, is more useful than a bucket of mercury. Flammable hatred ? No idea how to spend it, but by analogy, there's probably something more useful, than a lit match.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:27AM
It of course depends on the situation. If you're caught in a room with a wooden door, the best use of the gasoline may indeed be to ignite it, after you spilled it against that wooden door.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:36AM
So you have no actual useful ideas... But you really don't want people to make waves or upset the status quo...
Gotcha.
Cool story bro.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:33AM
Don't mind him, he's just running for Senate.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:35AM
There is only so much wealth in the world, and even Warren Buffet can't spend it all.
So he doesn't try to spend it. Instead he invests it. He buys and builds and generally spends his money by lining other people's pockets with it.
Are we really hurt by that?
I get the impression most people think of Scrooge McDuck, wallowing in his vaults of money when they think of rich people.
Yet most of that money and wealth is used to employ people. Wealth does not gather moss.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday October 25 2015, @10:43AM
Good post, Frojack. I guess if everyone had the same amount of money, we would all be poor - because none of us would have the necessary excess of capital required to do extraordinary things.
Several weeks ago, I had posted a link to an old 1936 industrialist promotional movie of a Chevrolet production line. [youtube.com].
For this to be, someone had to have an awful lot of money.
What I do ask of my Government is create tax law to encourage using one's wealth to do stuff like this. Creating jobs for thousands of us. Someone has to have both the ability and the means to do stuff like this.
Like you say, take away their money and their ability to do stuff like this has been destroyed.
Then all of us can sit home unproductively instead of being collectively organized to take advantage of the economies of scale.
Maybe income inequality is not such a bad thing. Even though I am not in the one percenter camp. I guess its whether the haves use their resources to build palaces for themselves or factories which inevitably produce goods for us all. I have to leave it to tax law to discourage one and encourage the latter.
Personally, I would hate to see enraged rioters burn down a factory making washing machines... but if some rich guy is just slumlording, building himself a mansion in the hills from the misery of his minions, I would not lift a finger to stop the enraged minions from doing as they will if the slumlord loses control over them. Worse, I'd cheer them on and contribute what I could to their cause.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 25 2015, @05:49PM
Personally, I would hate to see enraged rioters burn down a factory making washing machines... but if some rich guy is just slumlording, building himself a mansion in the hills from the misery of his minions, I would not lift a finger to stop the enraged minions
And I don't deny there are some of these. But even their mansions are built by others.
Its hard to be rich and not spend money.
Some people I suppose just buy and sell Stock, which, unless you are buying IPO issues, is not that productive for society as a whole. It does free up someone else's money, but there is a lot of money tied up in revolving investments that don't generate a lot of new production.
Much as we seem to bemoan the Venture Capitalist, they are the ones plowing money directly back into society.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:39PM
In another recent thread, you were speaking as if Capitalism is the -only- economic system to have ever existed.
You're still at it.
For [a factory] to [exist], someone had to have an awful lot of money
...or a bunch of somebodies (workers) could have pooled their resources and created their own workplace.
ask [...] my Government [to] create tax law to encourage using one's wealth to do stuff like this
Gov't gutting the tax base in favor of a tiny number of rich guys is abandoning THE MAJORITY.
It's a race to the bottom.
Govt's job is to organize efforts to do the most good for the greatest number of people.
If you're not going to do your fucking jobs and you instead fob that off on some distant exploiter of local labor and local resources, why do we need YOU?
Someone has to have both the ability and the means to do stuff like this
...like The Workers who actually get those jobs done??
In a properly-operating system, the city|state gov't would function in the interest of The Working Class (y'know, THE MAJORITY) and would make sure that those jobs / that infrastructure exist for the empowerment of the region.
That gov't would accomplish that goal by working directly with The Workers (instead of with some absentee landlord who doesn't give a shit about what happens to the region 5 years from now when he takes another sweetheart deal from another gov't and moves the factory there).
enraged rioters burn down a factory
...or, instead of allowing the elites to do things that disempower The Working Class, the Government of The People actually works for The People.
When the elites say "We're moving to China", the city|state gov't says "Fine--but the factory stays here. We're buying it under Eminent Domain and keeping our citizens employed and our tax base healthy."
whether the haves use their resources to build palaces for themselves or factories
...except that they don't do either these days.
Housing? They buy each other's EXISTING stuff at ever-inflated prices--pumping up prices in the broader real estate market with each turnover.
Those dollars may as well be chalk marks on the wall (or rubber penis extensions for the insecure little boys who obviously need those).
Apphole has $200B in excess cash.
How are they investing it? They aren't.
"Job creators"? Pffff.
So, what are they doing with all that spare cash?
They're buying back stock to further pump up the price of their stock for benefit of their majority stockholders (1 Percenters).
It's all completely artificial.
Even if you're comfortable with Capitalism as a concept, the current paradigm is NOT a healthy way to do it.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:09PM
Except what you realize that they severely underpay people, bribe governments to give them unprecedented amounts of people (think TPP, the corporate supremacy treaty), and do many other nasty things to get where they are. But of course, all of this is nullified when they throw some pennies at those they employ, right? "Trickle-down" economics is pure bullshit; the only thing that trickles down is urine and contempt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:56AM
Your analogies fail because you presume that a major social change will necessarily result in an ineffectual society. Even before the information age, we have examples of reasonably smooth administrative transitions.
Few megatons of water at the top of a hill ?
Woah there buddy, that's private property. Get your grubby hands off my lake or my private army will make you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:34AM
If I recall correctly, "Suisse" is one of their spellings for "Swiss" in their native languages.
According to the stereotype, if there's one thing the Swiss know, it's money (and watches).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @07:54AM
If I recall correctly, "Suisse" is one of their spellings for "Swiss" in their native languages.
Yeah! You would think they could at least spell their own country correctly! Darn Foringers!
(Score: 1) by kazzie on Sunday October 25 2015, @10:48AM
According to the stereotype, if there's one thing the Swiss know, it's money (and watches).
Not to mention those clever little pocket knives!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @02:55PM
And international ruling bodies.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Eunuchswear on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:23AM
This is the richest 1% globally.
I.E. people with an income of over about $34,000.
Watch this Heartland Institute video [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @03:26PM
This is the richest 1% globally.
I.E. people with an income of over about $34,000.
How did you get a +5 informative for being completely wrong?
From the report itself:
"a person needs at least USD 68,800 to belong to the top 10% of global wealth holders and USD 760,000 to be a member of the top 1%"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Sunday October 25 2015, @04:32PM
Wealth vs Income. [investopedia.com] He is technically correct. Everyone in the US that doesn't earn minimum wage is pretty much in top 1% income of the world.
If it wasn't for the cost of living you could accumulate that level of wealth pretty easily within one lifetime. And in fact quite a few people with 401K retirement plans do have that much by the time they retire, but they make 2 to 3 times that level of income due to the cost of living being pretty high.
I got a feeling some income redistributors won't be happy till we all live in mud-huts and spread cow-shit all over our bodies once a week to keep the mosquitoes at bay. They are Cultural Revolution level fanatic, and they drive the discourse to the gutter so pungently that it scares away any legitimate discussion. Maybe they are scabs for the .1% :/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @05:12PM
> He is technically correct.
Yes, a technically true fact that doesn't address the point, instead distracts from it. I like to call such things "true lies."
> I got a feeling some income redistributors won't be happy till we all live in mud-huts and spread cow-shit all over our bodies
That's on you, not them. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Sounds like it comforts you to believe that so you won't have to face their actual issues. Just like people who use the terms feminazi and SJW.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:12PM
Just like people who use the terms feminazi and SJW.
Or people who carelessly throw around terms like "patriarchy" and "misogyny".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @10:27PM
> Or people who carelessly throw around terms like "patriarchy" and "misogyny".
You know, those words have actual legitimate meanings while feminazi and SJW were created by people to let themselves brush off criticism of things they liked.
(Score: 1) by MorePower on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:12PM
Considering that the United States has about 4% of the world's population, I seriously doubt "Everyone in the US that doesn't
earn minimum wage is pretty much in top 1% income of the world."
And that's before you add in all the Canadians, Europeans, Japanese, etc that all live roughly on par wealth-wise with the U.S.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday October 26 2015, @02:13AM
A lot of people in the US don't earn minimum wage. I mean they may be paid that if they are lucky to have a job, but they will not work 40 hour weeks, I guarantee that. When you account for labor-force participation plus the amount of people actually working full time, non-seasonally, you get close to that number. Regardless it might not have been extremely accurate, I can concede that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:14PM
You will have to prove that point.
If it weren't for that pesky dying thing you could be immortal.
Just because you type something and say it is a fact does not make it so. Again, another point of your argument that must be proven.
Okay time to stop. If you want to prove a point, or even have anyone that does not already align with whatever view you are trying to communicate, you must provide a cogent argument. Your writing is not cogent. It is not even valid. Consider your thoughts being rejected by the human mind's compiler with a list of errors longer than your post itself.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday October 26 2015, @02:31AM
Yes keep trying to spin your tale because you just found out you were using the boogie men of 1% for months (if not years) to run your mouth on the Internet without ever actually realizing some people consider you to be in it. I know it's hard to come to terms with that fact without making your own head explode, so I suggest some coping mechanism which you no doubt are familiar with: denial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:10PM
The mean hourly income for 1 person in the world is ~2.50. It is not a big stretch to think where I sit I am in the top 1% of earners at 60 an hour. Do I come close to the elite 1% of the 1%? Not even close. They make more along the lines of 250+ an hour. Many of them paying more taxes in 1 year than I and my whole entire family will pay in my lifetime.
People do not realize the scope of what 7 billion people is and how few make more than 10k USD a year.
I like this video because it describes the scope very nicely. His point is also valid that to make wealth disparity disappear you have to help these people in place. I disagree with many of his other points. But this one is a good one. Wealth disparity is why we are talking about this in the first place and why people try to move around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE [youtube.com]
The point he is making is you can help 5 million people a year and not put a dent in anything and can in many ways make the actual problems MUCH worse.
There is no 'here is a magic elixir that will fix this'. You are dreaming if anyone on this board thinks they have the answer. Basic income (another name for min wage) or asset redistribution (taxes) will not fix it. Neither supply side or demand side economics can make sense of it (we have tried both). How do we get people to get the money going? How do we get them to build things? How do we get people to create assets instead of wasted money? There is no easy answer.
Also the article is a bit misleading. This is actually 'back to norm'. People do not quite realize the scope of what that bank meltdown meant in 2008.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:42PM
I am pretty clearly in the top 1% of global wealth (measured by assets > USD 760,000), but I don't feel wealthy, nor secure in my position. Almost anyone living in the SF Bay area who was lucky enough to buy a house in the right place at the right time (and was able to weather the great depression in late 2000's) will be in the top 1% now.
The real issue is the share of global wealth by the super-rich.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday October 26 2015, @02:20AM
Indeed, the problem with this type of us versus them shenanigans is how inaccurate slapping a number on something can be. If you have a house in Bay area, congrats you made the list if you paid off your mortgage. Of course you need to live there so unless you sell your house this wealth doesn't do you so much good. Where as the same amoutn fo wealth in another part of the country would mean you literately don't have to work the rest of your life if you stick to sound investments and non extravagant lifestyle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:25PM
Well, you could sell your house and move, if you wanted. Living in the Bay area is a choice.
I normally hate those "living in area X is a choice" type arguments, because they usually apply to poor people without the assets to move.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:45PM
how did you get a +5 for being completely wrong?
fake wealth held in assets etc is meaningless. what matters is income and purchasing power
apparently the lessons of 1999 and 2007 have been completely ignored
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @01:47AM
Also, it's pretty irrelevant. Wealth follows a logarithmic distribution. So if it needed to be refined to the "top 0.5% of the world controls 40% of the wealth" who gives a shit. The problem is still real.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday October 26 2015, @02:17AM
Well if people start bringing the pitchforks, the difference between 1% and .05% will become very real to say .5% of the people.
But I do agree that it is meaningless to draw such a fuzzy line around a catchy number. There are plenty of super rich people who are only rich on paper because their so called wealth is tied up in the companies they run, and depending on how these companies are run we may actually consider them our benevolent overlords. They might take care of the needs of their employees so well in fact, that their employees are in top 1% of income earners in the world!
(Score: 1) by PocketSizeSUn on Sunday October 25 2015, @06:05PM
Or pretty much everyone working in Zurich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @11:30PM
Heartland Institiute? Seriously? Do you think no one knows who these Bozos are? I would say "citation needed", but in this case your citation has just torpedoed your credibility. But at least I now know what Eunuchs wear!
(Score: 3, Informative) by SanityCheck on Monday October 26 2015, @02:38AM
Here [globalrichlist.net] have fun with that then. It's actually pretty neat. Unless you think that CARE International [wikipedia.org] are douche-bags as well.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @09:25AM
They should continue until their money loses all relevance and the rest of the world moves on to some other form of compensation.
(Score: 1) by What planet is this on Sunday October 25 2015, @12:36PM
When are we going to start calling the desire to accumulate wealth on this scale what it is: a mental illness.
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to dedicate their lives to getting more, more, more of anything on this scale. Once you have many times more wealth than you could ever need to survive what's the point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @03:02PM
Paul Allen and Larry Ellison, among others, seem pretty good at finding ways to spend their vast wealth.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday October 26 2015, @03:05AM
No individual can compete with a swarm of millions on efficient use of wealth. No matter how clever those guys are, they cannot make millions of spending decisions every day, for the very simple reason that they don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe AI could assist them, if we had AI capable of doing so, which we don't, not yet. They have no choice but a combination of sitting on and wasting their vast wealth.
Stories of how damaging poverty is are legion. What's not so appreciated is how damaging extreme concentration of wealth is, even to the wealthy. The super rich individual is going to have trouble with sanity checks. Michael Jackson died in part because he had the wealth to hire a personal physician not to give him the best care, but to rubber stamp his medical decisions despite ignorance and risk. Anyone can make a bad decision of course, and getting yourself killed off is frighteningly easy-- like, just drive a car at 100 mph into a brick wall, jump off a high bridge, shoot yourself, etc. But most of us haven't the means and opportunity to do the kind of crazy dangerous acts that take serious wealth. It is a little harder to kill yourself off in a Chevy than in a Lamborghini, and to pave the way by mentally impairing yourself with expensive recreational drugs rather than alcohol.
Bad enough that an excessively wealthy and powerful individual can lose their self control or grip on reality and lurch from one near fatal accident to another until finally it is fatal, and no one has the authority to stop them. Where it gets really dangerous is when these individuals have the power to drag entire nations with them to the brink. That's a big part of what happened to the Western Roman Empire. Not even 100 years after the split into East and West, the West fell, and it was the concentration of authority in one individual, an Emperor, and the insane acts of many of the last Emperors that played a major part in the destruction. Possibly their insanity was fueled by lead poisoning. More than one Emperor is infamous for murdering his best general, out of paranoid fear that the general was plotting to overthrow him. And no one stopped or arrested them, the empire even let these Emperors continue as Emperor! He was above the law. He was eventually deposed by the real plotters who had hoped to provoke the fall from favor of this general, by feeding his paranoia, but it took far too long. It certainly wasn't the first time in history that absolute authority turned out to be a single point of failure, but those particular episodes were one train wreck right after another, and the result was total disaster.
We hope that such insanity is unthinkable today. If a President of the United States whipped out a pistol and shot a respected general in front of Congress, he would very quickly be removed from power. Within minutes, we would turn authority over to the Vice President, and the President would be hauled off to have his head examined. But we have a handful of extremely wealthy people who lurk in the shadows, who have nearly that much impunity, and who harbor considerable delusion about the world. This Rupert Murdoch, what is he trying to do? Act as if the world works in a way that it does not, and is so determined to have it his way that he is willing to resort to propaganda, browbeating and bullying, and he's so arrogant he will not listen to wiser and smarter voices. Why can't we stop this fool? Why do so many of us listen to him?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @02:44PM
than be an a$$hole. I'm happy. Don't need to be rich, I've got everything I need.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @05:47PM
Excellent! *steeples fingers*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 25 2015, @08:36PM
That's what poor people say.
(Score: 1) by Empyrean on Monday October 26 2015, @01:39AM
That's what poor people say.
No, that's what people say who don't measure happiness in terms of material possessions.