Eight men own half of the world's wealth

may hem

may hem

New Member
Location
s.e. qld.
capitalism and patriarchy. ain't it great?

a recent report from oxfam shows that just eight men own half the wealth of the world. six of them are from the usa, one from mexico and one from spain.

“big business and the super-rich are fuelling the inequality crisis by dodging taxes, driving down wages and using their power to influence politics."

Oxfam’s report shows how our broken economies are funnelling wealth to a rich elite at the expense of the poorest in society, the majority of whom are women.

The report outlines "how the super-rich use a network of tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of tax and an army of wealth managers to secure returns on their investments that would not be available to ordinary savers. Contrary to popular belief, many of the super-rich are not ‘self-made’. Oxfam analysis shows over half the world’s billionaires either inherited their wealth or accumulated it through industries which are prone to corruption and cronyism.”

but there are other ways. for example,

“The multi-billion Euro company Mondragon, is owned by its 74,000 strong workforce. All employees receive a decent wage because its pay structure ensures that the highest paid member of staff earns no more than 9 times the amount of the lowest paid.”

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world
 

This is the sort of thing that I would expect from Oxfam. People are rich at the expense of the poor. Women are poor at the expense of men etc..
Doubtless there will be some who get on their little soapbox and rant about how the rich should give their money to the poor. I expect that many wealthy people do give a lot of money to good causes, but even if they gave all their money away, we would just have a world where everyone was poor. I'm also pretty sure that it wouldn't be long before a new super-rich class emerged.

So, as long as I and my family are comfy, I won't worry about who has what.
 

I haven't looked at the article but it wouldn't surprise me that the average member of this forum has the wealth of a multiple of an astonishing number of the world's poorest.
 
mrstime said:
You can bet they chose to pay their employees quite a bit less than they should have.
Click to expand...

Why bet? Why not find out how much they pay and offer justification for how much they should pay. Otherwise it's just a "hate the rich" bumpersticker.
 
Mondragon is a fabulous example of how people working together can create a great environment for themselves. It was created by the people, not a government and they took nothing from anyone else.

This is so different from the "social justice" and "hate the rich" mindset of the wealth redistribution Marxists among us.
 
rkunsaw said:
True. People who make the federal minimum wage in the USofA are in the top 10% of the world's richest people.
Click to expand...

Now that's a strawman argument if I ever heard one.. Considering that people in many countries make less than $1 a day.. and the cost of living is comparable.. would you expect Americans to be paid that? Yet here where $7.45 an hour can barely pay the rent or buy food, you feel that is more than adequate. Will Corporations reduce their prices for goods and services or Landlords reduce their rents if we allow people to be paid whatever corporations choose.. Yeah.. fat chance.
 
I may have mentioned this before,but I know #7 personally. I was friends with his exwife Barbara years ago when we live in the same town. Our sons were best buddies in elementary school. He took very good care of his ex and the kids-I can`t even begin to tell you how well he cared for them-two multi million dollar homes in our little town. Not quite sure why she needed two-one had more acreage for her horses I guess. Anyway I met him a few times at her house,at parties and kid things. I remember once listening to these two guys on the radio talking about Larry Ellison`s monthly expenditures. One of them was several letters,one being a B and one being an A (I can`t remember the order of the letters or what they all were) but it was $1M per month. They were going nuts making guesses as to what it could possibly be. I pretty easily figured out that it was Alimony to Barbara. She and I lost touch after we moved away but I know my daughter is still FB friends with her. They had horses in common....
 
Capt Lightning said:
This is the sort of thing that I would expect from Oxfam. People are rich at the expense of the poor. Women are poor at the expense of men etc..
Doubtless there will be some who get on their little soapbox and rant about how the rich should give their money to the poor. I expect that many wealthy people do give a lot of money to good causes, but even if they gave all their money away, we would just have a world where everyone was poor. I'm also pretty sure that it wouldn't be long before a new super-rich class emerged.

So, as long as I and my family are comfy, I won't worry about who has what.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you Captain Lightning.Capitalism does produce some super rich people, market forces etc.however, they still spread wealth around, all the things that they buy and do, and who is to say that they don't give vast sums to good causes?
 
There is a theory that free market capitalism does create differing results where a managed economy creates equality - equality of poverty.
 
yes, donations to charities do occur, often as a tax dodge. then there are the questionable 'charities' such as the clinton foundation. sometimes the apparent generosity has a hidden motive.

to me, the issue is fairness. making a good living by your own efforts, without government subsidy and without exploiting people or the environment.
 
However we view this, there is something wrong with a society that allows such inequality. We condemn terrorism which stems from deep inequality and poverty without considering the root cause that is often behind this issue.

Yes, some of these extremely wealthy men donate to charity, but that does not make the system right. It is not for a few individuals to decide who is and who is not worthy of support.

The world is a very, very small place now and that brings with it some serious risks if capitalism continues in its current form - unchecked. Trump is a prime example of that and he is very probably the first obvious indication of how wealth can bring power.
 
ossian said:
However we view this, there is something wrong with a society that allows such inequality. We condemn terrorism which stems from deep inequality and poverty without considering the root cause that is often behind this issue.

Yes, some of these extremely wealthy men donate to charity, but that does not make the system right. It is not for a few individuals to decide who is and who is not worthy of support.

The world is a very, very small place now and that brings with it some serious risks if capitalism continues in its current form - unchecked. Trump is a prime example of that and he is very probably the first obvious indication of how wealth can bring power.
Click to expand...
We don't have unchecked capitalism in developed countries. Laws and regulations are used to keep it in check... or so they say.
 
ossian said:
Yes, some of these extremely wealthy men donate to charity, but that does not make the system right. It is not for a few individuals to decide who is and who is not worthy of support.
.
Click to expand...

But neither is it for us to tell them who to support or not. It is their money and it is for them to decide what to do with it. As for Trump, wealth and power - how about blaming the people who voted for him. I doubt it's because they all wanted a fair, equal society, rather they wanted a slice of the action, success and money.
 
ossian said:
However we view this, there is something wrong with a society that allows such inequality. We condemn terrorism which stems from deep inequality and poverty without considering the root cause that is often behind this issue.

Yes, some of these extremely wealthy men donate to charity, but that does not make the system right. It is not for a few individuals to decide who is and who is not worthy of support.

The world is a very, very small place now and that brings with it some serious risks if capitalism continues in its current form - unchecked. Trump is a prime example of that and he is very probably the first obvious indication of how wealth can bring power.
Click to expand...

That sounds like accepting terrorism as justified. Your poverty does not give you the right to slit another person's throat because of his religion.

O.K. - we get rid of capitalism. What replaces it, a managed economy? Then instead of the "invisible hand" controlling things you have bureaucrats. I can't see that as a good idea.
 
ossian said:
However we view this, there is something wrong with a society that allows such inequality. We condemn terrorism which stems from deep inequality and poverty without considering the root cause that is often behind this issue.

Yes, some of these extremely wealthy men donate to charity, but that does not make the system right. It is not for a few individuals to decide who is and who is not worthy of support.

The world is a very, very small place now and that brings with it some serious risks if capitalism continues in its current form - unchecked. Trump is a prime example of that and he is very probably the first obvious indication of how wealth can bring power.
Click to expand...




You just can't stop the Trump bashing can you? Not only is Trump not on the list, those Americans who are on the list are all democrats and Hillary supporters. The ones with the most money didn't win this time.
 
Capt Lightning said:
But neither is it for us to tell them who to support or not. It is their money and it is for them to decide what to do with it. As for Trump, wealth and power - how about blaming the people who voted for him. I doubt it's because they all wanted a fair, equal society, rather they wanted a slice of the action, success and money.
Click to expand...
What a fair, equal society is is in the eye of the beholder and since everybody doesn't see it the same way, we vote how we think it should be.
 
Capt Lightning said:
But neither is it for us to tell them who to support or not. It is their money and it is for them to decide what to do with it. As for Trump, wealth and power - how about blaming the people who voted for him. I doubt it's because they all wanted a fair, equal society, rather they wanted a slice of the action, success and money.
Click to expand...

As was stated, the definition of such a society is lacking. For example, Karl Marx described his view of it. Is that the situation you long for?

As to a "slice of the action", yep, that is what I want. But again it is a matter of definition. To me the best "action" is a system that insures equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
 
Capt Lightning said:
So, are you saying that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed, and it is OK that some will become a lot more successful and wealthy than others - even becoming billionaires? I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

Me too.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top