Yep. Exactly. Those include countries like Denmark, Finland, and iceland

Do you agree that power and wealth is being concentrated but you disagree that its because a small group of people is actively taking it? I could replace "being taken" with "moving", it wouldnt make much difference to the question "whats the point of the oxfam video". I cant prove the shift in power is intentional and premeditated, though i think it is.

Just in case you were asking for examples that indicate the transfer of power and wealth: intelligence agencies spying on their own people. growing income disparity. wage stagnation in growing economies. Bank bail outs. The middle east wars. Government and business interests control of the media. Laws protecting whole industries and big businesses. Regulatory capture. prison industrial complex. military industrial complex. Police brutality/militarisation. Lack of interest in tackling global warming.

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

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

Let`s ignore the people that know almost nothing about anything and argue with people that are smart enough to put the pieces together if they would only want to:

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


Elaborate please.

There is a MASSIVE shift of wealth towards the richest of the society.
Important tools used to accomplish such a despicable feat:


-Taxation, or better the lack of it

In the trillions:

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.pdf

-Wars, old British Empire tactics, socialized costs(military involvement) and privatized profits(ressource exploitation)

In the trillions:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

-Subsidies for the biggest market participants

In the trillions:

https://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/381.pdf

-Bail outs for the biggest market participants

In the trillions:

http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/29000000000000-a-detailed-look-at-the-feds-bailout-by-funding-facility-and-recipient

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailout


This is by no means a comprehensive list. There are many more methods of reallocation of wealth and income from the hard working to the rich. For example, ordinances and laws that lower middle class competitiveness, Patent exploitation and more.

One could argue that it is rarely taken by the rich, but rather handed to them by corrupt law makers. But that really is a marginality. Don't you think?

Edited 1/26/2015 08:21:06

So many random percentages

So many pre-made opinions

So much stupidity

Ah well. Earth is fucked and I don't give a shit. If you need me I'll be in the forest digging a bomb shelter for the upcomming apocalypse. *whistles gleefully*

I'm going to Albania; they have a bunker for every 5 people.

My kind of country

Just in case you were asking for examples that indicate the transfer of power and wealth: intelligence agencies spying on their own people. growing income disparity. wage stagnation in growing economies. Bank bail outs. The middle east wars. Government and business interests control of the media. Laws protecting whole industries and big businesses. Regulatory capture. prison industrial complex. military industrial complex. Police brutality/militarisation. Lack of interest in tackling global warming.

All these problems could be solved with real democracy, like they have in Switzerland.

One could argue that it is rarely taken by the rich, but rather handed to them by corrupt law makers. But that really is a marginality. Don't you think?

Also this problems could be solved with real democracy, like they have in Switzerland. When the inhabitants are the law make/vote for laws, then it's impossible to corrupt the "law makers".

"1% of the world owns more than 99%" is not the problem. The real problem is the fake democracy.

i think myhandsonfire is a socialist...

Socialism or death.

It doesn't matter almost nothing any of you can do will change our world one bit. (unless your some billionaire or something if so I apologise)

Well, actually, I am a millionaire.

Tee-hee.

yeah still doesn't matter you will most likely just keep your money :D

Taxation, or better the lack of it(...) Wars(...) Subsidies(...) Bailouts(...) Patent exploitation(...)

Actually I completely agree. Again, just going by your list, those are all tools of ineffective policy (or effective, deoending who you are asking). As always I am a supporter of free market, but not only means freedom, it also means responsibility. All of the above limit responsibility and in the process also redistribute wealth. On this subject I think we agree completely.

Also that is why I was so pedantic with how the words are used, the arguments you were using could have been also used in an immature conversation by a highly left-wing socialist that would try to get people behind a public lynch of most wealthy people. We disagree on the need for bringing back responsibility to policy makers and groups that support them, probably we will differ on tools that have to be used.

Edited 1/27/2015 09:58:05

"we will differ on tools that have to be used." which tools do you think you have? civil disobedience, voting, joining the party political system, terrorism, a small handful of violent and non violent protesting options, organising or joining an organisation that represents your interests but exists outside of conventional politics eg oxfam, perhaps a union. A pretty weak list. I am not interested in hearing about economic tools which you yourself dont and cant wield.

The truth is deemed very politically incorrect.

The truth is something most of us are unable to consider without prejudice.

The truth, once discovered turns history on its head.

The truth, when told has many people regarding you as crazy and extreme.

There is a hidden history that you will never see covered in western media.

I find all the calls for socialism to be disturbing. Yes, poverty and wealth inequality is a huge problem, and I sympathize with the poor. However, Socialism and Communism are two things that work well on paper but tend to fail in practice.(Cue comments about how real life examples like the Soviet Union wasn't "true communism")

It's a complicated subject with no easy answer, but of course people always need someone to blame and fall into the "KILL THE EVUL RICH PEOPLE" bandwagon. While it's true that many rich people are corrupt there are many who are also pretty decent as well. Think about how much certain investors have donated to charity. People like Bill Gates have probably given more to the poor than any group of socialists ever have.

Edited 1/29/2015 23:19:55

you know why communism has never worked? BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN PRACTICED! NOT A SINGLE COUNTRY HAS EVER BEEN TRULY COMMUNIST. As for socialism, who said it doesnt work well? look at Yugoslavia, and Scandanavia

First off, none of the countries in Scandinavia are fully socialist, they are all a mix of capitalist and socialist. (With varying levels of each depending on which Scandinavian country you look at)

As for Yugoslavia, look at how long they lasted. Was there for not even a century before breaking down into a bunch of smaller, poorer countries. Exactly with what happened to the Soviets. (Not counting Russia)

https://vine.co/v/OpFDvFdxzJZ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpH0oOKHZg

Edited 1/30/2015 01:57:15

Dude, being entirely socialist is stupid. And I meant Yugoslavia under Tito

Edited 1/30/2015 02:50:59