Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

More Billionaires Than Ever, The Richest Got $20Bn Richer

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12691377

Mexico's Carlos Slim has topped the latest Forbes magazine rich list, as his wealth grew by more than a third.

The telecoms magnate's fortune rose by $20.5bn (£12.65bn) to $74bn, again beating Microsoft founder Bill Gates ($56bn) into second place.

More than 200 people joined the billionaires list as their numbers rose to a new record of 1,210, Forbes said.

Six billionaires connected with Facebook are now on the list, including Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker.

They are joined by Facebook investors Peter Thiel and Yuri Milner as well as co-founders Eduardo Saverin and Dustin Moskovitz, who is the youngest person on the list at 26.

Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad was the biggest loser, down $17bn to $6bn.

He fell from eleventh spot to 162 and was unusual amongst the billionaires in seeing his wealth decrease.

The collective wealth of the billionaires on the list also hit a new record of $4.5tn.

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires

Nice, the rich it seems are having a wonderful recovery at the expense of the proles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, the rich it seems are having a wonderful recovery at the expense of the proles.

There's an interesting sleight of hand going on..

On one hand we are all told how important economic growth is for our general prosperity, which seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, over the last 30-odd years, more and more of the proceeds of economic growth have gone to the already well-off. In the post-2001 'recovery/boom' if my memory serves, no one outside the top 10% actually saw real wage/wealth increases, apart from house prices; and the chance in price of an asset that you have to use is largely irrelevant, unless you stupidly borrow more against it.

And now in the post 2008 'recovery' it seems that only the top 1% are actually seeing anything..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an interesting sleight of hand going on..

On one hand we are all told how important economic growth is for our general prosperity, which seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, over the last 30-odd years, more and more of the proceeds of economic growth have gone to the already well-off. In the post-2001 'recovery/boom' if my memory serves, no one outside the top 10% actually saw real wage/wealth increases, apart from house prices; and the chance in price of an asset that you have to use is largely irrelevant, unless you stupidly borrow more against it.

And now in the post 2008 'recovery' it seems that only the top 1% are actually seeing anything..

I agree. And since 2007 there's been an added factor. The total amount of wealth fell because of the falling property market and stock market, although the latter has gone up again. So there's only a limited amount of money around. If rich individuals and corporations are still getting richer all the time, that must be making everyone else poorer. When we had the odd multi-millionaire that wasn't really a significant problem, but when a company, a bank for instance, makes a profit of £6 billion, that's £100 for every man, woman and child in this country. If ten top companies make profits of £6 billion each, thats £1000 leached off every person in this country. Now that wouldn't be so bad if it was pumped back into the economy but one suspects that's not what's happening at the moment. Edited by Hyperduck Quack Quack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an interesting sleight of hand going on..

On one hand we are all told how important economic growth is for our general prosperity, which seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, over the last 30-odd years, more and more of the proceeds of economic growth have gone to the already well-off. In the post-2001 'recovery/boom' if my memory serves, no one outside the top 10% actually saw real wage/wealth increases, apart from house prices; and the chance in price of an asset that you have to use is largely irrelevant, unless you stupidly borrow more against it.

And now in the post 2008 'recovery' it seems that only the top 1% are actually seeing anything..

And yet there are still masochists apologists on this site who defend the super-rich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet there are still masochists apologists on this site who defend the super-rich...

Presumably only if they're very rich themselves or they expect to be so in the future!

Either that or they're un-reformed Thatcherites who still believe in the trickle-down effect. What we're actually seeing is the opposite, the vacuum-up effect, where wealth is being concentrated at the top.

Look how many more jobs are becoming minimum wage - not just people at the bottom of the pile, but supervisors etc. are being advertised as 'meets minimum wage'. now.

Edited by Hyperduck Quack Quack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12691377

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires

Nice, the rich it seems are having a wonderful recovery at the expense of the proles.

There seem to be quite a few in India. We've just come back from a hol there, finishing in Mumbai and there's obviously LOADS of money sloshing about - for some of them. We were driven more than once past 'the most expensive house in the world' - it was in the papers recently. Parking for 1000 cars, we gathered , and Indian friends told us that the elec. bill is apparently 8 million rupees a month. About £115K if my sums are right. Must say it looks pretty bloody hideous from the outside, though. :P

All this just a day after driving through rural areas where people were pumping water from a village well and women were walking along streets with water pots on their heads. Everybody from cab drivers up was talking about the vast levels of corruption, but not foreseeing anything being done about it. Saw magazine articles saying eg 'The Dacoits (armed robbers, i.e. politicians) are looting India.'

The bloke who organised the Delhi games is apparently only just now being investigated for allegedly trousering a few billion rupees from all that. They all seem to think he'll get away with it, though.

Great hol, though. And saw two tigers!! Incredibly lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12691377

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires

Nice, the rich it seems are having a wonderful recovery at the expense of the proles.

Nothing to see here. It's called QE: print more dollars, and people will hold more dollars without being any richer in real terms. Including but not limited to the super-rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to see here. It's called QE: print more dollars, and people will hold more dollars without being any richer in real terms. Including but not limited to the super-rich.

Well, you have to increase salaries first... Either the rich are getting richer, or the rest of us are getting poorer - why is either acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably only if they're very rich themselves or they expect to be so in the future!

Either that or they're un-reformed Thatcherites who still believe in the trickle-down effect. What we're actually seeing is the opposite, the vacuum-up effect, where wealth is being concentrated at the top.

Look how many more jobs are becoming minimum wage - not just people at the bottom of the pile, but supervisors etc. are being advertised as 'meets minimum wage'. now.

They get massively richer, the trickle-down effect makes everyone else slightly richer. Well, that's the theory, anyway. I (a) don't believe it, and ( B) don't find it tolerable even if it is true. It's, at best, throwing a few crumbs to your slaves whilst you grow fat ("Hey, they're not starving and they've got shelter!")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you have to increase salaries first... Either the rich are getting richer, or the rest of us are getting poorer - why is either acceptable?

What have salaries got to do with it? They got trashed by the credit bubble/HPI. You don't get super-rich on a salary (unless you're a footballer or something).

Warren Buffett takes a modest six-figure salary (I think it's lower than our PM). He became super-rich by investing it well. There's no magic barrier to you or me investing money to increase our assets the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. And since 2007 there's been an added factor. The total amount of wealth fell because of the falling property market and stock market, although the latter has gone up again. So there's only a limited amount of money around. If rich individuals and corporations are still getting richer all the time, that must be making everyone else poorer. When we had the odd multi-millionaire that wasn't really a significant problem, but when a company, a bank for instance, makes a profit of £6 billion, that's £100 for every man, woman and child in this country. If ten top companies make profits of £6 billion each, thats £1000 leached off every person in this country. Now that wouldn't be so bad if it was pumped back into the economy but one suspects that's not what's happening at the moment.

Most aren't even making real profits though. Its all just funny money from the central banks circulating in a elite bubble economy.

The best way forward would be to cancel out there wealth by defaulting on bonds, and seizing dishonestly acquired assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Buffett takes a modest six-figure salary (I think it's lower than our PM). He became super-rich by investing it well. There's no magic barrier to you or me investing money to increase our assets the same way.

That is the basic problem with capitalism.

It only works for those with capital.

If I get a 30% annual return on my £100 every year for 10 years I still only have £1400.

If Mr Trust Fund gets 5% on his £1m every year for 10 years he has £1.62m

I'm clearly the better "allocater of capital" but he has made £618k more than me by the virtue of starting with more capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The collective wealth of the billionaires on the list also hit a new record of $4.5tn.

That's the problem with capitalism. Sooner of later you end up with everbody else's money.

Red Karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have been in my (supposedly half decent) current job 10 years in November. In that time i've had just one pay rise that was above inflation.

Post 2001 economic boom? Sorry, that passed me by.... I guess we weren't "all in it together" back then....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What have salaries got to do with it? They got trashed by the credit bubble/HPI. You don't get super-rich on a salary (unless you're a footballer or something).

Warren Buffett takes a modest six-figure salary (I think it's lower than our PM). He became super-rich by investing it well. There's no magic barrier to you or me investing money to increase our assets the same way.

You seemed to be implying that the rich hadn't gotten any richer, since, although they had more money, it was worth less due to inflation. I was saying, "Okay - then the rest of us have just gotten poorer since we didn't even get the (effective) pay rises that the rich did".

Don't worry though - you're rather proving my point with regards to this site... ;)

Bottom line - the rich have grabbed an even greater share of the loot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seemed to be implying that the rich hadn't gotten any richer, since, although they had more money, it was worth less due to inflation. I was saying, "Okay - then the rest of us have just gotten poorer since we didn't even get the (effective) pay rises that the rich did".

Don't worry though - you're rather proving my point with regards to this site... ;)

Bottom line - the rich have grabbed an even greater share of the loot...

They certainly did.

Generally in this economy people are rich relative to how colse they ar to the CB.

There are some freaks from the tech boom, but basically it's all mates of the man behind the curtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be quite a few in India. We've just come back from a hol there, finishing in Mumbai and there's obviously LOADS of money sloshing about - for some of them. We were driven more than once past 'the most expensive house in the world' - it was in the papers recently. Parking for 1000 cars, we gathered , and Indian friends told us that the elec. bill is apparently 8 million rupees a month. About £115K if my sums are right. Must say it looks pretty bloody hideous from the outside, though. :P

All this just a day after driving through rural areas where people were pumping water from a village well and women were walking along streets with water pots on their heads. Everybody from cab drivers up was talking about the vast levels of corruption, but not foreseeing anything being done about it. Saw magazine articles saying eg 'The Dacoits (armed robbers, i.e. politicians) are looting India.'

The bloke who organised the Delhi games is apparently only just now being investigated for allegedly trousering a few billion rupees from all that. They all seem to think he'll get away with it, though.

Great hol, though. And saw two tigers!! Incredibly lucky.

+ 1

Outsourcing is sending wealth from the lower-middle classes in the West directly into the pockets of the wealthy in places like India and I don’t see any chance of the corruption getting any better. India is far more a likely candidate for a big blow-up that China IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem with capitalism. Sooner of later you end up with everbody else's money.

Red Karma

It's like the game of Monopoly, there is only ever one winner. It's just the game hasn't been fully played out yet.

I've been to some pretty ruddy deprived countries in my life and in everyone there are a few rich people taking advantage of the many poor. I recall quite vividly driving down a street of magnificent villas and double taking in southern Iraq that wouldn't have looked out of place in a western setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some freaks from the tech boom

Oh, I wouldn't call them freaks - mildly autistic maybe...

Joking aside - exactly. Many on this site talk as though the rich were largely hard-working entrepreneurs. Makes me laugh... entrepreneurs are getting screwed just like the rest of us...

Edited by tomandlu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I wouldn't call them freaks - mildly autistic maybe...

Joking aside - exactly. Many on this site talk as though the rich were largely hard-working entrepreneurs. Makes me laugh... entrepreneurs are getting screwed just like the rest of us...

Some of them started off as hard-woking entrepreneurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seemed to be implying that the rich hadn't gotten any richer, since, although they had more money, it was worth less due to inflation.

very approximately so, yes. Of course that's a big generalisation.

I was saying, "Okay - then the rest of us have just gotten poorer since we didn't even get the (effective) pay rises that the rich did".

I didn't get any payrise, but my notional value has risen by £250k since the start of the "credit crunch".

Unfortunately that still doesn't make me rich enough to buy a house, with or without a mortgage. Getting that kind of returns required me to sacrifice liquidity.

You can do the same.

Don't worry though - you're rather proving my point with regards to this site... ;)

Bottom line - the rich have grabbed an even greater share of the loot...

Canny investors have grabbed a greater share, and there is a correlation with the rich 'cos canny investors are more likely to get rich. But it applies also to people with £50/month to invest well.

That didn't apply in the property boom, because most of that was inherently a zero-sum game so you got rich at someone else's expense. And there were barriers to entry (albeit crooked ones) dictated by banks (mortgages) and governments (schemes, benefits, public money). We have a much cleaner market since flipping flats ceased to be a quick profit for spivs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.