Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

New Oxfam Report Says Half Of Global Wealth Held By The 1%

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.

Ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in the ski resort of Davos, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam said it would use its high-profile role at the gathering to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

The charity’s research, published today, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%.

Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016.

Yes but they are wealth creators, creating more wealth for everyone.....

On current trends RK sig appears on target that with capitalism someone ends up owning everything. I wonder how many of the 1% actually want the responsibility for owning the wealth and providing services for the poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-wealth-that-failed-to-trickle-down-report-suggests-rich-do-get-richer-while-poor-stay-poor-9989183.html

It started out as a joke: “Money was appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy,” quipped the American humorist, and one-time circus cowboy, Will Rogers, during the Great Depression. But in the 1980s, in the age of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, politicians began to take trickle-down seriously. Or at least they seemed to do so.

Trickle-down can be (very loosely) characterised as the idea that reducing the tax burden on the well-off is, in the end, good for everyone. A wealthy person’s taxes are reduced and his disposable income increases. The wealthy person spends the extra income on a new mansion, or luxury goods, or lavish holidays. The estate agent, the luxury manufacturer and the tourist resort’s profits increase. Those firms then invest the profits, expanding their capacity, creating new jobs in the process. That additional investment boosts income and employment.

The economy grows, bringing in more tax revenues (more, indeed, than were forgone through the initial tax cut). The size of the state is reduced, the freedom of the population grows and general prosperity is enlarged.

Can it be true? Not according to Larry Summers and Ed Balls. The former American Treasury Secretary and Labour’s shadow Chancellor, in a new report produced yesterday by the Centre for American Progress, attempt to explode a bomb under this theory of a virtuous economic circle. “Left to their own devices, unfettered markets and trickle-down economics will lead to increasing levels of inequality, stagnating wages, and a hollowing out of decent, middle-income jobs,” the report argues.

To Summers and Balls, tax cuts for the rich do not inexorably result in more economic activity, but create a growing income gap between those at the top and those at the bottom. The rich tend to save more of their disposable income and growth slows down. Ha-Joon Chang, the popular economics writer from Cambridge University, is another veteran critic of the idea. “The trickle-down argument crucially depends on the assumption that, when given a bigger slice of national output, the rich will use it to increase investments”, he has written. He describes this as “an assumption that has not been borne out by reality”, and goes on: “Once you realise that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are: a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer.”

It seems there's two reports? Would Larry Summers and Ed Balls do one for Oxfam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be your own 1% by not adopting what the rest of the world uses as money or wealth.

I am now adopting 200p used drinks cans as a store of wealth. As I am the only one that produces them, that makes me the richest person in the globe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That trickle down should be a veritable torrent soon by all accounts.

Was going to do some sums but they don't state what the "global wealth" total is in $ USD ?

Roughly assuming 6 Billion people are the 99% , that makes 60,606,060 (Sixty Million) the 1%.

So my question is, lets say the 1% want to make things fairer and do a giveway of the wealth from 50% to 25%, so they own 25% and the 99% own 75%.

Also assuming it is shared equally amongst the 99%, how much is $USD terms will each of the 99% get? Enough for a car? Enough for a house? enough to retire? 99% Millionaires , 1% Trillionaires?

Percentages are not very informative, I would like to know the sums involved.

M

Edited by markyh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see Oxfam using their donations to take action on poverty pump out politically motivated propaganda.

Yes it is good. As they are intimately involved with the consequences of extreme inequality you would expect such a large organisation to seek to raise public awareness.

You, on the otherhand, just pump out politically motivated sarcastic posts on interenet forums. Do you enjoy being a shill for people who have the utmost contempt for you and you ilk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bits of Oxfam are/were involved some good programmes to alleviate poverty.

However, there is a huge lump of new members - some closely connected to Gordon Brown - who are cropping up in all these charities.

They spend there time wasting money, making badly thought out political points. This is one. The data and conclusion are pure made up nuts.

Be very careful with the big charities post G-Brown. He's stuffed then full of his appointees whilst they wait for the 'saviour' to return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/07/worlds-wealthiest-people-just-got-52-wealthier-global-rivate-wealth-rep-ort

Rising numbers of millionaires in the fast-growing economies of China and India helped to push global private wealth to $168tn (£115tn) in 2015.

The 5.2% increase in wealth among the world’s richest individuals was driven largely by the Asia-Pacific area, which is expected to overtake western Europe as the second wealthiest region behind North America next year.

The annual snapshot measures private wealth by cash, deposits and assets such as shares and bonds, but excludes property.

China recorded one of the the biggest jumps in millionaire households of all countries in the BCG annual wealth report, up 27% to 2.07m. Sustained economic growth has created a new class of wealthy individuals in the world’s second largest economy, including Jack Ma, founder of e-commerce business Alibaba, and the country’s richest man, the property tycoon Wang Jianlin. The number of millionaire households in India jumped by a quarter last year, to 71,876.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland

Yes but they are wealth creators, creating more wealth for everyone.....

On current trends RK sig appears on target that with capitalism someone ends up owning everything. I wonder how many of the 1% actually want the responsibility for owning the wealth and providing services for the poor?

no sh1t sherlock.

you are up against 4 major factions of people that believe that the future of humanity lies in their hands,and they must own and control everything in order to create(their version of) utopia.

if you don't like their version..sorry..tough titty boys and girls.

the 4 respective factions do not exactly see eye to eye...true.

and they are playing for all the marbles.

FWIW you are mixing up capitalism with corporatism.

1)capitalism understands that in order for people to buy stuff from producers, they need to have enough resources(ie land, money etc), to purchase goods and services that individual will need to be more efficient

2)corporatism is where everything is decided by a board of directors,and labour is one small cog in a very big machine,and can be replaced when worn out.

FWIW corporatism stagnates, as people do not get the benefit of their inventions/labour..it is an inefficient system and ultimately stifles creativity/productivity

communism doesn't give people any incentive to do anything new or improved.

the best method of capitalism is the john lewis/rowntree method.....that's what we need to get back to.

i)it gives decent rewards for new ideas+improvement via profit share, without profiteering or exploitation.

ii)it does not give something for nothing,like the trade unions cry out for.

ultimately,the way out of this mess is for a bit of give and take on both sides.

business owners having a bit less "downton abbey" style of management

workers/unions having a bit less "wolfie smith" attitude to bosses.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to question how many of those running Oxfam are in the 1% - or soon will be.


Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.

Ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in the ski resort of Davos, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam said it would use its high-profile role at the gathering to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

Billionaires and politicians and Oxfam gathering in Switzerland. New mission statement required?

Maybe Oxfam should seriously question whether attending such "forums", glad handing and maybe even adding credibility to the event is actually helping to achieve its claimed aims. It seems to give them as much clout with the WEF in terms of outcomes being "in the room" as Britain has in the eu.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-16/davos-elites-address-populism-while-8-richest-men-have-much-wealth-poorest-half-worl

Quote

A report by Oxfam released ahead the World Economic Forum in Davos shows the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the poorest half of the global population is starker than previously thought, with just eight men owning as much wealth as 3.6 billion people. And since 2015, the richest 1 per cent has owned more wealth than the rest of the planet.

The report urges the elite to address the problem, warning that public anger against this kind of inequality will continue to grow and cause more political firestorms such as the election of populist Donald Trump as U.S. president or Brexit.

“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report.

“It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when 1 in 10 people survive on less than $2 a day,” said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International, who is attending the exclusive meeting in Davos. “Inequality is trapping hundreds of millions in poverty; it is fracturing our societies and undermining democracy.”

The same Oxfam report last year showed that it was 62 people holding as much wealth as the bottom half of the population.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2015 at 8:41 AM, 200p said:

You can be your own 1% by not adopting what the rest of the world uses as money or wealth.

I am now adopting 200p used drinks cans as a store of wealth. As I am the only one that produces them, that makes me the richest person in the globe!

 

Good bump, and update interestrateripoff. This still stands true, 2 years on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/01/2015 at 10:04 AM, hotairmail said:

That trickle down should be a veritable torrent soon by all accounts.

Perhaps tax cuts for the rich will start the flood down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2015 at 8:41 AM, 200p said:

You can be your own 1% by not adopting what the rest of the world uses as money or wealth.

I am now adopting 200p used drinks cans as a store of wealth. As I am the only one that produces them, that makes me the richest person in the globe!

I've give you 220p for one ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Perhaps guillotines will.

+1

Probably the only thing that might work. Sadly revolution is a thing of the past, too many have been neurochemically neutered by TV and fast food. If and when people are hungry enough it will be too late, we won't have the strength. They'll turn the internet off and round us up!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slightly different take also from the Guardian than that given by the OP (taken from the same report):

Quote

The world’s eight richest billionaires control the same wealth between them as the poorest half of the globe’s population, according to a charity warning of an ever-increasing and dangerous concentration of wealth.

... a handful of rich men headed by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates are worth $426bn (£350bn), equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people.

Anyone not feeling sick?

Not sure what to thinkabout this. Is possible for a single individual to efficiently control that much wealth and distribute it? If not who would do a better job? I remember a report that countries that were to benefit from Bill Gates' maleria research didn't really want it. They would be dependant on $1 per year shots for their population which they could not afford (also needs logistics, delivery by qualified staff etc), and they would prefer to drain the swamps to get rid of the mosquito.

Solution is a system that just doesn't allow them to generate so much personal wealth in the first place. Does a workable system exist?

Edited by doahh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear the top 1% is a net worth individual with $770,000 or more. So I guess that includes a lot of Brits living in humble abodes or not even humble abodes if pension equity is included.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Perhaps guillotines will.

I think given a bit more time, like when Trump f00ks up then enthusiasm for Madame Guillotine will take on a life of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, steve99 said:

I think given a bit more time, like when Trump f00ks up then enthusiasm for Madame Guillotine will take on a life of its own.

Maybe its me but in the 90's in Norwich being well of rich was not taken like it is now.  You would expect a flash car to get keyed if paraded and if you where a bit too flash you would get some abuse.  I noted also all my friends aside from the poorest owned their own homes and their parents where very proud.

Now you have all an sundry sharing photos of themselves in front of their latest leased motor/shopping spree and instagram feeds of people in London wiping their arses with 50£ notes and calling people peasants.

I worked in a nice hotel all through growing up and the rich in those days felt more reserved almost like daddy said to them watch out if those poor folks get annoyed we are screwed.  It was green range rovers then, now its velvet wrapped ones.

Now it feels like its full on let them eat cake time

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 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.