Technically, nothing is wrong with this. 1% of people is so many that it's not going to devolve Earth into some slaves to their masters. Besides, an Oligarchical regime does have potential to do good. That said, I'd still rather live in my cruddy Democratic ( wink wink ) - Republic system.

^oligarchies only benefit the rulers

Edited 1/24/2015 04:52:36

"Governments only benefit governments"

A whole bunch of Polish philosophers

"all form of Governments are corrupt." me

"all form of Governments are corrupt."

"all form of Governments that is not under control of the inhabitants are corrupt."
Politicians are not to be trust, and will not rule by the people desire, if you do not control them by law. One this moment, Switzerland is the only country with a Governments that has to do what their inhabitants desire by law.

"Storman should be president of the world" Storman

And even though logic is not wanted here, dead piggy you are missing MY point ^^

Seriously though, I said (at lenght) that there is INDEED a BIG problem in wealth inequality, that is a direct consequence of globalisation. All I'm saying is that the 1% of disgusting rich people are not necessarly super rich, and that this study is way too simplified in order to make people get all emotional.

Again, a dude living in NY owning a small one room appartement is worth at least 650 000 euros, and is considered super rich, while my brother lives in El Salvador, has a hotel, a villa on the beach, a pool, two cars and yet, as he did a bank loan to build all this, (+ he just did another bank loan to buy worthless lands in the mountain), his net worth is probably negative ! Meaning he is considered as part of the 10% of poorest people on earth while the dude in NY living in a small moldy appartment is part of the 1% of richest people...

You can't make these kind of studies on a worldwide level, it's moronic. People in Switzerland earn more than twice the income of their neighbours in France. So technically they are twice as rich, according to this study. But the cost of life in Switzerland is actually more than twice as expensive as in France...the average indian salary may be 300 dollars a month, but you can afford to rent an appartment in the outskirts of Dehli for 50 bucks, while were I live you'd need 450 a motnh to live in a shared flat with 4 other people...

Bottom line, stop trying to make things simple ! The world ain't simple, life ain't simple, you can't just waltz in and say "huuu yeah...like...people are too rich...and that's...y'know...bad and stuff"

You think that the study is moronic because 1. the way it measures wealth doesnt take into account differernig costs of living around the world 2. it treats net worth as equal to wealth. You think it oversimplifies a complex situation for political gain. Am I understanding you?

How would you measure wealth and how would you conduct the study in such a way as that it didnt "for the most part, completely miss the point."?

The average Indian salary is much less, maybe 2000 rupees, or 40 dollars a month
But anyways, I think some of the problem here is caused by inheritance. Say there's a rich person, who has built him empire from the ground up, he marries a beautiful, but stupid, woman, then has a child. The child, nowhere near as smart as his dad, will get all the money and will use it to, well, you know what. Those who get rich on their own mostly do not bribe politicians, only those who have gotten it easily will use it so. I think that only intelligent people should be rich, but since there is not way to measure intelligence, that would be very hard to do

30% of the world's population has more debts than possessions.

voodoo economics = shrug
a study not adequately accounting for voodoo economics which distort statistics = 10 paragraphs why oxfam sucks

To be considered part of the 50% of richest people in the plant, you need to have 3000 euros of active worth. meaning if you own a 2002 toyota corolla and live in it, you're a rich bastard.

"rich bastard" = of precisely average wealth globally
strawman.jpg

Now, again, I'm not saying that there is'nt a problem. The wealth gap is at its highest in...well ever, and some of the problems pointed out there are quite valid. But for the most part, it completely miss the point.

they used a flawed study to demonstrate something that is undeniably true and important. you focused on the flawed study, attacking a charity, defending the super-rich (whether purposefully or not), and making szeweningen feel smug. somebody missed the point.

OMG EVERYBODY A MARKETING DEPARTMENT USED MISELEADING STASTISTISCS!!!"21!"!!"!!!"!121!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bottom line, stop trying to make things simple ! The world ain't simple, life ain't simple, you can't just waltz in and say "huuu yeah...like...people are too rich...and that's...y'know...bad and stuff"

but people are simple. people are fucking idiots. truth isn't important. it's nice that oxfam are the ones tricking them for a change, rather than szeweningen and his autist/psychopath robo-feudalist pals.

not joking about killing the rich btw :)

like, everything you're saying is correct, and it's interesting to read.

but then szew gives you a smug passive-aggressive compliment.

and you have to ask yourself, why are you saying any of it at all?

it makes me sad to see somebody even more naive than me. because that means i'm becoming cynical now.
i'm a nice person. i just want to feast on the blood of the rich and for everybody to be happy forever :(

stop trying to make things simple

politics.jpg

"I think that only intelligent people should be rich, but since there is not way to measure intelligence" In my experience, intelligence and interest in being rich are inversely corrleated. when Im making a quick estimate of someones intelligence i count poorness in their favour. So perhaps give money to people who want it least. I feel alienated from rich people, Im scared of their toxic influence, so perhaps give money to people who actively avoid it. That would also solve the poverty situation, and make a good dent in the 'feudal oligarchy' problem. Make sure to run it past sze first =D

its actually 50% of the wealth is owned by the top 50 richest people.

Hey, I already know Sze's response :

Wealth redistribution. Your governments are lying to you. Rise up , workers of the world, unite! Destroy the evil threats of imperialism and fascism!

"what is the point?" Power and wealth is being taken from the majority by a minority. This minority doesnt use its power benevolently or compassionately, they use it violently and selfishly. As we are part of the majority, that does not benefit us or the people we care about. In order to protect ourselves and our interests we can mobilise to reverse the transfer, but individually we cannot make an impact. We have to work together. Oxfam is offering to be a coordinator so that we can excersize our power as a group.

Leave it to Wiki Leaks. We don't need to " organize ". Hacker groups could probably easily hack into financial records and bank accounts and transfer the money to everybody equally.

(...)being taken(...)

Elaborate please.

If the 1% would give there money to the 99%, then that would be catastrophic. Money would lose his value and the economy would be ruined. The 99% need to be poor in order to be willing to work. there are already way to manny people(5%)who have so much money that they could quit working and live from the money they have.

Humanity would be better of when the 0,1% of the world owns more than 99,9%

Perhaps humanity would be best if 0% of humans owns more than 100%?

yes, orange, you are correct, but only to an extent. The 99.9% still need to be paid enough to have a decent life, which would be impossible. In a perfect world, 10% would hold 50% of the wealth

"In a perfect world, 10% would hold 50% of the wealth"

If you only look the western countries, then it might be the case that around 10% of the western population is holding 50% of the wealth?