85 Richest People On Earth Now Have Same Wealth as Bottom Half of Global Population

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by gifford1967, Jan 21, 2014.

  1. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    6,412
    Likes Received:
    226
    It's a problem globally. It's a problem in the U.S. The super elites don't realize this state of affairs really isn't in their best interest.

     
  2. Phillyrocket

    Phillyrocket Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    283
    Lazy 3.5 billion moochers need to get a job!
     
    2 people like this.
  3. AroundTheWorld

    AroundTheWorld Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    39,402
    Likes Received:
    1,844
    Yeah, that's pretty crazy.
     
  4. dback816

    dback816 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    146
    Pffft, we're a democracy. We can just vote the wealth out of those people's hands if we think it's too much.
     
  5. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    14,422
    Likes Received:
    315
    If we would just lower the taxes on those 85 they would create more jobs. They are taxed too high which destroys their incentive. Besides the 85 pay much higher than 85/7billionth of the taxes; and many of the lower 50% pay no taxes at all.

    If the lower half just went to college and prayed and worked harder they could join the 85.

    Now let's don't have no talk about inequality, redistribution, social justice and all that class warfare stuff.
     
  6. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    7,310
    Likes Received:
    289
    To clarify, the United States should go and tax people from other countries?

    This sounds very imperialistic of you.
     
  7. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    1,615
    That's insane. And definitely not a good thing.
     
  8. TheRealist137

    TheRealist137 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    20,709
    Likes Received:
    743
    3.5 billion lazy people.
     
  9. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,982
    Likes Received:
    292
    I will take your advice and pray for top 85 status.

    [​IMG]
     
    #9 Classic, Jan 21, 2014
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2014
  10. Baba Booey

    Baba Booey Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,078
    Likes Received:
    99
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/auzfTPp4moA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  11. g1184

    g1184 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,799
    Likes Received:
    85
    you forgot that their businesses are too tightly regulated and it's killing their ability to hire because their revenues are so low.
     
  12. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    19,182
    Likes Received:
    703
    Those 85 just work harder.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. calurker

    calurker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    35
    A lot of it is paper wealth. If you remove the façade of multiples and potential and growth and just flat out redistributed the assets evenly, you're more likely to end up with 3.5 billion + 85 hungry people instead of just 3.5 billion + 85 pretty well off people. That's why pure communism didn't and doesn't and never will work.

    What the rich need to realize is to stop wringing the rock for more blood. Owning another 5-10% of the world's wealth probably won't change the lifestyle of the 85 a heck of a whole lot, but it sure makes for juicier and juicier headlines until people are fed up and just take it by force.

    And on this topic (or maybe off-topic), the liberal agenda is a bit self-conflicting. On the one hand we want economic parity. On the other hand we're (mostly) tree-huggers. But if I had to guess, Wal-Mart devastates the environment far more than Neiman Marcus.

    Or we can all live like the Japanese and (to a lesser extent) the Germans.
     
  14. krnxsnoopy

    krnxsnoopy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    9,514
    Likes Received:
    272
    That's mind boggling.
     
  15. meh

    meh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    14,519
    Likes Received:
    779
    I don't see how Wal-Mart and tree hugging are related. One is a lifestyle choice. Simply reduce the amount of energy/waste generated per person. Other is whether you buy something cheap or expensive. A $10 shirt and a $100 shirt probably doesn't make any difference in terms of saving the planet, but turning off lights when you leave, open the windows to get some natural air, etc. does.

    The reason why Walmart generates more waste in total is because more people shop at Walmart. But it's not like Nieman Marcus clothing is somehow more environmentally friendly.
     
  16. peleincubus

    peleincubus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    336
    So 85 people is but a small part of 1% of the worlds population?

    Sounds like this liberal tripe is trying to get fancy with numbers and figures.
     
  17. B-Bob

    B-Bob Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Can't tell what you're trying to say. Are you saying the data are "tripe" or just the liberal presentation is "tripe"?

    I don't think people really dispute the basic numbers on wealth accumulation; you can disagree about what it means or what would be a better way forward.

    I for one submit that it's just not a stable situation for the planet's population. As I've posted before, if we make a rough analogy that economic assets are like the blood of an economy, you can't concentrate all of an organism's blood in one tiny part of the body and expect that to go too well. I won't continue with this analogy for fear of it getting lewd... I was about to type "engorged" as part of the argument and then just told myself to stop already.
     
  18. Commodore

    Commodore Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    18,370
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369141/poor-down-l-times-kevin-d-williamson

     
    2 people like this.
  19. B-Bob

    B-Bob Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    That's a worthwhile cut-n-paste, Commodore. The exact claim of the article, in terms of 85 individuals, is indeed a lot crazy.

    But the primary problem remains. It's a shame that some editor let that pass into a publication without more thorough research. Typical.
     
  20. Commodore

    Commodore Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    18,370
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    It's only a problem if the pie isn't growing. But we can see from improved quality of life of the poor, that isn't so.

    Mark Zuckerberg providing billions in value to his fellow human beings is not a problem for me. Good for him.
     

Share This Page