Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Richest 1% Of People Own Nearly Half Of Global Wealth, Says Report

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/richest-1percent-half-global-wealth-credit-suisse-report

The richest 1% of the world’s population are getting wealthier, owning more than 48% of global wealth, according to a report published on Tuesday which warned growing inequality could be a trigger for recession.

According to the Credit Suisse global wealth report, a person needs just $3,650 – including the value of equity in their home – to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens. However, more than $77,000 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and $798,000 to belong to the top 1%.

“Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest decile hold 87% of the world’s wealth, and the top percentile alone account for 48.2% of global assets,” said the annual report, now in its fifth year.

The report, which calculates that total global wealth has grown to a new record – $263tn, more than twice the $117tn calculated for 2000 – found that the UK was the only country in the G7 to have recorded rising inequality in the 21st century.

Its findings were seized upon by anti-poverty campaigners Oxfam which published research at the start of the year showing that the richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world’s population.

“These figures give more evidence that inequality is extreme and growing, and that economic recovery following the financial crisis has been skewed in favour of the wealthiest. In poor countries, rising inequality means the difference between children getting the chance to go to school and sick people getting life saving medicines,” said Oxfam’s head of inequality Emma Seery.

Hasn't global inequality been growing since the end of Bretton Woods?

Still at least all this wealth the rich are accumulating will trickle down to the rest of us....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that Credit Suisse are correct and this is exactly what is now causing the slowdown in China.

The lower earners are never paid enough to buy the proceeds from their hard work (house, car, etc.), government across the globe have used debt to allow a proportion of the people to buy these things and stimulate demand.

In China they clearly have a surplus of homes, internationally there is clearly a huge surplus of money in the hands of 1% of the population which frankly is no use to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About £500k including property wealth is probably a significant part of the UK....sounds a lot more interesting when they stick with the '1%' mantra though.

In income terms I read the benefit cap is equal to the richest 2.6% of global population...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I am a 1%er, viewed in global terms. :wacko:

and so is my communist neighbour who spends her time ranting about 1%ers!

Edited by davidg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this question yesterday.

Is it better to be poor in a rich country or rich in a poor country?

To clarify you would be in the top 10% of the poor country or in bottom 10% in a rich country.

Is it better to be a big fish in a little pond, or a big fish in a big pond with other big fish!

Is it better to be the man with the one eye in the kingdom of the blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 0.1% also own the Fed, apparently in a "my biotch" sense, and literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ps4HkdqaQ0

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1928 (http://openjurist.org/275/us/415):
Instrumentalities like the national banks or the federal reserve banks, in which there are private interests, are not departments of the government. They are private corporations in which the government has an interest.
The long-time Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee (Charles McFadden) said on June 10, 1932:
Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies ….
The Fed itself admitted
While the Fed’s Washington-based Board of Governors is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act and other government rules, the New York Fed and other regional banks maintain they are separate institutions, owned by their member banks, and not subject to federal restrictions.
Edited by weaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/richest-1percent-half-global-wealth-credit-suisse-report

Hasn't global inequality been growing since the end of Bretton Woods?

Still at least all this wealth the rich are accumulating will trickle down to the rest of us....

$798k puts you in the top 1%?

Hmmm.

Every now-working-age Brit has an entitlement to a state pension worth (IIRC) £155/week, or a little over £8k/year (excluding any homes or pension savings). That's a net worth of £240k, or about $400k.

A British down-and-out is halfway to the global top 1%. And that's excluding a whole raft of other entitlements: this is the down-and-out with no working-age benefits, no NHS, no housing benefit. Add housing and our down-and-out is up there in the top 1%.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then maybe you need to question the spin you just posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there you have it. The UK is a wealthy country so just be grateful your pension is 100 times the average income in Seirra Leone and forget how much you can actually buy in the UK with your Seirra Leone millionaire salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$798k puts you in the top 1%?

Hmmm.

Every now-working-age Brit has an entitlement to a state pension worth (IIRC) £155/week, or a little over £8k/year (excluding any homes or pension savings). That's a net worth of £240k, or about $400k.

A British down-and-out is halfway to the global top 1%. And that's excluding a whole raft of other entitlements: this is the down-and-out with no working-age benefits, no NHS, no housing benefit. Add housing and our down-and-out is up there in the top 1%.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then maybe you need to question the spin you just posted.

Hmmm, 7bn people on the planet, the top 1% of the population equates to what about 70m people?

Did you read and understand the question I posted further down? Which actually takes up your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10616613_10204202597818372_1492554780856

Trickle down economics has never been proposed by any economist as something that actually happens.

It is quite interesting to learn how it has been seized upon as a policy expounded by politicians under the influence of right wing economists. I think people imagine that Regan was elected under the slogan.

Trickle down economics as you understand it is largely an invention of anti-capitalists. But it is nice that someone made a graphic out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this question yesterday.

Is it better to be poor in a rich country or rich in a poor country?

To clarify you would be in the top 10% of the poor country or in bottom 10% in a rich country.

Rich in a poor country, for sure. People's sense of financial well being is largely relative to their immediate peers and neighbours anyway.

You can live well on a much lower income in certain countries. You may not have a washing machine, but do you need it when the dhobi women will hand wash them for next to mothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trickle down economics has never been proposed by any economist as something that actually happens.

It is quite interesting to learn how it has been seized upon as a policy expounded by politicians under the influence of right wing economists. I think people imagine that Regan was elected under the slogan.

Trickle down economics as you understand it is largely an invention of anti-capitalists. But it is nice that someone made a graphic out of it.

You're right about the term.

In the 80s Thatcherites called it "supply-side economics". Although even in the Con clubs and within the party it was openly referred to as "trickle down".

I don't think any of us were anti-capitalists, and it certainly wasn't seen as a dirty or incorrect term in those circles either.

It's "horse and sparrow" economics plain and simple, and I even heard that analogy used as a positive thing by Tories frequently.

Feed the horse enough oats and it'll poo enough to feed all the sparrows. If that sounds like a pretty inefficient way to feed sparrows, then sod you, you're a socialist who hates the Queen/Britain/capitalism.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they include children in the statistics? If so many households in the UK will contain representatives of the top 1% and the probably the bottom 10% depending on ages and pocket money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every now-working-age Brit has an entitlement to a state pension worth (IIRC) £155/week

Wrong, only retirement-age Brits are entitled to the state pension. Working-age Brits are entitled to a promise that the state pension will be there for them when they reach "retirement age", whatever that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have here is an inversion of the tragedy of the commons problem- but instead of a shared resource being destroyed by over exploitation by the many we have a shared resource being destroyed by under exploitation by the few in the form of hoarding by the 1%.

Unless the wealth generated by the system can circulate that system will die and all those claims on that system will die with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, only retirement-age Brits are entitled to the state pension. Working-age Brits are entitled to a promise that the state pension will be there for them when they reach "retirement age", whatever that is.

Yep. And that promise has a value. I quoted its current value.

We can only guess its future value. On the current over-generous formula it can only rise. I think you share my view on its lack of sustainability, but that's something to deal with when it comes. Thatcher took a lot of political flack for discontinuing an unsustainable formula: can you see any of today's headless chickens having the balls to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bankers (although pretty terrible ) have become the scape goats. Inequality is where its all at. Just need to pay people a living wage build enough houses so the extra money doesn't all go in rent. Never going to have enough houses if we keep importing more and more people.

TPTB aren't going to give up their wealth unless they are forced to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.