62 people have more wealth than half the worlds population

FPPF

Premiership Player
May 9, 2013
3,891
4,003
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
**** there's a lot of sooks on bigfooty.

many of us would be in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest. oh noes, look at all the power we wield :rolleyes: grow the **** up.

If you don't like the topic, why the * tell people to basically shut up about it?

Don't like it? Then don't ******* read the thread. Simple as that.


You say others are sooks..got a mirror handy?
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If you don't like the topic, why the **** tell people to basically shut up about it?

Don't like it? Then don't ******* read the thread. Simple as that.


You say others are sooks..got a mirror handy?

naww, my latest stalker. so nice to see you again! come to sook with your fellow privileged idiots?
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
naww, my latest stalker. so nice to see you again! come to sook with your fellow privileged idiots?

I think your posts in this thread have been quite informative :thumbsu:

Do you have any concerns at all with current trends? Such as that the wealth of that nearly all of the top 1% has been declining. Whereas the top 1% of the top 1% mostly comprised of bankers and CEOs has been rising. Is this market forces at work or something else?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ryone-got-the-top-1-percent-all-wrong/359862/

Middle earnings in Western countries also shows stagnation or decline. Should not government policy that seeks to raise economic growth for the nation direct policy in order to raise middle earnings?
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think your posts in this thread have been quite informative :thumbsu:

Do you have any concerns at all with current trends? Such as that the wealth of that nearly all of the top 1% has been declining. Whereas the top 1% of the top 1% mostly comprised of bankers and CEOs has been rising. Is this market forces at work or something else?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/how-you-i-and-everyone-got-the-top-1-percent-all-wrong/359862/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ryone-got-the-top-1-percent-all-wrong/359862/

:)

that's an interesting article; i wonder if the filthy rich are appalled by the insanely filthy rich!?

the whole 'poor get poorer, rich get richer' for me is almost a tautology, though. it is self evident that compounding nothing gets you nowhere fast, whereas if you're already wealthy it's quite a lot easier to become even wealthier.

i am honestly not that concerned by those on the tip of the pyramid. i think the base is what matters; eg how many people have enough to eat? access to fresh water? a job? etc. while the statistic in the OP illustrates a diabolical degree of inequity, it's an arbitrary line to draw. as i've noted, we could just as easily point out that most of us, middle australia, own a ridiculous amount of wealth by world standards, so aren't we greedy capitalist pigs too?

i am not sure what the answer is re market forces. i tend to feel CEOs are paid whatever their companies/shareholders agree to pay them, and your link suggests it's investment income where most of the disparity lies, not necessarily salaries.

if there is "something else" at play, i suspect it's the taxation advantages of investing over taking a wage. eg in australia capital gains tax is half what you'd pay under salaried conditions (if you've held the asset for 12 months). so james packer might pay 22.5% on a capital gain of millions, while middle australia is paying 32.5% on their $2000/fortnight.

Middle earnings in Western countries also shows stagnation or decline. Should not government policy that seeks to raise economic growth for the nation direct policy in order to raise middle earnings?

i think that such a goal is an admirable one, i just dont know how it would be achieved? it seems a lot more complex than, say, an arbitration to determine the minimum wage. i think the easiest way to improve middle earnings is to increase the numbers of employed people so demand outstrips supply, but governments haven't exactly wowed us in their ability to engineer that.
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
i think that such a goal is an admirable one, i just dont know how it would be achieved? it seems a lot more complex than, say, an arbitration to determine the minimum wage. i think the easiest way to improve middle earnings is to increase the numbers of employed people so demand outstrips supply, but governments haven't exactly wowed us in their ability to engineer that.

One thing that could be done is to regulate work that is carried out by overseas labour for Australian companies. We have a set of rules for 427 and 457 working visas in order to protect Australian jobs. Yet, without restriction, we allow the jobs of whole departments to be shifted offshore.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
One thing that could be done is to regulate work that is carried out by overseas labour for Australian companies. We have a set of rules for 427 and 457 working visas in order to protect Australian jobs. Yet, without restriction, we allow the jobs of whole departments to be shifted offshore.

That’s definitely a possible option, but would obviously reduce those companies’ competitiveness. While the decision to move offshore is the responsibility of the business, the consumer also plays a role in this via their consumption choices. Eg Ford and holden could have remained in business here, if the aussie market was willing to pay more for their cars. but it wasn't.
 

M Malice

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2015
31,433
72,024
By the Gabba.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Valleys. Chelsea.
it is not a level playing field for the employees of the world at present and for the foreseeable future, when you have employees in various parts of the world on massively different rates of income you will always have businesses trying to take advantage of this fact (understandably). their primary motivation is to their shareholders ie. to generate ever increasing profits. there would be very few businesses on the planet who operate from an empathetic or altruistic position to the detriment of their bottom line, and we as consumers play a part in that.
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
That’s definitely a possible option, but would obviously reduce those companies’ competitiveness. While the decision to move offshore is the responsibility of the business, the consumer also plays a role in this via their consumption choices. Eg Ford and holden could have remained in business here, if the aussie market was willing to pay more for their cars. but it wasn't.

As per the working visa regulations, if all Australian companies were subject to the same rules as regards offshoring then there is no issue in terms of relative competitiveness. It protects Australian jobs and boosts our economy instead of sending $$$ overseas. Offshoring puts substantial downward pressure on wages, with the resulting increased profits being directed towards the wealthy. I take your point about the role of the consumer but it's not always easy to be aware of company internal operations. Also, when every company in a sector, such as all banks, or all phone companies, all insurance companies have shifted operations overseas then there is no consumer choice to be had based on this matter.
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong
it is not a level playing field for the employees of the world at present and for the foreseeable future, when you have employees in various parts of the world on massively different rates of income you will always have businesses trying to take advantage of this fact (understandably). their primary motivation is to their shareholders ie. to generate ever increasing profits. there would be very few businesses on the planet who operate from an empathetic or altruistic position to the detriment of their bottom line, and we as consumers play a part in that.

Correct. But it is the role of the government to act for all Australians not just shareholders (or union members).
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
As per the working visa regulations, if all Australian companies were subject to the same rules as regards offshoring then there is no issue in terms of relative competitiveness.

i was more referring to international competitiveness, though i accept not all businesses sell products/services overseas. but it wouldn't stop foreign companies plying their trade in the aussie market while not being subject to the same rules.

It protects Australian jobs and boosts our economy instead of sending $$$ overseas. Offshoring puts substantial downward pressure on wages, with the resulting increased profits being directed towards the wealthy. I take your point about the role of the consumer but it's not always easy to be aware of company internal operations. Also, when every company in a sector, such as all banks, or all phone companies, all insurance companies have shifted operations overseas then there is no consumer choice to be had based on this matter.

i agree that it's difficult for the consumer to appreciate the internal operations of any given business- but they don't really have to in order to determine what products they like or what they're prepared to pay for them. sure, some might change their habits due to more complete knowledge, but i suspect most people just want whatever the best deal is for themselves.

tied into this is an issue i feel goes missing in debates about globalisation and the shifting of jobs overseas: consumers are able to save money by buying the same things they always have, at a reduced cost. this enables them to spend those savings elsewhere, on local businesses that are competitive for their dollar. as per the ford/holden example, aussies have been buying cheaper japanese or korean imports for a while now. this might suck if you're a ford/holden factory employee, but collectively it's great news for anyone in the market for a new car.

for this reason i disagree with the premise of the bolded, as what it would actually entail is higher consumer prices (for local products). ie consumers are collectively poorer if they subsidise the higher costs of local businesses/labour. and if they choose cheaper foreign products instead, those jobs will move overseas eventually anyway. this is why tariffs etc are a bad idea, and why the world has spent the last 30 years reducing such trade barriers.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Apparently Rinehart lost $4.5 billion last year!

The poor must be ecstatic with their sudden increase in fortunes.
It's pocket money for her.

Frankly, the poor would be far more concerned about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. Something Gina, the self absorbed climate ignoramus, couldn't care less about I'd suggest.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
18,274
19,359
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
It's pocket money for her.

Frankly, the poor would be far more concerned about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. Something Gina, the self absorbed climate ignoramus, couldn't care less about I'd suggest.
Take the climate ignoramus comments to the Conspiracy Theory section!
 

blackcat

Irving's godfather and handle
Dec 29, 2003
28,361
14,116
Beverly Hills 90210 Antifa bracket
AFL Club
Richmond
maybe a valid point hat if all these people tried to liquidate their assets at the same time, the value would plummet. so while the wealth and power is obscene, the figures are not relevant to the real world and its resources. the same is not true of the other half of the world, whos wealth has a very direct relationship to the resources of the world. eg the family owns one donkey and some cooking implements
and there is some measure, if all the World's market cap, either publicly listed vehicle or private vehicles, if this market cap was consolidate, the sum is actually significantly more, multiples more, of the Earth's resources. Now, I am not sure if the value has implicit IP, and future technological invention. As that is underlying in the P-E of companies. medusala you wanna weigh/wade in?
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
and there is some measure, if all the World's market cap, either publicly listed vehicle or private vehicles, if this market cap was consolidate, the sum is actually significantly more, multiples more, of the Earth's resources. Now, I am not sure if the value has implicit IP, and future technological invention. As that is underlying in the P-E of companies. medusala you wanna weigh/wade in?

Extrapolate to infinity.

It doesn't matter if its bullshit as long as you get someone to believe its real. I always remember the Chuck Prince quote.

.....

The Citigroup chief executive told the Financial Times that the party would end at some point but there was so much liquidity it would not be disrupted by the turmoil in the US subprime mortgage market.

He denied that Citigroup, one of the biggest providers of finance to private equity deals, was pulling back.

“When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing,” he said in an interview with the FT in Japan.
 

Subutai

All Australian
Nov 28, 2015
767
621
AFL Club
Richmond
Shouldn't the issue not be with the wealth of those 62 but the welfare of those 3.7 billion? Cutting the 62 down isn't going to improve the lot of the 3.7 billion.

I'd also guess that any one of those wealthy people that you have met probably has greater wealth than at least a couple of billion put together.

If you 'gave' almost $2 Trillion - the amount of wealth these 62 have. To the 1.2 billion people, live on less than $1 a day. , it'd make a substantial difference, to those poorest humans.
 
Nov 8, 2000
33,295
21,790
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
If you 'gave' almost $2 Trillion - the amount of wealth these 62 have. To the 1.2 billion people, live on less than $1 a day. , it'd make a substantial difference, to those poorest humans.

Why did you put quotation marks around 'gave'? You're right, if you gave that 'money' (And I say 'money' as most of it is almost certainly not cash but some form of asset like shares) to the poor then it would make a real difference.
But so what? That's their call, not yours (and many make that call). And if you legislate to take it away from them they wouldn't have bothered making that wealth in the first place.
Bottom line is that if Facebook shares drop by 90% and Zuckerberg loses billions, that makes at best zero difference to the world's poor.
 
If you 'gave' almost $2 Trillion - the amount of wealth these 62 have. To the 1.2 billion people, live on less than $1 a day. , it'd make a substantial difference, to those poorest humans.
You realise these rich people have so much skin in the game on their own companies that if their companies went down or they passed on their shares, their wealth would decrease significantly. Their wealth isn't in cash. It is in their own shares, assets and potentially illiquid assets.

Take a look at Gina for example, lose a partial amount of her shareholding and iron tanks suddenly she is the 2nd richest.
 

Thornton Melon

Team Captain
Apr 2, 2013
456
711
Adelaide
AFL Club
Geelong
My number one tenant is help and assistance should always be provided to those less fortunate to provide them with similar opportunities as everyone else.

If the uber-wealthy are putting money towards this then what is the problem? Why is it an issue that 62 people hold so much wealth? Yet to see an argument for this that makes any sense.

Your number one tenant would be the guy who always pays his rent on time.

The word you are looking for is tenet.
 
Back