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: 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.