SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:43PM
from the I-got-mine!-And-Yours.-And-Yours.-Annnnnd-yours,-too. dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Only 1% of World's Population Grabbed 82% of all 2017 Wealth
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 261 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-- Andy Warhol
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
here's one reason why: if they don't accept this, society will become unbalanced (such as it is right now). whenever this happened, throughout history, there has been a bloody revolt in the end, and some percentage of the ultra-rich were executed by mobs of poor people (although in the long term not a lot changed for them, hence successive revolts). there is a non-zero probability for any rich person to be the one killed by the mob (it's kind of random I think).
i would prefer this reason: fighting against an unbalanced society is the decent thing to do, because it reduces overall suffering, and it releases more resources for quality time. if you think that's fluffy pink feel-good hippy non-sense, you are free to think it and to argue against it, but I won't apologize for thinking this way.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:23PM
That's at least a rational argument. An easily dismissed one because "paying protection money to the mob" is never going to be on sound ethical ground, but it is rational which is more than can be said for every other argument so far.
And you lost it. Helping the poor is the decent thing to do. Robbing someone's house to do so is not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.