Despite the naysayers, growing inequality is real, and according to the experts, it is not just morally wrong, but also bad economics.
The 85 richest people on earth own more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion, according to Oxfam. This means a group of individuals who could fit on a London double-decker bus owns as much as half the world's population.
Mehdi Hasan highlights the truth behind growing wealth inequality and its impact.
https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera/vide ... 037338690/
More from UpFront:
http://aljazeera.com/upfront
Global wealth inequality and its impact.
Global wealth inequality and its impact.
Wasn't sure where to post this, some interesting stats...
I'm not a negative person, I encourage people all the time...it's usually to f**k off! But, whatever.
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
Everyone talks about wealth inequality both at nationaly and internationally. But it's a red herring, the real problem is power inequality regardless of whether we're talking about the U.S or Cambodia.
Wealth inequality is just a symptom of power inequality. That's why giving governments more power, such as increased powers to initiate wealth redistribution has the opposite outcome to that desired and the wealth gap continues to grow. It's actually exacerbating the problem for which wealth inequality is merely a symptom.
Videos like the one above almost always suggest the solution is government legislation in the form of increased business regulations and accelerated wealth redistribution. It's those very regulations that facilitated the monopolies required for those 85 to acquire such vast power and ultimately unimaginable levels of wealth.
The actual solution is vastly smaller government and a market truly free of government interference. The second step is to only allow free trade (the free movement of produce and capital across a border) where there is also a provision for the free movement of people.
Wealth inequality is just a symptom of power inequality. That's why giving governments more power, such as increased powers to initiate wealth redistribution has the opposite outcome to that desired and the wealth gap continues to grow. It's actually exacerbating the problem for which wealth inequality is merely a symptom.
Videos like the one above almost always suggest the solution is government legislation in the form of increased business regulations and accelerated wealth redistribution. It's those very regulations that facilitated the monopolies required for those 85 to acquire such vast power and ultimately unimaginable levels of wealth.
The actual solution is vastly smaller government and a market truly free of government interference. The second step is to only allow free trade (the free movement of produce and capital across a border) where there is also a provision for the free movement of people.
-
- Wun Gwo Pee
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:07 am
I'm not going to get into yet another debate about the inequities of the wealth imbalance. People choose their evidence to suit their viewpoint already held and it's a no win game. I could, for example, say the wealth imbalance isn't the issue - it's a side issue - and that the important thing is the hundreds of millions of people who have been lifted out of poverty over the last three decades.
I do find it ironic, though, that such a discussion is on 440, a forum dedicated to the relatively wealthy expat population of one of the poorest countries in the world, especially as a significant chunk of those expats are here solely because it is so poor.
I do find it ironic, though, that such a discussion is on 440, a forum dedicated to the relatively wealthy expat population of one of the poorest countries in the world, especially as a significant chunk of those expats are here solely because it is so poor.
- Felgerkarb
- Sir Felgerkarb, Kt Pb
- Reactions: 240
- Posts: 9140
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am
- Location: Castle Felgerkarb, Felgerkarbia (Formerly Preah Vihear)
- Contact:
Yes, I live here because I like standing on the throats of poor brown people. It makes me feel righteous.
Now off to Brown Coffee for my double soy latte....if the monkey behind the counter can just get it right, this time.
Now off to Brown Coffee for my double soy latte....if the monkey behind the counter can just get it right, this time.
====================
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
And 99% of said recorded / perceived "wealth" is entirely virtual or severely endangered. I bet you these 85 people don't "own" more cash (in notes and coins) than the other 3.5b. Or unambiguously physically possessed & secured precious metals. Or unencumbered fully paid-off tax-free & untaxable property. No, they simply have vast holdings of various paper titles currently perceived & counted as "wealth assets" (stocks, bonds, indices, ETFs etc) that rose tremendously in nominal value throughout the various global quantitative-easing operations. And often, even through their stock exposure they don't so much "own" a share in a corporation as they are "exposed" with leverage to daily mere valuation movements, ie. "what all others (and HFT bots) think someone else's ownership is worth right now", outsourcing the messy business of actual ownership to others and just trying to hitch a ride. Marvels of "the Global Minotaur" financialization.The 85 richest people on earth own more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion, according to Oxfam.
Because they "own" so much of those convenient modern "wealth assets" (mostly just leveraged price-movement bets), if just 10% of those 85 guys decide to liquidate and turn just say 10% of that virtual perceived wealth into tangible unambiguous wealth, all of it simply evaporates completely for 100% of those 85 guys.
There have been a few substantial corrections in many of these markets in the past few months and we get headlines such as "$3.5 trillion have been lost worldwide". Really? Where did all that "money" go? It never existed in the first place, except on charts and ticker tapes. Same old story. But that kind of thinking doesn't help Oxfam now, does it
- Felgerkarb
- Sir Felgerkarb, Kt Pb
- Reactions: 240
- Posts: 9140
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am
- Location: Castle Felgerkarb, Felgerkarbia (Formerly Preah Vihear)
- Contact:
metaleap wrote:And 99% of said recorded / perceived "wealth" is entirely virtual or severely endangered. I bet you these 85 people don't "own" more cash (in notes and coins) than the other 3.5b. Or unambiguously physically possessed & secured precious metals. Or unencumbered fully paid-off tax-free & untaxable property. No, they simply have vast holdings of various paper titles currently perceived & counted as "wealth assets" (stocks, bonds, indices, ETFs etc) that rose tremendously in nominal value throughout the various global quantitative-easing operations. And often, even through their stock exposure they don't so much "own" a share in a corporation as they are "exposed" with leverage to daily mere valuation movements, ie. "what all others (and HFT bots) think someone else's ownership is worth right now", outsourcing the messy business of actual ownership to others and just trying to hitch a ride. Marvels of "the Global Minotaur" financialization.The 85 richest people on earth own more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion, according to Oxfam.
Because they "own" so much of those convenient modern "wealth assets" (mostly just leveraged price-movement bets), if just 10% of those 85 guys decide to liquidate and turn just say 10% of that virtual perceived wealth into tangible unambiguous wealth, all of it simply evaporates completely for 100% of those 85 guys.
There have been a few substantial corrections in many of these markets in the past few months and we get headlines such as "$3.5 trillion have been lost worldwide". Really? Where did all that "money" go? It never existed in the first place, except on charts and ticker tapes. Same old story. But that kind of thinking doesn't help Oxfam now, does it
I wish there was a way to create derivatives off big boobs. That is something I am already heavily invested in...on paper.
====================
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
- spitthedog
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 124
- Posts: 5721
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 pm
I reckon the inequality has actually been manufactured since the financial crisis.
You have all those highly indebted working class subprime type people who can't borrow/are deleveraging/possibly need to sell assets, and them....BAM!, they bring in near zero rate interest rates (in a debt crisis) for the last 7 years. Who is gonna benefit from that, and who is it going to hurt?
It's no doubt why the housing markets have been doing so well as the top few percent pick up assets, and i guess it kept the banks alive. Who would be borrowing if interest rates stayed as they were? A month ago they were talking about raising interest rates and now all the talk in the media is about QE4!
The world has been pushed into risky assets and the working classes are suffering from that.
I reckon they should kick out the banksters and just let 440'ers sort this fcuking mess out one Saturday afternoon (with a few slabs of Anchor laid on for free).
In short don't believe what you hear on Fox news!!!
PS, i'm just a smelly lazy hipster (with a visa), but any views on 21st Century Fox? Looks like a great biz to me and cheap. Massive lead in ratings over it's nearest rival CNN. Leading position in Asia with Fox Sports after buying out ESPN. Nat G. FX (great shows like the Walking Dead). Owns a third of Hulu which will take the lead from Netflix at some point imo. Then you have it's movie production biz where it will make billions for decades licensing out even the most shittiest Steven Seagal movies to networks in Asia. I bet they are still showing the original Charlie and the Chocholate Factory every Christmas in the UK!
(excuse my rant at the end of my post, but i just get abit passionate about these things)
You have all those highly indebted working class subprime type people who can't borrow/are deleveraging/possibly need to sell assets, and them....BAM!, they bring in near zero rate interest rates (in a debt crisis) for the last 7 years. Who is gonna benefit from that, and who is it going to hurt?
It's no doubt why the housing markets have been doing so well as the top few percent pick up assets, and i guess it kept the banks alive. Who would be borrowing if interest rates stayed as they were? A month ago they were talking about raising interest rates and now all the talk in the media is about QE4!
The world has been pushed into risky assets and the working classes are suffering from that.
I reckon they should kick out the banksters and just let 440'ers sort this fcuking mess out one Saturday afternoon (with a few slabs of Anchor laid on for free).
In short don't believe what you hear on Fox news!!!
PS, i'm just a smelly lazy hipster (with a visa), but any views on 21st Century Fox? Looks like a great biz to me and cheap. Massive lead in ratings over it's nearest rival CNN. Leading position in Asia with Fox Sports after buying out ESPN. Nat G. FX (great shows like the Walking Dead). Owns a third of Hulu which will take the lead from Netflix at some point imo. Then you have it's movie production biz where it will make billions for decades licensing out even the most shittiest Steven Seagal movies to networks in Asia. I bet they are still showing the original Charlie and the Chocholate Factory every Christmas in the UK!
(excuse my rant at the end of my post, but i just get abit passionate about these things)
"I don't care what the people are thinking, i ain't drunk i'm just drinking"
-
- Jumped Up Little Oik
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:24 am
So, What your saying is that deregulation of the banks a few years before the last big crash (scam) is the way to go? Do you own a gun BTW?starkmonster wrote:Everyone talks about wealth inequality both at nationaly and internationally. But it's a red herring, the real problem is power inequality regardless of whether we're talking about the U.S or Cambodia.
Wealth inequality is just a symptom of power inequality. That's why giving governments more power, such as increased powers to initiate wealth redistribution has the opposite outcome to that desired and the wealth gap continues to grow. It's actually exacerbating the problem for which wealth inequality is merely a symptom.
Videos like the one above almost always suggest the solution is government legislation in the form of increased business regulations and accelerated wealth redistribution. It's those very regulations that facilitated the monopolies required for those 85 to acquire such vast power and ultimately unimaginable levels of wealth.
The actual solution is vastly smaller government and a market truly free of government interference. The second step is to only allow free trade (the free movement of produce and capital across a border) where there is also a provision for the free movement of people.
-
- Jumped Up Little Oik
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:24 am
Well, at leasts you admit there is inequality. You have taken the first step.alanclarke72 wrote:I'm not going to get into yet another debate about the inequities of the wealth imbalance.
People choose their evidence to suit their viewpoint already held and it's a no win game. I could, for example, say the wealth imbalance isn't the issue - it's a side issue - and that the important thing is the hundreds of millions of people who have been lifted out of poverty over the last three decades.
Your obviously a Victorian pro charity buff.
Well, that's exactly the way the Cambodians see it. Now you know why they generally hate you, well, carpetbaggers anyway.I do find it ironic, though, that such a discussion is on 440, a forum dedicated to the relatively wealthy expat population of one of the poorest countries in the world, especially as a significant chunk of those expats are here solely because it is so poor.
-
- Jumped Up Little Oik
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:24 am
Interesting angle. A bit of sophistry? These guys (the 80 something) are the makers and breakers, and therefore seeing as they make the market, are not subject to the same market forces that those outside the club are exposed to.metaleap wrote:And 99% of said recorded / perceived "wealth" is entirely virtual or severely endangered. I bet you these 85 people don't "own" more cash (in notes and coins) than the other 3.5b. Or unambiguously physically possessed & secured precious metals. Or unencumbered fully paid-off tax-free & untaxable property. No, they simply have vast holdings of various paper titles currently perceived & counted as "wealth assets" (stocks, bonds, indices, ETFs etc) that rose tremendously in nominal value throughout the various global quantitative-easing operations. And often, even through their stock exposure they don't so much "own" a share in a corporation as they are "exposed" with leverage to daily mere valuation movements, ie. "what all others (and HFT bots) think someone else's ownership is worth right now", outsourcing the messy business of actual ownership to others and just trying to hitch a ride. Marvels of "the Global Minotaur" financialization.The 85 richest people on earth own more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion, according to Oxfam.
Because they "own" so much of those convenient modern "wealth assets" (mostly just leveraged price-movement bets), if just 10% of those 85 guys decide to liquidate and turn just say 10% of that virtual perceived wealth into tangible unambiguous wealth, all of it simply evaporates completely for 100% of those 85 guys.
There have been a few substantial corrections in many of these markets in the past few months and we get headlines such as "$3.5 trillion have been lost worldwide". Really? Where did all that "money" go? It never existed in the first place, except on charts and ticker tapes. Same old story. But that kind of thinking doesn't help Oxfam now, does it
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
In a free market the banks would never have been able to grow to the point where they were "too big to fail", and they most certainly wouldn't have been bailed out at the point of failure.Mr Lovejuice wrote:So, What your saying is that deregulation of the banks a few years before the last big crash (scam) is the way to go? Do you own a gun BTW?starkmonster wrote:Everyone talks about wealth inequality both at nationaly and internationally. But it's a red herring, the real problem is power inequality regardless of whether we're talking about the U.S or Cambodia.
Wealth inequality is just a symptom of power inequality. That's why giving governments more power, such as increased powers to initiate wealth redistribution has the opposite outcome to that desired and the wealth gap continues to grow. It's actually exacerbating the problem for which wealth inequality is merely a symptom.
Videos like the one above almost always suggest the solution is government legislation in the form of increased business regulations and accelerated wealth redistribution. It's those very regulations that facilitated the monopolies required for those 85 to acquire such vast power and ultimately unimaginable levels of wealth.
The actual solution is vastly smaller government and a market truly free of government interference. The second step is to only allow free trade (the free movement of produce and capital across a border) where there is also a provision for the free movement of people.
We were sold the fallacy that the bailout saved our savings when in reality it saved our liabilities. Who except the baby boomers and the 1% has bank savings in excess of their debts? If they lost their collective shirts it would be very karmic seeing as they created this mess.
No, instead the government bails out the banks with monopoly money and saddles our children with more future debt.
- LTO
- The Internet is my Friend
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 6412
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:10 pm
- Location: Srok Khmer
- Contact:
I know nothing of economics but...
From a global perspective, anybody that makes more than about $34,000/year is part of the 1%, right?
And if we took all the money in the world and redistributed it evenly to every person, we'd all get about $3500. Is that correct?
From a global perspective, anybody that makes more than about $34,000/year is part of the 1%, right?
And if we took all the money in the world and redistributed it evenly to every person, we'd all get about $3500. Is that correct?
- spitthedog
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 124
- Posts: 5721
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 pm
Dudes,
You know it's the end of the world when there's a Starbucks opposite a Starbucks ;
You know it's the end of the world when there's a Starbucks opposite a Starbucks ;
"I don't care what the people are thinking, i ain't drunk i'm just drinking"
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Cambodian university included in global impact rankings for the first time
by john_q_public » Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:29 am » in Cambodia News - 4 Replies
- 2331 Views
-
Last post by Guest9999
Sat May 01, 2021 2:34 pm
-
-
-
Information about receiving Treasury checks (economic impact payments) for US citizens
by Bong Burgundy » Fri May 22, 2020 1:27 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 9 Replies
- 2658 Views
-
Last post by WidA
Wed May 27, 2020 6:39 pm
-