Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world

renegademaster · 20-01-2014 02:27PM #1

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Didn't Occupy point this out ages ago??

The world's wealthiest people aren't known for travelling by bus, but if they fancied a change of scene then the richest 85 people on the globe – who between them control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population put together – could squeeze onto a single double-decker.
The extent to which so much global wealth has become corralled by a virtual handful of the so-called 'global elite' is exposed in a new report from Oxfam on Monday. It warned that those 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.Working for the Few - Oxfam

Dravokivich · 20-01-2014 02:29PM

It's not a problem throwing money at fixes.

stefan idiot jones · 20-01-2014 02:29PM

Where is Bertie on the list?

Flibbles · 20-01-2014 02:36PM

Money is not the problem, oppressive regimes and controllers in third world countries is the problem.

Beyond that, this completely ignores where the wealth is coming from, which is more than likely stocks and non liquid assets. Should the "rich" decide to sell all their stocks, companies etc there will be a significant amount of people laid off for zero gain as the money will not go to the people who need it.

edanto · 20-01-2014 02:48PM

Flibbles wrote: »

Money is not the problem, oppressive regimes and controllers in third world countries is the problem.

Beyond that, this completely ignores where the wealth is coming from, which is more than likely stocks and non liquid assets. Should the "rich" decide to sell all their stocks, companies etc there will be a significant amount of people laid off for zero gain as the money will not go to the people who need it.

Lazy regurgitation. How can corrupt leaders alone participate in a global wealth system without co-operation of other banks and governments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSS_Da4kcXw

For some facts: http://www.globalwitness.org/library/undue-diligence-how-banks-do-business-corrupt-regimes

Global Witness wrote:

Undue Diligence presents evidence that:

Barclays kept open an account for the son of the dictator of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea long after clear evidence emerged that his family were heavily involved in substantial looting of state oil revenues.

A British tax haven, Anguilla, and a Hong Kong bank, Bank of East Asia, helped the son of the president of Republic of Congo, another oil-rich African country, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of his country's oil revenues on designer shopping sprees. Read his credit card statements.

Citibank facilitated the funding of two vicious civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia by enabling the warlord Charles Taylor, now on trial for war crimes in the Hague, to loot timber revenues.

HSBC and Banco Santander hid behind bank secrecy laws in Luxembourg and Spain to frustrate US efforts to find out if Equatorial Guinea's oil revenues had been looted and laundered.

Deutsche Bank assisted the late president Niyazov of Turkmenistan, a notorious human rights abuser, to keep state gas revenues under his personal control and off the national budget.

Dozens of British, European and Chinese banks have provided Angola's opaque national oil company, Sonangol, with billions of dollars of oil backed loans, though there is no transparency or democratic oversight about how these advances on the country's oil revenues are used, and they have a recent history mired in corruption and secret arms deals.

Let's not add insult to injury by promoting tired myths of a 'rising tide lifting all boats' or benefits 'trickling-down' to poorer people. Let's call a spade a spade. Our economic system is completely broken and we are the beneficiaries.

Never mind Occupy and it's 1% - the 0.000001% that are these 85 kleptomaniacs are simply the most obvious symbol of this fucked up system.

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2014 02:53PM

edanto wrote: »

Lazy regurgitation. How can corrupt leaders alone participate in a global wealth system without co-operation of other banks and governments?

For some facts: http://www.globalwitness.org/library/undue-diligence-how-banks-do-business-corrupt-regimes

Let's not add insult to injury by promoting tired myths of a 'rising tide lifting all boats' or benefits 'trickling-down' to poorer people. Let's call a spade a spade. Our economic system is completely broken and we are the beneficiaries.

Never mind Occupy and it's 1% - the 0.000001% that are these 85 kleptomaniacs are simply the most obvious symbol of this fucked up system.

Is your problem with shady bank dealings or financial inequality? They're not the same thing.

Flibbles · 20-01-2014 03:00PM

edanto wrote: »

Lazy regurgitation. How can corrupt leaders alone participate in a global wealth system without co-operation of other banks and governments?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSS_Da4kcXw

For some facts: http://www.globalwitness.org/library/undue-diligence-how-banks-do-business-corrupt-regimes

Banks are corrupt, this is well known, particularly in Ireland. That's not what is being discussed though.

Let's not add insult to injury by promoting tired myths of a 'rising tide lifting all boats' or benefits 'trickling-down' to poorer people. Let's call a spade a spade. Our economic system is completely broken and we are the beneficiaries.

I stated facts - without an employer, there is no employees. Take for example, Tesco. The main stockholders decide to sell all of their stock and give it to the poor in India or somewhere else. Tesco suddenly drops in value. The company goes straight into a state of preservation. As many staff are cut as can possibly be cut until there are a bare minumum of people working for Tesco. There are now an extra bunch of unemployed citizens.

Never mind Occupy and it's 1% - the 0.000001% that are these 85 kleptomaniacs are simply the most obvious symbol of this fucked up system.

Does this report include any details of how much is donated by these 85 people? Or their actual money available to them?

Balaclava1991 · 20-01-2014 03:07PM

renegademaster wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

Didn't Occupy point this out ages ago??

The world's wealthiest people aren't known for travelling by bus, but if they fancied a change of scene then the richest 85 people on the globe – who between them control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population put together – could squeeze onto a single double-decker.
The extent to which so much global wealth has become corralled by a virtual handful of the so-called 'global elite' is exposed in a new report from Oxfam on Monday. It warned that those 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.Working for the Few - Oxfam

Why exactly are the richest 85 people in the world to blame for the poverty of the poorest 3.5 billion of the world's population?

edanto · 20-01-2014 03:12PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is your problem with shady bank dealings or financial inequality? They're not the same thing.

Would it be OK with you if I have a problem with both? Would it be safe to say that we can all agree that those two thing are somewhat related?

Or are they two completely separate things to you?

For the avoidance of doubt, one of the things that I have a problem with is shady bank deals leading to wealth inequality.

I've seen first hand the brutal result of 'financial inequality' and I can tell you that it isn't half as innocent as that phrase sounds. It's a deliberate thing.

For these 85 people, and others in the billionaire bracket, I think we should have massive wealth and inheritance taxes. For the sake of discussion, maybe something like a tax of 98% on all inheritance/wealth/income over 500 million.

We've tried the other way for ages, and it's lead to this.....

smurgen · 20-01-2014 03:13PM

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Why exactly are the richest 85 people in the world to blame for the poverty of the poorest 3.5 billion of the world's population?

Because they're hoarding the money.if that cash was spent/invested there would be more projects going ahead and goods and services being consumed.this inturn would lead to greater opportunities for the poorest 3.5 bn to earn cash.

edanto · 20-01-2014 03:16PM

Flibbles wrote: »

I stated facts - without an employer, there is no employees. Take for example, Tesco. The main stockholders decide to sell all of their stock and give it to the poor in India or somewhere else. Tesco suddenly drops in value. The company goes straight into a state of preservation. As many staff are cut as can possibly be cut until there are a bare minumum of people working for Tesco. There are now an extra bunch of unemployed citizens.

Your example is ludicrous. Firstly, the stockholders in your example sold their stock holdings to someone else, so there are now new stockholders. So, what is the reason that Tesco has suddenly dropped in value, other than you wrote it so?

Similarly, in your example, has the entire population of these islands stopped purchasing food and homewares, or why in the world has Tesco gone into a state of preservation?

Let's not get side tracked on Tesco, I'm only picking your example apart because it's frankly embarrassing to be dealing with something so poorly thought out. Can we assume that the same level of reflection supports your other points?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 20-01-2014 03:18PM

smurgen wrote: »

Because they're hoarding the money.if that cash was spent/invested there would be more projects going ahead and goods and services being consumed.this inturn would lead to greater opportunities for the poorest 3.5 bn to earn cash.

do you think they keep the money locked away in safe rooms or hidden in mattresses?

jesus ****ing christ

Zillah · 20-01-2014 03:18PM

No one is saying that the rich should sell all of their stock tomorrow. That is a viewpoint with a rather child-like simplicity to it. The criticism is that a system that allows so few people to become so extortionately rich is a flawed system. The companies that they hold stocks in pay them dividends. Those dividends are derived from profits, and those profits are so high because those companies almost universally pay their employees poorly; source materials from the Third World at rock-bottom prices; strong-arm the competition; flirt with monopolies and cartels; and generally extort, abuse and exploit everything and anything they can to increase their profits - the money that is going into these people's pockets. They can only be so profitable because the majority of the human race works for them in poverty or provides them with cheap resources.

The system is being criticised, not the decisions these people made this week.

kneemos · 20-01-2014 03:20PM

It's a curious fact.Otherwise irrelevant.

edanto · 20-01-2014 03:22PM

like your post?

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2014 03:26PM

edanto wrote: »

Would it be OK with you if I have a problem with both? Would it be safe to say that we can all agree that those two thing are somewhat related?

Or are they two completely separate things to you?

For the avoidance of doubt, one of the things that I have a problem with is shady bank deals leading to wealth inequality.

Not all wealth inequality is a result of shady bank deals. That's the problem with generalisations. Many people who are wealthy have gotten to their position by adding something of value to the world. Others haven't but it's not for you to begrudge them.

I've seen first hand the brutal result of 'financial inequality' and I can tell you that it isn't half as innocent as that phrase sounds. It's a deliberate thing.

What's deliberate, inequality? You realise it's not a conspiracy right? The Taoiseach doesn't sit around a table with all the rich people of Ireland planning this years inequality.

For these 85 people, and others in the billionaire bracket, I think we should have massive wealth and inheritance taxes. For the sake of discussion, maybe something like a tax of 98% on all inheritance/wealth/income over 500 million.

Leaving aside the moral implications of what you propose it's totally unworkable. Anyone with 500 million euro or more will simply move their money overseas.

We've tried the other way for ages, and it's lead to this.....

Led to what?

kneemos · 20-01-2014 03:27PM

Zillah wrote: »

No one is saying that the rich should sell all of their stock tomorrow. That is a viewpoint with a rather child-like simplicity to it. The criticism is that a system that allows so few people to become so extortionately rich is a flawed system. The companies that they hold stocks in pay them dividends. Those dividends are derived from profits, and those profits are so high because those companies almost universally pay their employees poorly; source materials from the Third World at rock-bottom prices; strong-arm the competition; flirt with monopolies and cartels; and generally extort, abuse and exploit everything and anything they can to increase their profits - the money that is going into these people's pockets. They can only be so profitable because the majority of the human race works for them in poverty or provides them with cheap resources.

The system is being criticised, not the decisions these people made this week.

You have a much better system that hopefully you're going to reveal to us.Fingers crossed.

Flibbles · 20-01-2014 03:28PM

edanto wrote: »

Your example is ludicrous. Firstly, the stockholders in your example sold their stock holdings to someone else, so there are now new stockholders. So, what is the reason that Tesco has suddenly dropped in value, other than you wrote it so?

Similarly, in your example, has the entire population of these islands stopped purchasing food and homewares, or why in the world has Tesco gone into a state of preservation?

Let's not get side tracked on Tesco, I'm only picking your example apart because it's frankly embarrassing to be dealing with something so poorly thought out. Can we assume that the same level of reflection supports your other points?

I'll admit, it was a **** example and I take responsibility for it. It doesn't change the fact that the money simply won't go from them to the poor, it never does. Taking 98% from the top 1000 richest will not achieve a thing as that money then goes to government where it's dispersed throughout the departments. Even if 10% (optimistic) goes to foreign aid, there will still be none going to the people who actually need it (as we've found out repeatedly from foreign nations - the politicians become richer ).

Can you give a possible way that retrieving money from the richest will help?

everdead.ie · 20-01-2014 03:32PM

Surely there should be more effort into getting the poorist 1 billion that live off $2 a day onto better wages than trying to redistribute the wealth of the richest to them?

Balaclava1991 · 20-01-2014 03:34PM

smurgen wrote: »

Because they're hoarding the money.if that cash was spent/invested there would be more projects going ahead and goods and services being consumed.this inturn would lead to greater opportunities for the poorest 3.5 bn to earn cash.

It's their money.
They earned it.
They can spend it or invest it how and when they see fit.
Come up with a business idea that makes them money and they will invest in you.
If you have no ideas or skills or labor they can make a profit from you won't get a hearing.
Play the weeping violins all you like it won't change the world.
Simply demanding they give up portions of their vast fortunes for nothing in return is utterly childishness.

Zillah · 20-01-2014 03:34PM

kneemos wrote: »

You have a much better system that hopefully you're going to reveal to us.Fingers crossed.

Higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on incomes of 1m+, drastically more strict regulation of the financial industry, higher minimum wage, more robust public services, greater spending on education, more fair trade policies for the Third World, greater empowerment of women in the Third World, greater grass roots programs in the Third World, less tolerance for corrupt Third World governments, stricter enforcement of monopoly laws.

Would you like to discuss any of these ideas or would you rather we just swapped sarcastic one-liners?

Shenshen · 20-01-2014 03:35PM

everdead.ie wrote: »

Surely there should be more effort into getting the poorist 1 billion that live off $2 a day onto better wages than trying to redistribute the wealth of the richest to them?

How, though, assuming simply printing more money won't solve the problem?

Xios · 20-01-2014 03:35PM

smurgen wrote: »

Because they're hoarding the money.if that cash was spent/invested there would be more projects going ahead and goods and services being consumed.this inturn would lead to greater opportunities for the poorest 3.5 bn to earn cash.

Another thing that people neglect to understand is that money is dependant on resources for its value, you can have a bazillion dollars and have no way of spending it cause you lack the resources.

Outside of the conspiracy theories of economic warfare and exploitation of these nations, i truly believe that the largest problems facing the third world are corrupt regimes, not enough resources and exploitation from western powers. The only part moneys plays here is keeping the people repressed, impoverished and exploited.

stefan idiot jones · 20-01-2014 03:36PM

As a white tradesman working in Australia with the OH the same, we are probably richer than millions of people ourselves. Scary when you think about it.

SV · 20-01-2014 03:42PM

Everyone posting on this thread is more than likely richer than half of the world.

Clandestine · 20-01-2014 03:43PM

Zillah wrote: »

Higher taxes on capital gains,
higher taxes on incomes of 1m+
higher minimum wage
more robust public services
greater spending on education
less tolerance for corrupt Third World government

-Higher taxes means rich people jump ship and move to tax havens
-Higher minimum wage makes it more difficult for business's to hire, leading to more unemployment
-Public services cost money, which means higher taxes to pay for them, which means less money for the average wage-earner
-The third world is beyond corrupt. The governments have too much power, hell most money given in aid goes to those governments to buy more cars and mansions. Simply giving money won't do a thing, and these governments are supported by corrupt first-world governments

etc.

stevedublin · 20-01-2014 03:47PM

SV wrote: »

Everyone posting on this thread is more than likely richer than half of the world.

Yippee! I'm RICH

smurgen · 20-01-2014 03:48PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

do you think they keep the money locked away in safe rooms or hidden in mattresses?

jesus ****ing christ

Well it's not as if all their wealth is held in stocks and bonds. A lot of it would be held in illiquid assets like real estate which are of no use to the economy and create no real value. If money was more evenly distributed we wouldn't see as much money spent on stupid things like superyachts and private jets.

kneemos · 20-01-2014 03:48PM

Zillah wrote: »

Higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on incomes of 1m+, drastically more strict regulation of the financial industry, higher minimum wage, more robust public services, greater spending on education, more fair trade policies for the Third World, greater empowerment of women in the Third World, greater grass roots programs in the Third World, less tolerance for corrupt Third World governments, stricter enforcement of monopoly laws.

Would you like to discuss any of these ideas or would you rather we just swapped sarcastic one-liners?

Higher wages just makes things more expensive.You can't raise the minimum wage without raising everybody else's to keep up.
Restricting the financial industry would inhibit trade and punish the poor.
Greater empowerment of women in the third world sounds great but you have to change cultural and religious beliefs and for less tolerance of third world governments I don't know what you mean presumably not going in all guns blazing.

swimming in a sea · 20-01-2014 03:52PM

Is the Oxfam CEO on the bus too?

hfallada · 20-01-2014 03:55PM

Most of those top 85 are all self made billionaire. No one handed them their money, they made it out of hard work and determination. Some of them like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are giving away pretty much their entire wealth. Bill Gates Wife, Malinda is working hard to try and get females in the third world access to contraception, some western politicians and charities completely ignore.

But Ofxam isnt going to acknowledge that plenty of the super rich are trying to make the world a better place. Malinda Gates is hoping family planning will finally mean women in the third world can finally get a job and education. Family planning is something charities completely ignore(I cant imagine Trocaire, the catholics church charity endorsing Contraception in Africa), but wealthy donors like Gates have the balls to tackle issues politicans and charities think are too taboo to address.

Oxfam: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world

Comments