Global Wealth Disparity Page 6

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

    Next
  • Mr_Sleep 18 Apr 2013 23:18:57 16,852 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    If I had to attribute to them a value of incidence, I would say:
    -Climate 20%
    -Geographical proximity with other peoples 10%
    -Population genetics 30%
    -Famines and pestilences 30%
    -Factors of randomness of events 10%
    Ignoring that you're a massive racist, climate is less important than famines? Proximity to other people is the least important factor?

    I hate to ask but what do you think is a major cause of famines?

    Asians earn more than Africans because of their genes?
    Ignoring that I'm not a massive racist, I want to ask you the question the other way:
    Asians earn more than Africans why?

    I could answer that because Asians are human calculators (in playful way) they are designed for industrial mass. Look Sony, Samsung, or Chinese industrial giants. But Asians unlike the Africans are not designed much for physical activity. In this particular historical moment, earn more who has the most powerful industries than who are physically more gifted.
    Maybe in the future things will be different
    Designed by whom? In my opinion you are confusing education, diet and social structure with genetics.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • DrStrangelove 18 Apr 2013 23:55:37 3,379 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    It's interesting how the top 100,000 people could almost double the wealth of the bottom 6 billion by sharing half of their own. Which would still leave them ridiculously rich.
    Not only that, but most of the bottom 6 billion would blow their windfalls on iPhones, booze and betting shops within a week or two anyway, quickly sending the money back up to the top 100,000.
    Good point. I fear the same.
  • RedSparrows 19 Apr 2013 00:03:27 22,070 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Graveland wrote:
    Thanks for the reply, Red.

    It's made me wonder about various things. For instance, similar numbers of Native Americans were killed by European invasion as were Europeans killed in WWI (depending on sources). However, as tragic and horrific WWI was I must admit to feeling a greater sense of grief over the numbers of Native Americans killed. Couldn't this technically be viewed as racist as I'm primarily basing my sense of grief on the issue of race?
    Well, you tell us. Is it because it was Europeans being killed, or Native Americans, and you prefer some 'racial' aspect of one over the other? Such an argument would be fatuous in the extreme, I should think, so I doubt you really think that. Or is it because one fight was brutal, needless and headstrong, but between equal powers, and one was brutal, exploitative, headstrong, and totally one-sided?

    Personally, I've never truly understood the argument that race doesn't matter, that we're all principally the same. By this I mean that I view each race as distinct yet equal to other races. As our race is ultimately determined by our environment, the Nazi viewpoint of a superior master race is just as nonsensical to me as is the view that race doesn't exist.
    But, how distinct, really, are 'the races'? Genetically - not culturally. By a degree of what... 0.01%? Someone get a geneticist/evolutionary anthropologist.

    I think the problem is that the actual word "race" is often loaded with various meanings for different people. Is the world a better place with different races, or would the world be better with only one? Does it even matter? To me, it does. If a virus was unleashed on the world and it was either going to kill every black person or an equal number of people but spread evenly across the world then I'd hope for the latter as it would preserve the majority of black people. Because I'm basing my decision solely on race then some would consider this racist, but to me it isn't.

    That's my thought, anyway.
    I'm not sure you'd be called racist as such, but you're posing a question of utilitarianism where one of the considerations would be race, when any decent utilitarian would ignore race and consider numbers, in essence - so, whichever meant a higher loss was to be avoided. I suppose, if you were to argue, ignoring geography and social factors thereof, that you were saving more of the innate 'value' of 'races' by favouring the latter then you might have more of a point, but I'm not sure you can really argue that the 'innate' value of a race is its genetic material over its total cultural worth - unlike the unique genetic worth of a particular species: frog, dragonfly, fish, homo sapien.
  • DrStrangelove 19 Apr 2013 00:14:03 3,379 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    Not sure how that's measured or found out, but I think the general picture is right. The disparity is really bad, and it's getting worse.

    It's interesting how the top 100,000 people could almost double the wealth of the bottom 6 billion by sharing half of their own. Which would still leave them ridiculously rich.

    I can't blame people for becoming communist.
    It wouldn't quite work like that though because it would change everyone's perception of currency and value.

    Why stop at the top 100000? Why not the next million? Why not the next 100 million? It has to be a slow change otherwise it would cause chaos.
    Yes, and of course I was just simplifying. Communism hasn't proven to make people's lives better, and I disbelieve any radical solution.

    However, I still think this situation is more extreme than that of France before the revolution. These money piles are something unheard of even by Louis XIV's standards, only made possible by capitalism. We're lucky those poor people are so far away.

    Problem is, many could live with a modest life, but a modest life is something a great part of mankind, maybe even the majority, can't afford, while a few people collect amounts of money that could virtually buy whole third world nations.

    I wouldn't say anything if this was somewhat slowing down towards the opposite direction, but in fact this is an accelerating trend, even in the current crisis, and even more so in the current crisis. Even a slowdown would be nice, but we have an aggravation.

    Where it gets uncomfortable is when you think about how many third-world children even you could have fed, taken medical care of, and sent to school with the money you spent on your Playstation.

    After all, blaming the very richest is not the whole story.
  • thelzdking 19 Apr 2013 03:01:43 4,326 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    RelaxedMikki wrote:
    @Graveland

    I fear as much.

    Secret footage from last year's Davos summit would suggest that the lizard people are gorging themselves on far more than their fair share.

    Fat Lizard eats loads of banana.
    Piss off!
  • Mola_Ram 19 Apr 2013 03:20:20 6,987 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Aww, I was hoping the lizard would eat the banana in a sexy way.
  • Deleted user 19 April 2013 07:19:35
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Stefansen-W wrote:
    If I had to attribute to them a value of incidence, I would say:
    -Climate 20%
    -Geographical proximity with other peoples 10%
    -Population genetics 30%
    -Famines and pestilences 30%
    -Factors of randomness of events 10%
    Ignoring that you're a massive racist, climate is less important than famines? Proximity to other people is the least important factor?

    I hate to ask but what do you think is a major cause of famines?

    Asians earn more than Africans because of their genes?
    Ignoring that I'm not a massive racist, I want to ask you the question the other way:
    Asians earn more than Africans why?

    I could answer that because Asians are human calculators (in playful way) they are designed for industrial mass. Look Sony, Samsung, or Chinese industrial giants. But Asians unlike the Africans are not designed much for physical activity. In this particular historical moment, earn more who has the most powerful industries than who are physically more gifted.
    Maybe in the future things will be different
    So you're saying all Africans are stupid and all Asians are physically weak.

    Nope, no hint of racism there.

    Edited by Aargh. at 07:20:36 19-04-2013
  • RelaxedMikki 19 Apr 2013 19:01:51 927 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Whoa - this thread has gone off in an unexpected direction.

    (To be honest, I just expected the thread to vanish pretty rapidly into obscurity like my other random musings!)

    I am sure the race question is a massive diversion though (even if it did allow RedSparrows to give a really good definition of racism.)

    I would expect there to be representatives of every race and most nationalities in that top 91,000. (The only exception I can think of would be races or nationalities who number only small numbers of individuals) . I would wager more than half of the top 91,000 are men though. (sorry!)

    As I see it, the point about this 91,000 is not what group we would classify them in, but how and why do these individuals hold 30% of wealth? (And 0.1% hold 81% etc) And should they? And even if shouldn't, is it inevitable anyway...? etc etc

    Edited by RelaxedMikki at 19:41:51 19-04-2013
  • RelaxedMikki 19 Apr 2013 19:20:00 927 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @Graveland

    Aren't we (alledgedly) really close to that 'one individual owns most of the wealth' situation already?

    We have the population of a town holding a third of all the world's wealth and the population of one not-particularly-large city holding 81% of it?

    I must admit, I still doubt the figures (or at least my interpretation of them)
  • Khanivor 19 Apr 2013 19:43:08 40,402 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    If wealth continues to consolidate then that 91,000 figure will continue to shrink even as the global pop grows.
  • RelaxedMikki 19 Apr 2013 20:02:44 927 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Actually. And I am arguing with myself now. I think 'how?' and 'why?' and 'inevitably?' are shit questions.

    Assuming the disparities exist, the question here is: should these massive disparities exist?

    If the answer is 'No - we should not have a massively wealthy elite' then what do we do about the current situation?

    If the answer is 'Yes - we should have a massively wealthy elite' then let's make it clear why.

    The thing about the 'how' questions is: if the answer is 'they played the game to the rules and they won' then maybe we should change the rules. If the answer to the 'how' question is: 'they didn't play by the rules and they cheated to win' then we need to work out how to enforce the rules.

    EDIT: OK. So, hang on. Maybe 'how' isn't a shit question...!

    Edited by RelaxedMikki at 20:09:07 19-04-2013
  • webespresso 19 Apr 2013 20:10:44 89 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Read guns, germs and steel. It gives a pretty good argument that geography has had more to do with why European countries have colonised the rest of the world and not the other way round.

    Edited by webespresso at 20:11:46 19-04-2013
  • webespresso 19 Apr 2013 20:16:22 89 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Of couse in the case of Native Americans this is obviously true. Pretty hard to compete against bio-warfare. If not they might have discovered guns quick enough to eventually put up more resistance against the European invaders.

    It needs to be mentioned that it was the Chinese who invented gunpowder so in a roundabout way they facilitated European colonialism.

    Edited by webespresso at 22:02:33 19-04-2013
  • RelaxedMikki 19 Apr 2013 20:23:45 927 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I can think of 4 groups the 91,000 would come into:

    1. People who broke the rules and were immoral - people who used murder, eploitation and criminality to take control of populations and resources.
    2. People who obeyed the rules and were immoral - people who used manipulation of recognised financial and political systems to take control of populations and resources.
    3. People who obeyed the rules and were moral - the 'entrepeneurs' who genuinely led people and pioneered the use of resources to aquire wealth.
    4. People who inherited great wealth and power.

    (5. I am not sure there are many people who break the rules and are moral - maybe some pyramid scheme fund managers who break the rules and give loads to charity, but I don't know)

    It would be interesting to know what the breakdown of the 0.001% into these kind of groupings would be...
  • RelaxedMikki 21 Jun 2013 20:03:16 927 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    According to wikipedia, global wealth breaks down like this:

    Top 0.001% (91,000 people) - $16.7 trillion - 30% of global wealth
    Next 0.01% (800,000 people) - $10.7 trillion - 19% of global wealth
    Next 0.1% (8,000,000 people) - $17.4 trillion - 32% of global wealth
    Bottom 99.9% (6,000,000,000 people) - $10.3 trillion - 19% of global wealth

    So that's 50% of global wealth in the hands of 0.011% of the global population (under 900,000 people). The top 91,000 individuals have more than 150% of the combined wealth of the bottom 6,000,000,000.

    Apologies. I am bumping this. Deal with it. And lets not try and get into a debate about race this time. Even if most of the 91,000 might live in the Arabian Peninsula.
  • RelaxedMikki 21 Jun 2013 20:19:19 927 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    90,000 people have got 30% of the world's wealth?

    Rich so and sos. They could buy everyone on the planet a PS4 each. And not even notice the outlay on their monthly bank statement.

    "Please sirs. Can we have a PS4?"
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply