62 people have more wealth than half the worlds population

Remove this Banner Ad

bank depositors are unsecured creditors. they are the very last ones to get paid if a bank goes under (which is why some countries have government insurance schemes for deposits).
I know Australia and US have these schemes but it nowhere near covers what's in peoples accounts.Still a bit shaky for mine.
 
I don't recall them recommending a run on banks.They're the flag waving chanters I was talking about,good for nothing.

They didn't recommend it but they tried to do a run on Bank of America which they shut its doors.

I know Australia and US have these schemes but it nowhere near covers what's in peoples accounts.Still a bit shaky for mine.
Banks have to have a certain % of cash in capital now so it is not entirely that shaky.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

honestly, I really don't know enough to comment. I do know that they played a significant part in the GFC, so it's definitely possible.
It wasn't the derivatives fault though, the underlying assets failed therefore the hedging position of the insurance to insure the bank was refunded for a default on the mortgages triggered. (since they are generally derivatives).
 
Always thought it was and is an obscenity to see that kind of differentiation between rich and poor.

Is that what life is supposed to be? the struggle between the ultra rich and the ultra poor?

Are we eventually going to be a society where maybe just maybe those who are too rich, will truly give...

Even though I don't actually have a religious sentiment, I actually think that it is a sad thing where people can actually
set up foundations to help the poor and yet they pay only two percent or whatever paltry amount. The religious part is that
people use religion to bring people in and it is misconstrued as being 'help from above'.

I guess the more that things like the internet and phones and so on, although these seem ridiculous in the back fields of Africa, will
progress will make the small things seem more equal.

I hope this makes sense. :)
 
I guess if I work hard I could be the 63rd

I guess if you want to pay a hundred dollars for pearl infused toilet paper then maybe rich is better,
but I digress.

Maybe it is worthwhile to have twenty year old truffles for breakfast or well hundred thousand dollar diamonds that
show a person what you think of yourself and your worth to afford this kind of utter bullshit.

But I am close to ranting so I will hand back my hankering for richness for another day. :D
 
It wasn't the derivatives fault though, the underlying assets failed therefore the hedging position of the insurance to insure the bank was refunded for a default on the mortgages triggered. (since they are generally derivatives).

despite what any of the "isms" will have us believe, there was no singular cause of the GFC. but the OTC derivatives market absolulety played its part in exacerbating losses and contributing to systemic risk instead of risk mitigation. too drunk atm to elaborate tho; 4-day weekend!

I know Australia and US have these schemes but it nowhere near covers what's in peoples accounts.Still a bit shaky for mine.

it's been too long for me to comment about the US rules, but in AU we were covered for $100K during the period in question. no idea if/when that's changed tho.
 
Yeah, you’ve got to get past the popular ‘out of thin air’ stuff. It’s only half-right. Yes, when banks create loans they do so by crediting your account with the value of the loan, via a book-keeping entry, “out of thin air”. But what they’re really doing is giving you, the borrower, access to the deposits of all its depositors via that book keeping entry. When you withdraw or spend that money, it comes out of the bank’s reserves, not “out of thin air”. If banks really did create money out of thin air, why do they go bankrupt? Why can’t they just create more money? Indeed, why lend at all? why not just create money til the cows come home?

Fractional reserve banking means they do create it out of thin air. It's not backed by deposits or gold or anything else.
 
Fractional reserve banking means they do create it out of thin air. It's not backed by deposits or gold or anything else.

as above am too drunk to get into it right now (and have a new keyboard giving me fat fingers lol) but make sure you realise that fractional lending was practically invented by goldsmiths. a gold standard does not not have an intrinsic relationship to lending. i also feel you've done my above example of deposit expansion a disservice. but we can get into that later :)
 
despite what any of the "isms" will have us believe, there was no singular cause of the GFC. but the OTC derivatives market absolulety played its part in exacerbating losses and contributing to systemic risk instead of risk mitigation. too drunk atm to elaborate tho; 4-day weekend!
Of course. Derivatives are risky as hell, it is exactly like gearing :p
 
Lordy.. gold fingers with rattling chains for your peasants and hiding pennies under the bed...

Some people just will never learn. I am speaking from a 17th century peasant who works for nothing
other than two meals a day and want to send their children to school.

These people really exist today and it is frightening that it is so.

We might thrash and fray around about it in our heads but people are really that poor. They don't need phones or internet but
actual food and water. Community matters but that still doesn't always help.

Just crush the desire in yourself to have that little bit and help someone else who can't get it for themselves.

Sorry I am ranting a bit this evening. :cry:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm sure Buffet, Gates and Zuckerberg pledging most of their fortune to charity is ignored here?

They'd be amongst the richest and guess what? They also made all that fortune themselves!

If someone wants to work harder, think smarter, and take more opportunities (and a lot more risk) than the vast majority of the population I say let them.

So, sure, people like you can piss and moan and complain about rich people. Gates is working to eradicate Polio (almost has in India), what the hell have you done lately?

Charities are a perfect tool for getting into new markets with less tax. They still "control" .When gates, zuckeberg say they want to cure the worlds health problems, my inner sceptic thinks they are just getting into big pharma
 
As long as they continue to cure Polio I'm pretty happy, aren't you?

Suppose you think more peoples lives could be improved with a different investment mix? you've got no say. I suppose because they know how to exploit society, they must know better than anyone else
 
Ugh this rhetoric about them being evil is ignorant and annoying. Why should I get a say? Not my money

It is a shame you are uncomfortable about the situation yet the fact remains it is wrong for 62 humans to own more than 3.7 billion.
 
Why?

Because you're jealous of them?

For a number of reasons. I do not want to be one of the 62 that owns more than 50% of the planet.

"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
 
For a number of reasons. I do not want to be one of the 62 that owns more than 50% of the planet.

"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Least they'll have lead a good lavish life before then though.

I'm yet to hear a good reason why people, most of whom have put blood sweat and tears into becoming what they are, shouldn't be rewarded for it.
 
Least they'll have lead a good lavish life before then though.

I'm yet to hear a good reason why people, most of whom have put blood sweat and tears into becoming what they are, shouldn't be rewarded for it.
i agree with you Randomizor, they should be rewarded, i think it's just the magnitude of the reward that needs to be debated, as we have discussed at length earlier.
 
Least they'll have lead a good lavish life before then though.

I'm yet to hear a good reason why people, most of whom have put blood sweat and tears into becoming what they are, shouldn't be rewarded for it.

- Charles Koch & David Koch are from what I read not good people.
- Gates monopoly is wrong
- Waltons wallmart is a dodgy practice. Gets handouts, slave-labour-like wages
- Slim monopoly telecoms, tobacco
- Zuckerberg a bitch to the NSA watching you like BigBrother, ditto Google
- Fissolo exploiting Africans

Many of the 62 getting richer by petrochemicals, oil & gas which doesn't help the planets health. Your romanticized notion of 'blood sweat and tears' is cute. Yet its worth taking into consideration how wealth has historically come from colonization, slavery, modern-economic slavery, general rape of the planets resources. (water, trees, animals)

62 people have more wealth than half the worlds population is silly.

The trend:
The number is down from the 388 individuals in 2010, indicating that the wealth of these 62 individuals, alone has risen by 44% over the same five-year period, marking an increase of more than half a trillion dollars to $1.76tn (£1.24tn,€1.61tn). According to the report the wealth of the bottom half of the global population fell by just over $1tn in the same period, marking a 41% decline.
 
I think we should round them all up and eat 'em.
Then party for the next hundred years on their hard earned.
Then get down to business.
Build some big spaceship and colonise the stars.
 
I think we should round them all up and eat 'em.
Then party for the next hundred years on their hard earned.
Then get down to business.
Build some big spaceship and colonise the stars.
Eat the rich is one of my favourite movies and easily my favourite Motorhead song,bless Lemmy he was on to it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top