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This discussion has been archived.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.
There is nothing wrong with Southern California that a rise in the
ocean level wouldn't cure.
-- Ross MacDonald
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:20PM
I'd argue that isn't really the case. I'm all for profit-based economies (in most areas, there are a few where that doesn't make a whole lot of sense) and the incentives that such an economy places on innovation, efficiency and productivity are, in general, really good things that are and should be encouraged.
There comes a point where more money and resources doesn't really add to the quality (whether it be material, emotional or intellectual) of your life and/or your family's.
What's more, once you've passed that threshold where more money won't improve your life, it's often invested in new and existing ventures which can have a net-positive effect on the economy through innovation, efficiency and productivity. All to the good so far.
The rub is when more and more resources are funneled into fewer and fewer hands. When the bulk of the resources (85% held by 10% of the population [wikipedia.org]) are in a very few hands, this creates a bottleneck for economic growth and innovation.
Once you're in that place, adding more money to your coffers won't improve your life or make you more productive. In fact, it removes resources from the economy and negatively impacts growth and innovation. That's where "how many zeros someone has in their wealth" does, in fact impact the ability of others to meet their own needs.
This has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with economic resiliency, growth and civilizational maturation. From a short-term (on the order of a generation [isogg.org]) perspective, the concentration of resources isn't necessarily harmful to the economy at large. If this concentration continues, however, it will produce a drag on the economy, as those with more and more resources have their needs and desires sated, while those with few (and fewer) resources, find it difficult to have their desires (and in some cases, even their needs) met.
From a longer term perspective, this will reduce overall economic activity, as more and more resources sit idle -- once those with most of the resources are sated and those with few resources are less able to contribute to economic activity due to their static or declining level of resources.
As such, higher wages for those with fewer resources would make for stronger economies, better growth and more innovation and productivity -- without any real impact on the lifestyles and recognition of those with the most resources.
This isn't a capitalism vs. socialism issue, nor is it a taxation issue. it's a long-term economic growth in a capitalist system issue.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr