Screw terrorism, this is what we need to focus on!

[IRONxMortlock]

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'
By Andrew Walker
Economics correspondent, BBC World Service

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

There have of course been many studies of worldwide inequality.

But what is new about this report, the authors say, is its coverage.

It deals with all countries in the world - either actual data or estimates based on statistical analysis - and it deals with wealth, where most previous research has looked at income.

What they mean by wealth in this study is what people own, less what they owe - their debts. The assets include land, buildings, animals and financial assets.

Different assets

The analysis shows, as have many other less comprehensive studies, striking divergences in wealth between countries.

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and some countries in the Asia Pacific region, such as Japan and Australia.

These countries account for 90% of household wealth.

The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.

And it uncovers some striking differences in the types of assets that dominate in different countries.

In less developed nations, land and farm assets are more important, reflecting the greater importance of agriculture in those economies.

In addition, the report says the weighting is the result of "immature" financial institutions, which make it much harder for people to have savings accounts or shares.

In contrast, some citizens of the rich countries have more debt than assets - making them, the report says, among the poorest in the world in terms of household wealth.

However, they are presumably better off in terms of what they consume than many people in developing countries.

Comprehensive

The survey is based on data for the year 2000. The authors say a more recent year would have involved more gaps in the data. As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.

Nonetheless, the authors say it is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.

Why does it matter? Because wealth serves as insurance against times when income tends to fall, such as unemployment, sickness or old age.

It is also a source of finance for small businesses, a particularly important point since it is the countries with lower levels of personal wealth which also tend to have weaker financial systems without the funds, ability or inclination to lend to small firms.

The report is not about policy recommendations.

But one of the authors, Professor Anthony Shorrocks, says it does draw attention to the importance of enhancing banking systems in developing countries to help generate the funds for business investment.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ss/6211250.stm

Published: 2006/12/05 17:21:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Helping to equitably redistribute the world's wealth and resources should be one of the highest priorities for humankind.

[CrossLOPER]

The rich... have money?!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Helping to equitably redistribute the world's wealth and resources should be one of the highest priorities for humankind.

What a nice way of putting theft.

Oh, and could we not get our undies in a bundie due to assumptions?

As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

Helping to equitably redistribute the world's wealth and resources should be one of the highest priorities for humankind.

And how does one go about doing that? More important how does one accomplish such a thing and still maintain the drive to succeed in all mankind?

Then how does one accomplish such a redistribution. Do you base it upon need? Do you base it upon the individual's performance? What is the criteria for such a redistribution of wealth?

How do we prevent the corrupt government of the world from misallocating the wealth and holding it for themselves so that they can maintain power? (ie see the old Soviet Union or about any African Nation for exambles).

Is it a noble idea - sure. But is it one that mankind can develop into an equitable plan? Not in our lifetimes is my belief.

[Del Arroyo]

The article is based on the false premise that money is the key to succes and happiness.

[Red Peasant]

The article is based on the false premise that money is the key to succes and happiness.

Yeah, that's what rich people and their flunkies keep telling us.
(I agree BTW)

Unfortunately, when the rich-poor balance gets obscenely out of kilter then nasty things tend to happen, usually leading to the deaths of lots of mostly poor people.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unfortunately, when the rich-poor balance gets obscenely out of kilter then nasty things tend to happen, usually leading to the deaths of lots of mostly poor people.

Any example or two? I guess that means the balance isn't too bad in the US, as poor people aren't being lined up and shot yet.

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Oh stop your complaining. There is always going to be a top dog and others trying to knock him off. Yes it sucks people go hungry every day and children die from simple curable illnesses but you know that has happend and always will happen. Anyone who thinks we can live in one big nation state where everyone is equall is a blithering idoit and there is no use aruguing with them becuase there usually idealestic college students. I wake up every morning and thank god I was born where I was and not in Africa or India or Holland or China. Not to mention redistrbution of wealth is a luaghable concept to begin with. You should earn what you get paid. You should toil over it through your own blood sweat and tears. I find the whole concept abhorrent and lofty.

[BigTex]

Yeah, that's what rich people and their flunkies keep telling us.
(I agree BTW)

Unfortunately, when the rich-poor balance gets obscenely out of kilter then nasty things tend to happen, usually leading to the deaths of lots of mostly poor people.

But there is usually a good thing that comes from civil strife like that. The poor become richer and the rich are dethroned.

It's a utopean idea that we can redistribute wealth so that everyone is equal. But by doing so you destroy peoples drive, their ambition to do better. It has been said many times and many ways by many generations and across many cultures that struggle leads to greatness.

[Gregoshi]

You should earn what you get paid. You should toil over it through your own blood sweat and tears.

True, but there are those who don't earn what they get paid. Entertainers and sports figures are grossly overpaid for the most part. How about executives and CEOs who ruin a company and are then paid obscenely large sums of money to quit? Some of these people earn their money, but there are too many who don't.

[IRONxMortlock]

What a nice way of putting theft.

More than a little rich coming from someone who lives at the top of the global wealth curve due to historical and current theft and exploitation of the lands and resources of millions of people.

And how does one go about doing that?
Is it a noble idea - sure. But is it one that mankind can develop into an equitable plan? Not in our lifetimes is my belief.

Perhaps not in our lifetimes but it is something we can all start working towards now so that our children and our children's children can live in a more equitable and peaceful world. The problem is when we just write the concept off as a nice, but impossible idea. That's how we can be sure that such a future will never occur. We need to acknowledge that while it will not be easy, this can be achieved. Once this occurs we’ll be on our way.

More important how does one accomplish such a thing and still maintain the drive to succeed in all mankind?

I guess you could say making the world more equitable would remove the drive for success but only if the accumulation of private wealth and greed is the yard stick of success. What if equality and peace was the gauge of success, would that not provide incentive and motivation?

[Strike For The South]

True, but there are those who don't earn what they get paid. Entertainers and sports figures are grossly overpaid for the most part. How about executives and CEOs who ruin a company and are then paid obscenely large sums of money to quit? Some of these people earn their money, but there are too many who don't.

Ah true some just get lucky. However the big picture shows in America if you work hard and keep your nose to the grindstone you will attain that which you desire. No one in this country needs redistribution becuase of a greedy aristocracy. There is no class system here you can do anytihing. I would also like to point out that many of those people you are refering to were born into poverty. The epitome of hard work.

[Redleg]

Perhaps not in our lifetimes but it is something we can all start working towards now so that our children and our children's children can live in a more equitable and peaceful world. The problem is when we just write the concept off as a nice, but impossible idea. That's how we can be sure that such a future will never occur. We need to acknowledge that while it will not be easy, this can be achieved. Once this occurs we’ll be on our way.

Again how does one go about accomplishing such a task? I would argue that it can not be achieved without resorting to a tyrannical form of world government. Why would I advocate a lessing of personal freedom and the equally important personal responsiblity because of an attempt to redistribute wealth?

I guess you could say making the world more equitable would remove the drive for success but only if the accumulation of private wealth and greed is the yard stick of success. What if equality and peace was the gauge of success, would that not provide incentive and motivation?

Man's development is from what factors?

Those factors determine the answer to your question here.

How does one motivate themselves when any extra effort to be productive has the same benefit as being non-productive? People tend to preform the standards that are presented to them. If high performers are reward the same as low performers, guess what happens?

[Crazed Rabbit]

More than a little rich coming from someone who lives at the top of the global wealth curve due to historical and current theft and exploitation of the lands and resources of millions of people.

I, nor any of my ancestors, had nothing to do with any such hogwash. Nor do they reside comfortably due to exploitation- they worked damned hard. I am where I am now not becuase of any alledged exploitation, but by hard work.

Nor does that excuse or justify more theft.

We need to acknowledge that while it will not be easy, this can be achieved. Once this occurs we’ll be on our way.

No. Such utopian dreams are not possible and destroying our societies in a futile effort to achieve such utopias is foolish.

I guess you could say making the world more equitable would remove the drive for success but only if the accumulation of private wealth and greed is the yard stick of success.

Guess what?- it is.

What if equality and peace was the gauge of success, would that not provide incentive and motivation?

For what? Giving away your money? The concept makes no sense- you'd destroy the world economy by taking away any incentive to work hard, and even a dillusion that equality was success would not get people working hard.

The entire ideology will never succeed because it fights human nature.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The article is based on the false premise that money is the key to succes and happiness.

I don't know, if I was starving money for food would make me happy

Also, I'm sure most people in Africa do work very hard

That said, I don't like this equal redistribition nonsense. But letting people starve while scooting around in your private jet is rather inhumane..

[doc_bean]

Also, I'm sure most people in Africa do work very hard

I'm not sure how you meant that... (sarcasm or not ?)

It's probably always been this way, do you think castles and churches got build by distributing the wealth ?

Now I'm for equal distribution to a certain extent, but be realistic about it.

Bill gate sis using his vast fortune now to fund charity, if all that money was spread equally over the middle class they'd probably all just buy a bigger TV. Accumulation can be a bad thing, but not neccesarily.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think the key to reconciling these viewpoints is not redistribution (as Redleg rightly notes, even if such a process was desirable, who would carry it out?) but equality of opportunity and level playing fields for local and global economic activity.

Africa is not poor because of fecklessness. It is poor partly because much of its natural resource wealth is not owned by its people, but by foreign powers that historically conquered and now economically own those resources. It is poor because the developed world makes very sure that it cannot sell the goods where it would out-produce us in the market place (largely agricultural products) due to protectionist measures that we impose. It is poor because we have ensured that the states of that country are indentured to us through debt, provided ostensibly for charitable purposes like feeding people, but actually to make sure their statesmen buy the arms we sell them and don't innovate to relieve their own hardships, by their own hand. Through struggling to overcome the challenges of survival without external aid, those countries would likely come to out-perform our own agriculture very quickly and lose their dependence on our aid.

Of course, sufficient blame must also be placely squarely where it belongs, at the feet of extraordinarily corrupt politicans and leaders of those countries. Again, aid fuels this corruption as does corporate interest in resources. The developed world has a vested interest in maintaining corruption, but the corruption is very much an integral plank of African politics. It's hard to see how it wll be rooted out.

Nonetheless, despite almost similar levels of corruption in China and India, they have progressed. So it is possible.

The other environmental factor that is almost unique to Africa is health. First malaria, and now HIV have decimated the working populations - can anyone imagine the impact of their levels of disease on western economies? Yet our pharmaceuticals spend approximately thirty times more on R&D for cosmetics than they do on HIV/AIDS research. If we changed that figure around, and supplied inexpensive drugs to Africa, we would do them a hell of lot more good than trying to redistribute wealth and maintain the aid dependencey culture. Of course, we'd create another economic monster to threaten our cosy world view alongside China and India.

AIDS not aid.

As for inequality in western countries themselves, that's a matter of education, IMO and legislation to set a level playing field. Redistribution doesn't work for all the reasons previously set out. However, corporations and rich individuals are able to exempt themselves from the constraints that apply to ordinary people - like taxation, or national laws (by moving between jurisdictions, for example). By definition, being rich provides one with many more opportunities to get richer - most importantly of all, through gaining a better education.

If one is going to utilise taxation at all, use it to fund the highest quality education for all it is possible to afford. Then people will make their own way.

[macsen rufus]

Hmm yes - what BG said

A major factor is trade terms, and the whole WTO set-up, serious protectionism in the rich countries (EU and US farm subsidies are an absolute scandal, for instance). It's not a simple case of "we're richer because we work harder". The poorest people I've met work a darn sight harder than the richest (I'm talking $2-a-week poor here, not benefit system poor, BTW) The old adage is right:

How to make rich people work harder? Pay them more.
How to make poor people work harder? Pay them less.

At the end of the day, a rich man has no more stomachs than a poor man, needs as much food, water, fresh air etc. It's not just about inequality - control of cash gives control of resources, and it's not so much cash that needs to be redistributed as access to essential resources. I can't remember the exact figure but approximately 1 billion people still don't have access to safe, potable water supplies. That's hardly challenging, technically, so why can't we fix it???

I am where I am now not becuase of any alledged exploitation, but by hard work.

But would you able to stay there if you had to walk miles for fresh water every day? The point being that many people are held down by things beyond their control that no amount of hard work on their part will ever alleviate, so this sanctimonious "the poor deserve to be poor" attitude won't wash. Lift some of these burdens (yes, I agree, including government corruption) then people will have more chance at a fair stab. But I tell you, if the playing field really were level, our comfortable western lives would be a lot less comfortable.

[Vladimir]

And another thing: Tall, attractive people tend to have more mates. This is unbelievable, how dare they! Not everyone can be fortunate enough to have inherited good genes from their parents. Why should, ugly people suffer such indignation? If we can’t provide cosmetic surgery to these poor unfortunates surely we can hobble and mutilate the tallest and pretty among us. Oh the humanity!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And another thing: Tall, attractive people tend to have more mates. This is unbelievable, how dare they! Not everyone can be fortunate enough to have inherited good genes from their parents. Why should, ugly people suffer such indignation? If we can’t provide cosmetic surgery to these poor unfortunates surely we can hobble and mutilate the tallest and pretty among us. Oh the humanity!

...poor people are genetically inferior?

[Blodrast]

It so DOES make a huge difference where you're born, for example.
Born in one of the 1st world countries, and you have the possibility to live a decent life. Born in Africa or any other 3rd world country, and you have the right to a miserable life. Oh yeah, sure, 1 in a few thousands of those manages to get out and lead a decent life - in a 1st world country.

So the point is that those born in "civilized" countries are first of all lucky. It's only after that that the working hard part comes in effect.
As stated before, I'll bet many African people work their butts off, yet they will never own a TV, a computer, a car, or even AC. Hell, they'll prolly die of stupid diseases that no longer exist in the "civilized" world, because they don't have access to decent hospitals and drugs and such...

Remember's Sasaki (iirc) game with the simulation of the life of a girl in Tanzania, or some such ?

So please, any of you, don't go on a high horse saying you are where you are only because of your hard work. If you were born in a different place, you wouldn't have been able to have everything you have now, no matter how hard you worked.
Nobody is denying that you are working hard - and kudos to you for that. But we have to keep things in perspective - an American/Canadian/Brit/French youth has a completely different choice of prospects than an African kid, or one from some of the other poor countries.

[macsen rufus]

@ Vladimir -- poor parallel.

Tall, attractive people tend to have more mates

Even then some mess up the dating game and do a lot worse than some squat, balding, pug-nosed types.

If the world economy truly worked as a "free" market then wage competition would tend to iron things out. Cheap imports from low wage economies would undercut wages in our "rich" countries. But they don't -- because we impose trade barriers, import quotas, protectionist subsidies, and immigration controls etc. Commodity prices depend more on who gambles what in Wall St than on how hard miners, growers etc work. We expect to keep our high-paid jobs, buy cheap goods from abroad, and still complain when Johny Foreigner can make stuff cheaper than us, even though he's working double our hours for a tenth or less of our income and outcompeting us. If we're going to trumpet the free market, let's make it really free and stop all subsidies, tariffs and barriers, and just to show willing let the EU and US go first. Then we'll see who deserves what they get, or not.

[Major Robert Dump]

Can someone send me $40 please?

[Vladimir]

@ Vladimir -- poor parallel.



Even then some mess up the dating game and do a lot worse than some squat, balding, pug-nosed types.

That was part of the point of the word you italicized.

Even so you're proving my point. Why should people with superior dating skills get more women? Each according to his need right? Ugly people need lovin’ too.

[Don Corleone]

Can someone send me $40 please?

Done! I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that one.

I agree with BG and with Redleg. I would add a caveat though, that basic human needs should be above and beyond market forces. A bowl of rice should not be a commidity, it should be universal. A steak? Sure. But this planet has too much money and too much food for children to starve to death. One day I'm going to have explain my capitalista views to Jesus, and I think it's here that he would agree I've drawn a fair line. Everyone should have a basic right to rudimentary fulfillment of their most basic needs. Everyone does not have a right to high-definition TV's, Playstation 3's and digital cable.

[Redleg]

Done! I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that one.

I agree with BG and with Redleg. I would add a caveat though, that basic human needs should be above and beyond market forces. A bowl of rice should not be a commidity, it should be universal. A steak? Sure. But this planet has too much money and too much food for children to starve to death. .

If one was to seek redistribution of goods to insure that the world is adequately feed - that is a goal that no one should find fault with. I to agree that the amount of food commidities should be treated as a basic need to life for all. Surplus from nations should be given freely to those nations that have not the ability to adequately feed their population.

[yesdachi]

We all share the same origin but some of us have ascended, not thru godly intervention but because of the effort put forth by our ancestors, to civilization while others of us have remained stagnant in the past. Because of my good fortune of being born in the US do I have some kind of responsibility to help others who have not helped themselves advance past their stone age? Should I redistribute my wealth to some country or tribe that cannot even get along with its neighbor because of their color or religion when I am encouraged by the laws my forefathers devised to ensure religious freedom and color equality. There is a common trait among the most prosperous and civilized people, the ability to work, trade, live and integrate well with others. Our laws have been made to promote equality, freedom and fairness to everyone, should we redistribute anything to those that can’t even meet the basic principals we have built our successful and civilized societies on?

Our, for profit, governments and corporations have tried their hardest to take advantage of these backwater countries for their resources but that is not an excuse for their inability to even work well with themselves or to treat members of their own society as equals or with respect. How can equally redistributing the wealth of civilized, tolerant and helpful countries to countries stuck in the past that hate and kill and oppress be a priority for humankind.

Not every country is equal and if those less fortunate countries choose to follow the footsteps of the advanced and civilized countries then we should encourage them as best we can but if they choose to continue hating, killing, oppressing and opposing the more advanced countries then it will only lead to their doom. The only thing of mine that I think I should equally redistribute is a smile.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We all share the same origin but some of us have ascended, not thru godly intervention but because of the effort put forth by our ancestors, to civilization while others of us have remained stagnant in the past. Because of my good fortune of being born in the US do I have some kind of responsibility to help others who have not helped themselves advance past their stone age? Should I redistribute my wealth to some country or tribe that cannot even get along with its neighbor because of their color or religion when I am encouraged by the laws my forefathers devised to ensure religious freedom and color equality. There is a common trait among the most prosperous and civilized people, the ability to work, trade, live and integrate well with others. Our laws have been made to promote equality, freedom and fairness to everyone, should we redistribute anything to those that can’t even meet the basic principals we have built our successful and civilized societies on?

yesdachi, are you aware that the above paragraph is almost an exact summary of the position of the British government at the commencement of the Irish Potato Famine?

[Blodrast]

I kinda agree with a slight variation of yesdachi's post: yes, the govt's of most of those countries are so corrupt, that most likely giving them help would not reach the actual population. We need to make the distinction, as it was already pointed out, between the gov't, and the people. I agree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the governments of those countries. I disagree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the people of those countries.

Therefore, if there were to be a redistribution of, say, food, the solution would somehow have to make it get directly to the people, not just give it to the gov't, because, more than likely, it wouldn't reach the people. Of course, this makes things all the more complicated.

Moreover, one cannot really blame the people for not being able to overthrow their government if "they don't like it", to justify why they don't really "deserve" our help, if they don't help themselves first.

[yesdachi]

yesdachi, are you aware that the above paragraph is almost an exact summary of the position of the British government at the commencement of the Irish Potato Famine?

I wont pretend to completely understand the Irish Potato Famine or the relationship between the British and the Irish but I do know that it was a strained relationship and that the Irish, in the way they ran their countries politics, land holdings and import/export laws were behind and needed to change if they wanted to keep up with the rest of the civilized world. Sadly it seems change was thrust upon the Irish. I am intrigued by the topic, perhaps I will do a little more reading this evening.

I kinda agree with a slight variation of yesdachi's post: yes, the govt's of most of those countries are so corrupt, that most likely giving them help would not reach the actual population. We need to make the distinction, as it was already pointed out, between the gov't, and the people. I agree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the governments of those countries. I disagree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the people of those countries.

Therefore, if there were to be a redistribution of, say, food, the solution would somehow have to make it get directly to the people, not just give it to the gov't, because, more than likely, it wouldn't reach the people. Of course, this makes things all the more complicated.

Moreover, one cannot really blame the people for not being able to overthrow their government if "they don't like it", to justify why they don't really "deserve" our help, if they don't help themselves first.

Of course there are good people in some of the “bad” countries lead by corrupt governments, but those people are the ones that need to oppose the corrupt government before they should be given any handouts. The oppressed people could easily ask those sympathetic to their cause to assist them in overthrowing their corrupt government but they need to be the ones that want change. Our society was built thru struggle and change our ancestors threw off the chains of oppression and chaos to form the civilization we enjoy today, theirs didn’t, they need to want that struggle and change or we would only be replacing one corrupt government with another. A working civilization is not created with a magic wand but with desire for freedom, respect and equality. If the people don’t want that then I don’t understand why we would bother helping them.