The world’s eight richest billionaires control the same wealth between them as the poorest half of the globe’s population, according to a charity warning of an ever-increasing and dangerous concentration of wealth.
In a report published to coincide with the start of the week-long World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam said it was “beyond grotesque” that a handful of rich men headed by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates are worth $426bn (£350bn), equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people.
The development charity called for a new economic model to reverse an inequality trend that it said helped to explain Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.
Oxfam blamed rising inequality on aggressive wage restraint, tax dodging and the squeezing of producers by companies, adding that businesses were too focused on delivering ever-higher returns to wealthy owners and top executives.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) said last week that rising inequality and social polarisation posed two of the biggest risks to the global economy in 2017 and could result in the rolling back of globalisation.
onlooker wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/25/the-alarming-statistics-that-show-the-u-s-economy-isnt-as-good-as-it-seems/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d9ce4cb0320
"The alarming statistics that show the U.S. economy isn’t as good as it seems – “We have a ‘Two Realities’ economy in America”
Applicable worldwide. The increasing have nots and wealthier haves
GHung wrote:onlooker wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/25/the-alarming-statistics-that-show-the-u-s-economy-isnt-as-good-as-it-seems/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d9ce4cb0320
"The alarming statistics that show the U.S. economy isn’t as good as it seems – “We have a ‘Two Realities’ economy in America”
Applicable worldwide. The increasing have nots and wealthier haves
Yep. It's easy for the Marmicos and Cogs to trot out broad-brush charts and statistics that show how well everyone must be doing. Don't look to deep into what is really going on.
onlooker wrote:Refers to this point I just made
https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50The world’s eight richest billionaires control the same wealth between them as the poorest half of the globe’s population, according to a charity warning of an ever-increasing and dangerous concentration of wealth.
In a report published to coincide with the start of the week-long World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam said it was “beyond grotesque” that a handful of rich men headed by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates are worth $426bn (£350bn), equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people.
The development charity called for a new economic model to reverse an inequality trend that it said helped to explain Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.
Oxfam blamed rising inequality on aggressive wage restraint, tax dodging and the squeezing of producers by companies, adding that businesses were too focused on delivering ever-higher returns to wealthy owners and top executives.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) said last week that rising inequality and social polarisation posed two of the biggest risks to the global economy in 2017 and could result in the rolling back of globalisation.
onlooker wrote:Newfie, while in theory what you say is correct. In reality, you and I and others know it is not. The digitized wealth is real because the system says its real.
The beltway clowns seem less and less reliable to me as time goes on.
onlooker wrote: Think Thomas Edison said something to that effect regarding paying sufficient wages to the workers so they could buy the cars.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:onlooker wrote:Newfie, while in theory what you say is correct. In reality, you and I and others know it is not. The digitized wealth is real because the system says its real.
But, as Newfie implied, only as long as the system agrees it's real. And as we all know, the system can change it's perceptions, and sometimes quickly.
Of course, this is true with all markets which is why I think diversification is the most important aspect of investing (i.e. for the long term -- vs. speculation). This is why I keep significant investments in ex-US stocks, some gold and silver, etc. The beltway clowns seem less and less reliable to me as time goes on.
onlooker wrote:Newfie, while in theory what you say is correct. In reality, you and I and others know it is not. The digitized wealth is real because the system says its real. Even now the rich are buying up state of the art bunkers , with the plan to ride out serious existential disturbances, right now they are swimmng in pools, dining in fancy restaurants etc. Can they lose this "money" of course yes. But what their money buys is quite real.
Cog wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:onlooker wrote:Newfie, while in theory what you say is correct. In reality, you and I and others know it is not. The digitized wealth is real because the system says its real.
But, as Newfie implied, only as long as the system agrees it's real. And as we all know, the system can change it's perceptions, and sometimes quickly.
Of course, this is true with all markets which is why I think diversification is the most important aspect of investing (i.e. for the long term -- vs. speculation). This is why I keep significant investments in ex-US stocks, some gold and silver, etc. The beltway clowns seem less and less reliable to me as time goes on.
So your objection to tariffs and Trump in particular is that its hurting your portfolio? Doesn't sound too progressive of you comrade. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Trump is hurting the foreign markets and now Outcast Searcher is outraged. Cry me a river man.
evilgenius wrote:The big question is, when was the switch made?
...We live in a world where our attitudes concerning things like unionization are mostly shaped by the rich, and our own desire to take advantage of loopholes that exist for us ...
GHung wrote:Jeez, O_S, don't confuse Cog with pragmatic arguments. He needs his value/judgement-based world view just to exist.
mmasters wrote:I think any POer would be for Trump tariffs. Bringing back the jobs and the products from overseas makes not only for a better product in many cases but the US is less vulnerable/dependent on other countries and more self sufficient. It's a better scenario post peak.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests