Richest 300 Persons on Earth Have More Money Than Poorest 3 Billion - Polidicks

[QUOTE]As we repeatedly focus on wealth inequality in the United States (i.e.; just four hundred persons in the US have as much in assets and income as the bottom 50% of Americans), a video points out the even more extreme global wealth disparity. There are many reasons for this. Take for example institutional sources that contribute to this trend. The World Bank, for interest, oversees "loans" to developing nations. But by creating long-term indebtedness, these struggling counties end up owing at least $600 billion dollars in interest on loans whose principals have, in essence, already been paid off in actual dollars. These usorious interest rates end up in the hands of the bankers and the shareholders of the financial institutions that are inter-related with the World Bank through the nations that govern it, particularly the United States which calls the shots. Criticisms of the World Bank focus on how it creates financial conditions that result in debt dependency of the nations that borrow from it, therfore negatively impacting the economic prospects of the vast majority of its residents.[/QUOTE] Source: [URL]http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18094-richest-300-persons-on-earth-have-more-money-than-poorest-3-billion[/URL] Video referenced in article (thanks to augustburnsred): [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DJtOhfpGlZ8[/url] Found this particularly striking - "the richest 1% on the earth have accumulated some 43% of the world's wealth, while the bottom 80% of the planet's inhabitants have just 6% between them."

never mind

Not that impressive when you think about it. There are a shitload in that 3B who aren't even getting any money.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] You do realize that some people are born into wealthy families, right? They could be a drooling idiot and still be rich.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] Your post gave me cancer.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Turnips5;41535592]are you literally retarded [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the [I]thief[/I].[/QUOTE] Even the -illionaires who climb their way to the top end up controlling an authoritarian private tyranny most of the time sponging away the surplus value produced by those beneath them while they receive little or no reward. And anyway - if you actually read about evolution you'd realise that it's actually more like survival of the fittest [B]group[/B], not individual member of species. Hence yay communism... or socialism... or whatever it is you find to be most objectionable.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41535613]Not that impressive when you think about it. There are a shitload in that 3B who aren't even getting any money.[/QUOTE] Not to mention all the people in debt, who effectively have negative amounts of money.

The source video for this article has been around for a little while, there is an updated, more accurate version though. [video=youtube;DJtOhfpGlZ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJtOhfpGlZ8[/video]

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] a lot of it was probably inheritance but okay

-snip-

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” –John Steinbeck

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41535644]Even the -illionaires who climb their way to the top end up controlling an authoritarian private tyranny most of the time sponging away the surplus value produced by those beneath them.[/quote] Surplus value is a psuedoscientific concept. [quote]And anyway - if you actually read about evolution you'd realise that it's actually more like survival of the fittest [B]group[/B], not individual member of species. Hence yay communism... or socialism... or whatever it is you find to be most objectionable.[/QUOTE] This is bollocks. Evolution selects for the individual, not the group. There are also arguments that not even the individual is selected for, but the gene itself.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41535694]Surplus value is a psuedoscientific concept.[/QUOTE] So are "free" markets. Yes you can follow it down to a gene level but when you look at it on an individual basis you can then expand it to cover groups of a particular species and it still applies and reinforces evolution. More units = more chance of survival of species itself

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41535701]So are "free" markets.[/QUOTE] What the hell does this even mean? Also please explain why you defend group selection. [URL]http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-demise-of-group-selection/[/URL]

It means you need to go to KFC and speak to the colonel. It's time, bro.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41535701]Yes you can follow it down to a gene level but when you look at it on an individual basis you can then expand it to cover groups of a particular species and it still applies and reinforces evolution. More units = more chance of survival of species itself[/QUOTE] Bullshit. [url]http://lesswrong.com/lw/kw/the_tragedy_of_group_selectionism/[/url] [quote]You can guess by now, I think, that the group selectionists ultimately lost the scientific argument. The kicker was not the mathematical argument, but empirical observation: foxes didn't restrain their breeding (I forget the exact species of dispute; it wasn't foxes and rabbits), and indeed, predator-prey systems crash all the time. [/quote]

You guys need to understand that wealth distribution (among other thinggs) is modelled by a Pareto and not a Gaussian distribution in nature (wikipedia them). The natural distribution of wealth isn't an average, it's heavily skewed. This isn't new.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41535694] This is bollocks. Evolution selects for the individual, not the group. There are also arguments that not even the individual is selected for, but the gene itself.[/QUOTE] You realize that evolution isn't some sort of god entity cherry picking what survives and what doesn't? All it really says is "If a creature dies/doesn't breed its genetic material won't be passed on" It doesn't select for anything, just things that are unfit/unlucky eventually die out.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41535586]Survival of the fittest.[/QUOTE] ayn pls

[QUOTE=zakedodead;41535844]You realize that evolution isn't some sort of god entity cherry picking what survives and what doesn't? All it really says is "If a creature dies/doesn't breed its genetic material won't be passed on" It doesn't select for anything, just things that are unfit/unlucky eventually die out.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with my post. Evolution selects for successful organisms over less successful ones. Over time, this leads to less successful organisms dying out, whilst the offspring of the successful ones end up becoming dominant. It does select. It's in the name. [b]Natural selection[/b]

truth-out is not a valid source.

Well obviously those 3 billion people are too stupid, lazy, and unmotivated to get out there and get rich.

What makes me saddest is that those richest people are likely spending it with no regard for others besides themselves.

A maximum wage quota should be installed something like 1 million dollars a year capped. No one should really earn that much but it provides breathing space, but earning over 1 million is just real greedy.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41536008]Well obviously those 3 billion people are too stupid, lazy, and unmotivated to get out there and get rich.[/QUOTE] [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=cheetahben;41536021]What makes me saddest is that those richest people are likely spending it with no regard for others besides themselves.[/QUOTE] cheeta, he was being sarcastic, come on

Money is stupid, it is a deadened system that serves to benefit those who are most willing to benefit over their brothers. There is no more inherent intelligence in the money system than there is an ancient society of human sacrifices. We follow the system because we think that's how it should be, regardless of the atrocities it causes. Money is stupid.

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;41536037]A maximum wage quota should be installed something like 1 million dollars a year capped. No one should really earn that much but it provides breathing space, but earning over 1 million is just real greedy.[/QUOTE] They've tried this in the past and it didn't work. 16th century European Nations and Germany under National Socialism. (The former using price controls on goods and labour in a vain attempt to reduce inflation) The latter set wages in another vain attempt to reduce inflation (Germany was going on a big Keynesian stimulus at the time, and due to a policy of 100% employment and booting Jews, Slavs, and Women out of the factories, they were due in a horrible inflationary shock). [editline]21st July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;41536078]Money is stupid, it is a deadened system that serves to benefit those who are most willing to benefit over their brothers. There is no more inherent intelligence in the money system than there is an ancient society of human sacrifices. We follow the system because we think that's how it should be, regardless of the atrocities it causes. Money is stupid.[/QUOTE] Not only does this display a fatal misunderstanding of resource allocation and reality, it doesn't even consider to tell us "how do we best represent wealth so we can use it effectively?". The economic illiteracy here is shocking.

[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;41536037]A maximum wage quota should be installed something like 1 million dollars a year capped. No one should really earn that much but it provides breathing space, but earning over 1 million is just real greedy.[/QUOTE] I assume you mean salary, not income, right?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41536078]Money is stupid, it is a deadened system that serves to benefit those who are most willing to benefit over their brothers. There is no more inherent intelligence in the money system than there is an ancient society of human sacrifices. We follow the system because we think that's how it should be, regardless of the atrocities it causes. Money is stupid.[/QUOTE] It's human nature. Money as a system is totally fine.