Richest 1% may soon own more than the rest of the world

qt3.14 · 19-01-2015 11:01pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Yeah right.
I'm too busy working.

What do you think I'm doing?

tayto lover · 19-01-2015 11:02pm

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Work smarter not harder, you'll get further.

And how did you make yours?

Sociopath2 · 19-01-2015 11:07pm

tayto lover wrote: »

And how did you make yours?

Got a job with a good salary, set up a side business that makes me a bit extra, saved some money and started investing it. I did well in etfs and funds. I could have done better if I had invested directly in individual shares and futures but I don't know enough to take that risk. Same reason I didn't touch property, I would have made a mess of it.

What's your story, why are you so miserable? You must love your job

Cookie_Monster · 19-01-2015 11:09pm

everdead.ie wrote: »

I assume you mean sq ft? If you really do have 820sq meters that is pretty big!

no, 820sqm - that's the section. the house is a bit smaller

tayto lover · 19-01-2015 11:16pm

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Got a job with a good salary, set up a side business that makes me a bit extra, saved some money and started investing it. I did well in etfs and funds. I could have done better if I had invested directly in individual shares and futures but I don't know enough to take that risk. Same reason I didn't touch property, I would have made a mess of it.

What's your story, why are you so miserable? You must love your job

I sold my business before the boom ended. Made a nice profit. Sold when I was 53 luckily for me.
Went back to part-time working with Fas now Solas.
Divided my wealth with my sons. Play golf and do some hill walking as I only work 2 days a week.
I'm happy but I fear for the youth of the country who have to up sticks and leave while the mega rich friends of the politicians cream off the country.

Sociopath2 · 19-01-2015 11:22pm

tayto lover wrote: »

I sold my business before the boom ended. Made a nice profit. Sold when I was 53 luckily for me.
Went back to part-time working with Fas now Solas.
Divided my wealth with my sons. Play golf and do some hill walking as I only work 2 days a week.
I'm happy but I fear for the youth of the country who have to up sticks and leave while the mega rich friends of the politicians cream off the country.

Why the issue with the likes of Apple so? You must have a good understanding of business having successfully run one, yet your posts read like some of the populist nonsense the socialist party comes out with.

Everything big companies do is within the law and they bring a lot of jobs and investment. We are a small open economy, we have to be flexible and play to our advantages.

tayto lover · 19-01-2015 11:31pm

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why the issue with the likes of Apple so? You must have a good understanding of business having successfully run one, yet your posts read like some of the populist nonsense the socialist party comes out with.

Everything big companies do is within the law and they bring a lot of jobs and investment. We are a small open economy, we have to be flexible and play to our advantages.

Because I see it as a big company dictating to our weak government.
I really don't believe that the country is on the mend either.
I employed an accountant who looked after my affairs as I wouldn't have a great knowledge of taxes. A lot of small businesses operate that way. I started off with one employee and only had five at peak but I made money, maybe not mega bucks, but it raised a family comfortably.
I see Apple as scamming us.
That's it in a nutshell.

KomradeBishop · 20-01-2015 4:13am

Relevant article to this - good section here, outlining how economists (in the professions current dismal form) pretty much serve to enable growing inequality:

Suzanne Moore wrote:

...
Most of us – I count myself – are economically inept. The economic climate is represented as a natural force, like uncontrollable weather. It’s a shame that the planet is getting hotter, just as it’s a shame that the rich are getting richer. But these things are man-made and not inevitable at all. In fact, there are deliberate and systemic reasons as to why this is happening.

The rich, via lobbyists and Byzantine tax arrangements, actively work to stop redistribution. Inequality is not inevitable, it’s engineered. Many mainstream economists do not question the degree of this engineering, even when it is highly dubious. This level of acceptance among economists of inequality as merely an unfortunate byproduct of growth, alongside their failure to predict the crash, has worryingly not affected their cult status among blinkered admirers.

Even the mild challenge of Thomas Piketty, with his heretical talk of public rather than private interest being essential to a functioning democracy, is revolutionary in a world which buys the conservative idea that the elixir of “growth” simply has to mean these huge extremes in income distribution.

That argument may now be collapsing. The contortions that certain pet economists make to defend the indefensible 1% are often to do with positing the super-rich as inherently talented and being self-made. The myth is that everyone is a cross between Steve Jobs and Bono; creative, entrepreneurial, unique. The reality is cloned inherited wealth and insane performance-related pay, eg the bankers who continue to reward themselves more than a million a year after overseeing the collapse of the industry.

There are always those who will side with the powerful against the powerless, and economists specialise in this. No wonder Prof Gregory Mankiw’s Harvard students walked out of his class following his ludicrous insistence that the system is not gamed for the rich. Such “theorists” flatter the rich by granting them some superpower, which is why they like rock star comparisons. In fact, international finance is peopled by interchangeable guys who are essentially just paying themselves double what they were 10 years ago. They may need to think of themselves as special. We don’t have to.
...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/inequality-inevitable-1-per-cent-growth

KomradeBishop · 20-01-2015 4:16am

Later this week, the ECB begins Quantitative Easing, to try and avoid deflation - it will be a huge injection of money into banks, which will be directed into commodities, and effectively into the pockets of financiers and the wealthy.

The only 'solution' allowed for our economic problems, is to massively subsidize the already-wealthy through the financial sector, by printing and pumping money in their direction - no solution that involves similar amounts of money, being used to patch up government funding and provide actual work/jobs for people in the wider economy, will be allowed, despite growing calls for this, even from figures like Martin Wolf (leading editor of the Financial Times).

The people who would decry the latter as being impossibly inflationary, have no problem at all with inflating commodity prices instead - benefiting financiers and the wealthy, while increasing the costs of those commodities to everyone else in society.

Should be obvious by now to people, that the avoidance of real solutions to the crisis, is most likely deliberate - and that we're not going to exit the current crisis, until enough people do realize that (because no real recovery, will ever be allowed to come, as that would mean curtailing and/or reversing the massive growth in inequality).

Xerxes75 · 20-01-2015 9:14am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Later this week, the ECB begins Quantitative Easing, to try and avoid deflation - it will be a huge injection of money into banks, which will be directed into commodities, and effectively into the pockets of financiers and the wealthy.

The only 'solution' allowed for our economic problems, is to massively subsidize the already-wealthy through the financial sector, by printing and pumping money in their direction - no solution that involves similar amounts of money, being used to patch up government funding and provide actual work/jobs for people in the wider economy, will be allowed, despite growing calls for this, even from figures like Martin Wolf (leading editor of the Financial Times).

The people who would decry the latter as being impossibly inflationary, have no problem at all with inflating commodity prices instead - benefiting financiers and the wealthy, while increasing the costs of those commodities to everyone else in society.

Should be obvious by now to people, that the avoidance of real solutions to the crisis, is most likely deliberate - and that we're not going to exit the current crisis, until enough people do realize that (because no real recovery, will ever be allowed to come, as that would mean curtailing and/or reversing the massive growth in inequality).

Quantitative easing doesn't mean giving rich people money. The cash is used to buy products such as bonds.

Playboy · 20-01-2015 12:47pm

qt3.14 wrote: »

More defeatist thinking. I'm closer today than I was yesterday and I'll be closer tomorrow than I am today. And if I never make it so be it but at least I'll have tried.

What blinkered thinking, actively supporting a system that is there to fck you. Yes a few people make a few bob who arent born into it due to a combination of luck and intelligence. If you think everyone who is hardworking and intelligent is going to end up very successful then you are living in dreamland. How can people look at the world we live in and think its functioning fine when the poor and unemployed in our society are better off than 95% of the rest of the world. How can we continue to justify the lifestyles of an extreme minority who have more money and resources than they could spend in generations? Why on earth does someone need billions when people are homeless and dying of starvation? There is a better solution that would lead to a happier and healthier society for all (including the super wealthy). Society functions best when there is a small gap between the best and the worst off... large gaps in inequality only lead to social unrest and societal tensions.

donegaLroad · 20-01-2015 1:34pm

The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.

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

FURET · 20-01-2015 1:48pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A rising tide lifts all boats, trickle down economics ?

Oxfam said the wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014 ... 80 people owning the same amount of wealth as more than 3.5 billion people

It's not happening. I am not twice as rich as back in during the boom. Actually for most of us house prices , our main asset, have halved.

The rich are accumulating wealth faster than the rest of us.
Look at history or the Gini Coefficient vs stability and it's scary given the speed and scale of wealth transfer.

Extreme poverty could have been eliminated Globally by taxing those 80 people for just a few years at the same rate someone here on minimum wage would pay for USC and PRSI.

In 2012, 6.6 million children died before reaching their fifth birthday; almost all (99%) of these deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries *

Some people say that the super rich are a cancer on society.

The reality is quite different. Cancer kills less people. Really.

We could have saved millions more lives than curing cancer if a fraction of the money used to enrich the top 80 had been diverted to bettering the lives of those in extreme poverty.

*total poverty deaths are above 10m a year. Cancer only killed 8.2m in 2012

The reason why their wealth doubled is not because they are stealing from the mouths of babes. It's because the rich financially savvy people invest in things that grow their money at a compounded rate and have the temperament to buck the trend and not splurge on the consumerist crap that most other people mistakenly equate with wealth. US stocks trebled in value between early 2009 and late 2014. People like Warren Buffet are heavily (like 90%) invested in stocks. Their wealth therefore rises and falls with the fortune of the stock market. Buffet lost half his money in 2008 when it fell by 50%.

The real reason why the majority of the world's population is poor is down to superstition and the disempowerment of women, translating to uncontrolled population growth. Family planning and the provision of basic services in third world countries would go a long way. The likes of Gates and Buffet are doing more for the poor with their money than any inept government ever will, and then some.

Finally, many studies have been done on the rich, say people with an average net worth of mid-to-high 7 figures. The majority are first generation rich, meaning they built their wealth themselves. The same research also consistently shows that those who inherit wealth typically squander it within two generations. The image of a ferrari driving, champagne swilling, linen clad movie star is not typical behavior for most rich people. With most rich people, you couldn't even tell they were rich if they lived beside you.

matthew8 · 20-01-2015 1:57pm

Wealth is such a poor metric of wellbeing. Income is a million times better and wouldn't be quite as imbalanced. A very large portion of the middle class spend most of what they earn and are left with no wealth at the end of it even though they're pretty well off.

As for quantitative easing being some designed scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer? There are also things called interest on savings and wage inflation.

jank · 20-01-2015 3:07pm

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

Yes they inherited that wealth in great fashion

Well most Billionaires in the Forbes top 100 are self made but don't let facts get in the way of teenage angst.

Greenmachine · 20-01-2015 3:10pm

One does not even need to earn €31,000 to be in the top 1% give me a break.

jank · 20-01-2015 3:10pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

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

That video is a load of tosh.

tayto lover · 20-01-2015 3:11pm

Anyone a link to the top 100 wealthiest people please?
Would love to know how many of them are involved in the arms industry.
I always linked wealth to wars for some reason.

Skylinehead · 20-01-2015 3:17pm

tayto lover wrote: »

So avoidance is ok for them but not for us?

No, tax avoidance is completely legal for anybody.

jank · 20-01-2015 3:19pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Also, what has been presented as a stopgap 'solution' to our economic problems - Quantitative Easing - is actually just a massive redistribution of wealth, towards the already wealthy. The money from QE, is being used to inflate commodity prices - with the gains primarily going to the already-wealthy and finance in general (it's basically pissing money at the already-wealthy).

Good on them - they earned it!(?!)

Meanwhile, austerity/budget-balancing policies pushed upon governments, and the effect they have on demand in the economy and wages/employment, is removing wealth from the rest of society.

Somehow, people are not yet massively pissed off about this.

A few points. QE is actually a keynesist idea as a form of Stimulus to give the general economy a kick start. I would have thought it would have been right up your street?

Commodity prices are at a decade long low. Oil, Iron ore, zinc, LNG, coal all getting cheaper by the weak, so it was clearly not a way to inflate commodity prices or if it was it was a terrible failure.

Balancing the books is now called 'austerity'. So you mean running huge deficits is normal in a state economy I suppose? Yeah, lets be all like Greece so.

Wages are not growing due to a number of factors but ironically one of the reasons why the ECB is going to kick off a 1 trillion euro QE program this week is to stave off delation, where by inflation should then give price increases and wage increases. Economics 101 here.

Dave! · 20-01-2015 3:21pm

What's an acceptable/desirable/realistic ratio?

the_monkey · 20-01-2015 3:31pm

thelad95 wrote: »

Apparently coming into a large sum of money can be one of the most stessful experiences in someones life. Think of all the choices you'd have to make, the potential guilt at having gotten a load of money for doing nothing, various people dropping subtle hints that they want money and potential falling outs with people over same.

I knew an accountant that dealt with people who won the lottery a lot - he told me it's the kiss of death.

donegaLroad · 20-01-2015 4:36pm

jank wrote: »

That video is a load of tosh.

what do you not like about it?

Greenmachine · 20-01-2015 4:57pm

donegaLroad wrote: »

what do you not like about it?

Would love to know the answer to this too. I was familiar with the 80/20 rule. It is something seen in other areas too e.g 80% of xbox one will be cause by 20% of the different manufacturing faults.
Did not have a better idea of the breakdown beyond that, but clearly there are a few super rich.
I

20Cent · 20-01-2015 5:01pm

Which is harder to believe:
That only one in 100 people work hard.
or
The game is rigged by those with wealth and power to transfer more wealth to themselves.

I'd go with the second one.

FURET · 20-01-2015 5:54pm

20Cent wrote: »

Which is harder to believe:
That only one in 100 people work hard.
or
The game is rigged by those with wealth and power to transfer more wealth to themselves.

I'd go with the second one.

False dichotomy. These are not the only two possible explanations. Other possible explanations - at least for those lucky enough to have been born in developed countries - are that most people are financially illiterate, fail to plan their lives, don't set themselves regular quantitative goals, don't take the steps required to grow wealth, work hard rather than smart, fail to recognize opportunities, and take very costly decisions without appreciating how costly they actually are (because they neither know what opportunity cost is as a concept, nor do they know how to calculate it).

There is a game alright though. I'll give you that. But it's not rigged. It's just that most people never bother to learn how to play it. They assume they know how to play it, but they don't.

There are consequences to doing a worthless degree.
There are consequences to not having a clear set of goals and ambitions early in your life.
There are consequences to simply assuming that everything will work out.
There are consequences to not marrying a financially compatible person.
There are consequences to paying more than 5k for your wedding when you're just starting out.
There are consequences to buying a new car, not maintaining a budget, and buying the latest gizmos and gadgets, and bevvies every weekend.
There are huge consequences to taking out a long-term mortgage and assuming you simply have to buy that house over there that's gonna cost you many multiples of what you take in in a year, cos, like, it's just what you do, innit?
There are consequences to not being entrepreneurial.
There are consequences to not learning about stocks and bonds and asset allocation.
There are consequences to not appreciating the positive and negative effects of the power of compounding debts and investments.
There are consequences to having more children than you can comfortably afford.

These are all things that the vast majority of ambitious and motivated young people in developed countries have a choice in. You will notice, however, that virtually no one considers and takes action based on the factors outlined. That's why most people in the developed world never build wealth.

ScumLord · 20-01-2015 6:11pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's not happening. I am not twice as rich as back in during the boom. Actually for most of us house prices , our main asset, have halved.

How much effort have you put into getting twice as rich? Are you investing money? Trading?

20Cent wrote: »

Which is harder to believe:
That only one in 100 people work hard.
or
The game is rigged by those with wealth and power to transfer more wealth to themselves.

I'd go with the second one.

Many rich people start off poor. You can't argue their rigging the game. There certainly are people who concentrate as much on eliminating their opponents as they do with competing with them. It's an age old tactic that many living things will use, it's always been a part of nature that you either out compete your rivals or kill them off.

Rich get richer because they have the ability to use their disposable income to make bigger and bigger investments. They use their wealth to generate more wealth. There's nothing wrong with that, it makes sense to have your money working rather than just sitting in an account for the bank to use.

Generally people without money seem to assume that the mega rich make money out of thin air and do nothing to make that happen and then assume mony should be magically appearing in their accounts for doing nothing too.

wexandproud · 20-01-2015 6:14pm

FURET wrote: »

False dichotomy. These are not the only two possible explanations. Other possible explanations - at least for those lucky enough to have been born in developed countries - are that most people are financially illiterate, fail to plan their lives, don't set themselves regular quantitative goals, don't take the steps required to grow wealth, work hard rather than smart, fail to recognize opportunities, and take very costly decisions without appreciating how costly they actually are (because they neither know what opportunity cost is as a concept, nor do they know how to calculate it).

There is a game alright though. I'll give you that. But it's not rigged. It's just that most people never bother to learn how to play it. They assume they know how to play it, but they don't.
There are consequences to doing a worthless degree.

There are consequences to not having a clear set of goals and ambitions early in your life.

There are consequences to simply assuming that everything will work out.

There are consequences to not marrying a financially compatible person.

There are consequences to paying more than 5k for your wedding when you're just starting out.

There are consequences to buying a new car, not maintaining a budget, and buying the latest gizmos and gadgets, and bevvies every weekend.

There are huge consequences to taking out a long-term mortgage and assuming you simply have to buy that house over there that's gonna cost you many multiples of what you take in in a year, cos, like, it's just what you do, innit?

There are consequences to not being entrepreneurial.

There are consequences to not learning about stocks and bonds and asset allocation.

There are consequences to not appreciating the positive and negative effects of the power of compounding debts and investments.

There are consequences to having more children than you can comfortably afford.

These are all things that the vast majority of ambitious and motivated young people in developed countries have a choice in. You will notice, however, that virtually no one considers and takes action based on the factors outlined. That's why most people in the developed world never build wealth.

yep, and when people dont take all these things into account its everybody else's fault but their own and they think its the gubberments obligation to sort all their problems out

Playboy · 20-01-2015 6:14pm

FURET wrote: »

False dichotomy. These are not the only two possible explanations. Other possible explanations - at least for those lucky enough to have been born in developed countries - are that most people are financially illiterate, fail to plan their lives, don't set themselves regular quantitative goals, don't take the steps required to grow wealth, work hard rather than smart, fail to recognize opportunities, and take very costly decisions without appreciating how costly they actually are (because they neither know what opportunity cost is as a concept, nor do they know how to calculate it).

There is a game alright though. I'll give you that. But it's not rigged. It's just that most people never bother to learn how to play it. They assume they know how to play it, but they don't.
There are consequences to doing a worthless degree.

There are consequences to not having a clear set of goals and ambitions early in your life.

There are consequences to simply assuming that everything will work out.

There are consequences to not marrying a financially compatible person.

There are consequences to paying more than 5k for your wedding when you're just starting out.

There are consequences to buying a new car, not maintaining a budget, and buying the latest gizmos and gadgets, and bevvies every weekend.

There are huge consequences to taking out a long-term mortgage and assuming you simply have to buy that house over there that's gonna cost you many multiples of what you take in in a year, cos, like, it's just what you do, innit?

There are consequences to not being entrepreneurial.

There are consequences to not learning about stocks and bonds and asset allocation.

There are consequences to not appreciating the positive and negative effects of the power of compounding debts and investments.

There are consequences to having more children than you can comfortably afford.

These are all things that the vast majority of ambitious and motivated young people in developed countries have a choice in. You will notice, however, that virtually no one considers and takes action based on the factors outlined. That's why most people in the developed world never build wealth.

So live in a shoddy one bed with someone who doesnt mind living there too. Dont spend any money on anything other than books on financial markets and economics. Have a cheap wedding or better yet none at all. Basically live a very modest existence in the hope that one day you may be able to strike it big and have more money than you know what to do with! Good plan.. hope it works out for you. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with enjoying the best years of the short lives we have on this planet because having millions just isnt that important to the majority of us. What we would like though is to see some of those millions which people dont spend be used to help people who have nothing at all.

Wompa1 · 20-01-2015 6:22pm

techdiver wrote: »

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Here you go.

Put you NET income in here and you'll see most people in Ireland are in at least the top 5%, if not higher. I'm in the top 1% and I'm not in a particularly high paid job.

Today, I learned I'm in the top 1%. I'm immediately much more conservative in my views. ALL OF YOU, STAY AWAY FROM MY MONEY!!

ScumLord · 20-01-2015 6:24pm

Playboy wrote: »

So live in a shoddy one bed with someone who doesnt mind living there too. Dont spend any money on anything other than books on financial markets and economics. Have a cheap wedding or better yet none at all. Basically live a very modest existence in the hope that one day you may be able to strike it big and have more money than you know what to do with! Good plan.. hope it works out for you. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with enjoying the best years of the short lives we have on this planet because having millions just isnt that important to the majority of us. What we would like though is to see some of those millions which people dont spend be used to help people who have nothing at all.

So you can see that these people are just working hard for the lifestyle they want. Yet you think that once they get the money they worked hard for it should be taken off them and given to the people that didn't bother?

So it's a case of fail or we take your money off you.

FURET · 20-01-2015 6:33pm

Playboy wrote: »

So live in a shoddy one bed with someone who doesnt mind living there too. Dont spend any money on anything other than books on financial markets and economics. Have a cheap wedding or better yet none at all. Basically live a very modest existence in the hope that one day you may be able to strike it big and have more money than you know what to do with! Good plan.. hope it works out for you. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with enjoying the best years of the short lives we have on this planet because having millions just isnt that important to the majority of us. What we would like though is to see some of those millions which people dont spend be used to help people who have nothing at all.

Missed the point by a mile. You just don't see it. Look, I'm not having a go at you, but at the people from a developed country who in this thread claim it's nearly impossible to become rich. I'm not going to go through everything you've said in minute detail, but here's why your perspective is faulty:

to live in a shoddy one bed with someone who doesnt mind living there too.

See, I say something along the lines of "don't take out a huge long-term debt that will encumber your mobility and limit your potential to invest and explore fresh opportunities (because now that you're saddled with a mortgage, you can't risk missing payments), and don't blow your money on frivolous, bandwagony things that are gonna cost you big time down the road", and you somehow reduce it to living like a hermit in a one-bedroom apartment eating stale bread and water almost. Do you seriously see no alternative other than that? Really? That's the limit of your vision; a binary choice between having fun and living like a miser? So wrong, yet so unsurprising.

Dont spend any money on anything other than books on financial markets and economics.

Another total strawman.

Basically live a very modest existence in the hope that one day you may be able to strike it big and have more money than you know what to do with!

No, you see it's not about hoping and wishing and scrimping and saving and being a tightwad. Not remotely. It's about operating on a different level. Wealthy people tend to be highly goal-oriented, motivated, enthusiastic, and curious people. They are exceptional because, well, most people have your attitude, which is the one that doesn't work out.

KomradeBishop · 20-01-2015 6:36pm

FURET wrote: »

False dichotomy. These are not the only two possible explanations. Other possible explanations - at least for those lucky enough to have been born in developed countries - are that most people are financially illiterate, fail to plan their lives, don't set themselves regular quantitative goals, don't take the steps required to grow wealth, work hard rather than smart, fail to recognize opportunities, and take very costly decisions without appreciating how costly they actually are (because they neither know what opportunity cost is as a concept, nor do they know how to calculate it).

There is a game alright though. I'll give you that. But it's not rigged. It's just that most people never bother to learn how to play it. They assume they know how to play it, but they don't.
There are consequences to doing a worthless degree.

There are consequences to not having a clear set of goals and ambitions early in your life.

There are consequences to simply assuming that everything will work out.

There are consequences to not marrying a financially compatible person.

There are consequences to paying more than 5k for your wedding when you're just starting out.

There are consequences to buying a new car, not maintaining a budget, and buying the latest gizmos and gadgets, and bevvies every weekend.

There are huge consequences to taking out a long-term mortgage and assuming you simply have to buy that house over there that's gonna cost you many multiples of what you take in in a year, cos, like, it's just what you do, innit?

There are consequences to not being entrepreneurial.

There are consequences to not learning about stocks and bonds and asset allocation.

There are consequences to not appreciating the positive and negative effects of the power of compounding debts and investments.

There are consequences to having more children than you can comfortably afford.

These are all things that the vast majority of ambitious and motivated young people in developed countries have a choice in. You will notice, however, that virtually no one considers and takes action based on the factors outlined. That's why most people in the developed world never build wealth.

Sorry but nothing is going to help all of the people left unemployed, when nothing is done at a macroeconomic level, to create enough jobs - talking about consequences for peoples individual actions, as if that's the cause of peoples problems, is just victim-blaming; people can't magic enough jobs all on their own, to employ all of the unemployed, out of nowhere.

Dave! · 20-01-2015 6:39pm

Playboy wrote: »

So live in a shoddy one bed with someone who doesnt mind living there too. Dont spend any money on anything other than books on financial markets and economics. Have a cheap wedding or better yet none at all. Basically live a very modest existence in the hope that one day you may be able to strike it big and have more money than you know what to do with! Good plan.. hope it works out for you. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with enjoying the best years of the short lives we have on this planet because having millions just isnt that important to the majority of us. What we would like though is to see some of those millions which people dont spend be used to help people who have nothing at all.

err, you don't have to live in squalor to make prudent financial decisions.

Evidently a key part of enjoying the best years of your life is demonising and resenting people who have made sacrifices and are reaping their rewards.

Have at it.

ScumLord · 20-01-2015 6:44pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Sorry but nothing is going to help all of the people left unemployed, when nothing is done at a macroeconomic level, to create enough jobs - talking about consequences for peoples individual actions, as if that's the cause of peoples problems, is just victim-blaming; people can't magic enough jobs all on their own, to employ all of the unemployed, out of nowhere.

Just getting a job won't make you rich though. If you want to be one of these mega rich you have to risk it all to make your own business and employ other people. It is a huge risk, especially in this country and most people fail. The simple reality is most people will try and fail. There's a lot of luck involved, even with all the education in the world. It is true that the children of the people that succeed will as a result of their parents work will find it easier to continue their families wealth but there's no guarantee they won't fail, they still need to put in the same level of work.

20Cent · 20-01-2015 7:11pm

FURET wrote: »

False dichotomy. These are not the only two possible explanations. Other possible explanations - at least for those lucky enough to have been born in developed countries - are that most people are financially illiterate, fail to plan their lives, don't set themselves regular quantitative goals, don't take the steps required to grow wealth, work hard rather than smart, fail to recognize opportunities, and take very costly decisions without appreciating how costly they actually are (because they neither know what opportunity cost is as a concept, nor do they know how to calculate it).

There is a game alright though. I'll give you that. But it's not rigged. It's just that most people never bother to learn how to play it. They assume they know how to play it, but they don't.
There are consequences to doing a worthless degree.

There are consequences to not having a clear set of goals and ambitions early in your life.

There are consequences to simply assuming that everything will work out.

There are consequences to not marrying a financially compatible person.

There are consequences to paying more than 5k for your wedding when you're just starting out.

There are consequences to buying a new car, not maintaining a budget, and buying the latest gizmos and gadgets, and bevvies every weekend.

There are huge consequences to taking out a long-term mortgage and assuming you simply have to buy that house over there that's gonna cost you many multiples of what you take in in a year, cos, like, it's just what you do, innit?

There are consequences to not being entrepreneurial.

There are consequences to not learning about stocks and bonds and asset allocation.

There are consequences to not appreciating the positive and negative effects of the power of compounding debts and investments.

There are consequences to having more children than you can comfortably afford.

These are all things that the vast majority of ambitious and motivated young people in developed countries have a choice in. You will notice, however, that virtually no one considers and takes action based on the factors outlined. That's why most people in the developed world never build wealth.

Right so basically everyone who is not wealthy is stupid.
:rolleyes:

Playboy · 20-01-2015 8:18pm

FURET wrote: »

Missed the point by a mile. You just don't see it. Look, I'm not having a go at you, but at the people from a developed country who in this thread claim it's nearly impossible to become rich. I'm not going to go through everything you've said in minute detail, but here's why your perspective is faulty:

See, I say something along the lines of "don't take out a huge long-term debt that will encumber your mobility and limit your potential to invest and explore fresh opportunities (because now that you're saddled with a mortgage, you can't risk missing payments), and don't blow your money on frivolous, bandwagony things that are gonna cost you big time down the road", and you somehow reduce it to living like a hermit in a one-bedroom apartment eating stale bread and water almost. Do you seriously see no alternative other than that? Really? That's the limit of your vision; a binary choice between having fun and living like a miser? So wrong, yet so unsurprising.

Another total strawman.

No, you see it's not about hoping and wishing and scrimping and saving and being a tightwad. Not remotely. It's about operating on a different level. Wealthy people tend to be highly goal-oriented, motivated, enthusiastic, and curious people. They are exceptional because, well, most people have your attitude, which is the one that doesn't work out.

I think it's you who has missed the point my friend. As I said earlier in the thread I am already successful.. 0.07% income. I live a very comfortable life and worked my socks off for it. I'm self employed too. However it would be outrageous for me to suggest that my success was down to my hard graft and nothing else. I have intelligent and well educated parents who guided me, I had a great education and I am above average intelligence wise which has allowed me to exploit my advantages. The opportunities I had are just not afforded to the majority, people are too busy living hand to mouth trying to eek out a decent existence or they haven't been guided by their parents in the right way.

Why should we support a system that allows people to accumulate excessive wealth when others have nothing... Others who might work their ass off doing jobs that would break others after a couple of days hard graft. Why should someone be entitled to millions or billions because they understand how to exploit the financial markets. Why are the equations quants come up with so valuable? Do they add value or do they exploit a system? Why are we excessively rewarding people and companies who don't add substantially to the greater good of society? The system is broken that's why. Capitalism was never meant to create the system that exists today, it was meant to free people from the bondage of the wealthy landowners. What has happened is we have swapped the landed gentry for a new mega rich merchant class who we are all indebted to in some way. We can strive to become one of these but all we would be trying to do is beat a broken system and join a select few. Inequality is bad no matter how people earned their money.. We need to find a way to fix it and that means taking money and resources off of people who have far more than they will ever need.

Richard Hillman · 20-01-2015 8:36pm

The worlds ownership is probably spreadout more than ever. Back in the day you had rulers that possessed large swathes of lands that spanned thousands of kilometres. Whether it be the British empire, the Romans, the mongol empire etc.

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2015 8:59pm

Playboy wrote: »

I think it's you who has missed the point my friend. As I said earlier in the thread I am already successful.. 0.07% income. I live a very comfortable life and worked my socks off for it. I'm self employed too. However it would be outrageous for me to suggest that my success was down to my hard graft and nothing else. I have intelligent and well educated parents who guided me, I had a great education and I am above average intelligence wise which has allowed me to exploit my advantages. The opportunities I had are just not afforded to the majority, people are too busy living hand to mouth trying to eek out a decent existence or they haven't been guided by their parents in the right way.

Why should we support a system that allows people to accumulate excessive wealth when others have nothing... Others who might work their ass off doing jobs that would break others after a couple of days hard graft. Why should someone be entitled to millions or billions because they understand how to exploit the financial markets. Why are the equations quants come up with so valuable? Do they add value or do they exploit a system? Why are we excessively rewarding people and companies who don't add substantially to the greater good of society? The system is broken that's why. Capitalism was never meant to create the system that exists today, it was meant to free people from the bondage of the wealthy landowners. What has happened is we have swapped the landed gentry for a new mega rich merchant class who we are all indebted to in some way. We can strive to become one of these but all we would be trying to do is beat a broken system and join a select few. Inequality is bad no matter how people earned their money.. We need to find a way to fix it and that means taking money and resources off of people who have far more than they will ever need.

If everyone in the world was equal the average Irish person would be much worse off. So why would we support equality?

shruikan2553 · 20-01-2015 9:14pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If everyone in the world was equal the average Irish person would be much worse off. So why would we support equality?

When people say they want equality they tend to mean everyone should be equal to them. People often ignore that while the top 1% has a lot, the rest of us are also quite high up.

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2015 9:36pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

When people say they want equality they tend to mean everyone should be equal to them. People often ignore that while the top 1% has a lot, the rest of us are also quite high up.

Champagne socialists.

qt3.14 · 20-01-2015 9:54pm

We already take from the rich and give to the poor. That's why people on the dole in Ireland are still in the top 10% "earners" in the world. To do that on a global scale? Well, it could arguably be done but for the world to be more equal, the population in developed countries would have to take a massive hit in their living standards. Including the "poor" people of the west. So by all means, lets help Africa but the entire west will suffer for it, not just the super-rich.

Besides, we also consume massive amounts more resources than the rest of the world. Again, that's not just the super rich. "Poor" people in Ireland lead massively consumerist lifestyles. There's a good way of illustrating this and it's be calculating how much would be needed if everyone enjoyed a western lifestyle and the answer is the resources of somewhere between two and five earths. Literally, there isn't enough raw materials for everyone to have a toaster, iphone etc etc.

Louis CK wrote:

How do we have this amazing microtechnology? Because the factory where they're making these, they jump off the ****ing roof because it's a nightmare in there. You really have a choice -- you can have candles and horses and be a little kinder to each other, or let someone suffer immeasurably far away just so you can leave a mean comment on YouTube while you're taking a ****.

Playboy · 20-01-2015 10:00pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If everyone in the world was equal the average Irish person would be much worse off. So why would we support equality?

I thought the answer to that question would be self evident? Listen I'm not anti capitalist, I just think our version of capitalism is broken. Ever here of Positive and negative freedom? How do we define freedom? Does it mean freedom from government interference and being allowed to get on with our lives in any way we see fit, law of the jungle. Or does it mean providing people with the circumstances and the means so they can achieve something with their lives, make a positive contribution, feel like they have some intrinsic worth and value. We need to create a system where people are inspired to create and motivated to succeed but we need to do that without alienating a huge proportion of our population who feel like success is unachievable. Skewing the flow of resources or wealth in any society to a small minority (no matter how they came by it) is only benefitting the few and not the majority. We should always be concerned with the needs of the majority, that is the fundamental principle of a democratic society. I believe we would all be much happier (rich and poor) in the long run if we worked together towards a more equal society. I would tax the hell out of incomes above a certain level and inheritance above a certain level. But before we did that we would need to have confidence in a political system that would use that money for the greater good and not squander it. For me the major problem with taxation is that I feel it is wasted money... Failed government projects, wars, corruption etc.
These aren't easy problems to fix but before we fix them we need at last to admit that we have a problem.

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2015 10:06pm

Playboy wrote: »

I thought the answer to that question would be self evident? Listen I'm not anti capitalist, I just think our version of capitalism is broken. Ever here of Positive and negative freedom? How do we define freedom? Does it mean freedom from government interference and being allowed to get on with our lives in any way we see fit, law of the jungle. Or does it mean providing people with the circumstances and the means so they can achieve something with their lives, make a positive contribution, feel like they have some intrinsic worth and value. We need to create a system where people are inspired to create and motivated to succeed but we need to do that without alienating a huge proportion of our population who feel like success is unachievable. Skewing the flow of resources or wealth in any society to a small minority (no matter how they came by it) is only benefitting the few and not the majority. We should always be concerned with the needs of the majority, that is the fundamental principle of a democratic society. I believe we would all be much happier (rich and poor) in the long run if we worked together towards a more equal society. I would tax the hell out of incomes above a certain level and inheritance above a certain level. But before we did that we would need to have confidence in a political system that would use that money for the greater good and not squander it. For me the major problem with taxation is that I feel it is wasted money... Failed government projects, wars, corruption etc.
These aren't easy problems to fix but before we fix them we need at last to admit that we have a problem.

Once again if everyone in the world was equal the average person in Ireland would be much worse off.

Everyone can't have the same lifestyle as us nevermind an improved lifestyle.

KomradeBishop · 20-01-2015 10:13pm

Ya because overall the world is unequal, means we shouldn't strive for better standards anywhere - because that'd make us hypocrites - right.

We get it: You're not interested in debating the point at hand, only engaging in whataboutery, to justify maintaining growing inequality.

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2015 10:18pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya because overall the world is unequal, means we shouldn't strive for better standards anywhere - because that'd make us hypocrites - right.

No, going on about equality in Ireland when even an unemployed person here is much better off than the average person in Malawi is hypocritical.

Essentially equality for Ireland, **** everyone else.

We get it: You're not interested in debating the point at hand, only engaging in whataboutery, to justify maintaining growing inequality.

The point at hand is that "Richest 1% may soon own more than the rest of the world" but yeah I'm engaging in whatabourtery by trying to relate the thread back to the topic at hand.

KomradeBishop · 20-01-2015 10:30pm

Right because we can do a whole lot about Malawi's problems, from Ireland, yes? Therefore we shouldn't bother doing anything about inequality here in Ireland (something we're actually able to do something about), lest we be labelled hypocrites...

Easy for people to see, that that is waste-of-time whataboutery.

qt3.14 · 20-01-2015 10:47pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Right because we can do a whole lot about Malawi's problems, from Ireland, yes? Therefore we shouldn't bother doing anything about inequality here in Ireland (something we're actually able to do something about), lest we be labelled hypocrites...

Easy for people to see, that that is waste-of-time whataboutery.

The article in the op is about the entire world, not just Ireland.

Iwasfrozen · 20-01-2015 11:05pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Right because we can do a whole lot about Malawi's problems, from Ireland, yes? Therefore we shouldn't bother doing anything about inequality here in Ireland (something we're actually able to do something about), lest we be labelled hypocrites...

We can do quite a lot about Malawi's problems, if we're willing to give them our money. Most people don't want equality though. They just want equality for anyone who earns more than them.

Easy for people to see, that that is waste-of-time whataboutery.

The topic of the thread is actually referring to the world. Confining the discussion to Ireland is whataboutery.

jank · 21-01-2015 1:37am

donegaLroad wrote: »

what do you not like about it?

It starts off with a professor asking 100 people what they think distribution of wealth in the economy looks like, then he asks what they would like to see what the distribution of wealth in the economy should look like, then when they are told, most of them are 'surprised' by the reality.

Sorry but what kind of study is that? It goes downhill from there.

Richest 1% may soon own more than the rest of the world

Comments