Capitalism
- Miguelito
- Ordinary Schmo
- Reactions: 219
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:19 pm
- Location: Penh's Hill
Capitalism
Vladmir's most recent avatar has a quote in it that got me thinking. "Capitalism is: The GDP of the world's poorest 48 nations being less than the wealth of the world's three richest people."
Let's ignore for the fact that they mean "states" (or countries) and not "nations" (sorry, Vlad, I couldn't help myself).
According to Forbe's 2017 list, and recognizing that
Bill Gates: $86 billion
Warren Buffet: $76 billion
Jeff Bezos: $73 billion
That equals $235 billion dollars. Yea, that's a crazy amount.
But I'm not sure comparing countries' GDPs and those "net worths" is a fair comparison to convey what he wants to convey.
Also, that math is way off. Based on the UN the World's poorest 47 have a GDP of $68 Billion (or $119 billion by the IMF chart because they only list 160 countries so miss a bunch). So, actually, he can try to make his point even
more by doing actual research/math.
But GDP is a monetary measure of the market value of all final goods and services produced in a period of time (usually a year). The GDP of Tuvalu, a country with 10,000 people, is $38 million, so they produced $38 million worth of goods last year.
In 2017 Microsoft had $90 billion in revenue, Amazon had $178 billion, and Berkshire Hathaway had $223 billion in 2016. So combined, the three companies have around $491 billion. That would be a closer comparison to the GDP of the lowest 92 countries.
So, in other words, three individuals, and their approximately 600,000 employees have created a similar GDP to the 92 least performing states. Of course, a workforce of 600,000 is much larger than many of these small island nations, but that's impressive.
Five days ago Amazon's market value — its closing share price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding — rose to $702.5 billion on Wednesday, and for the first time passed Microsoft, which is worth $699.2 billion as of the close of trading (CNBC). These individuals are shareholders in companies, so essentially their net worth is really just an estimation on the evaluation of the companies they founded and head, so it's kind of a moot comparison.
Instead of hating on these three, I applaud them for providing 600,000 jobs around the world and being just so damn productive.
Capitalism 1, Anti-capitalism 0
Let's ignore for the fact that they mean "states" (or countries) and not "nations" (sorry, Vlad, I couldn't help myself).
According to Forbe's 2017 list, and recognizing that
Bill Gates: $86 billion
Warren Buffet: $76 billion
Jeff Bezos: $73 billion
That equals $235 billion dollars. Yea, that's a crazy amount.
But I'm not sure comparing countries' GDPs and those "net worths" is a fair comparison to convey what he wants to convey.
Also, that math is way off. Based on the UN the World's poorest 47 have a GDP of $68 Billion (or $119 billion by the IMF chart because they only list 160 countries so miss a bunch). So, actually, he can try to make his point even
more by doing actual research/math.
But GDP is a monetary measure of the market value of all final goods and services produced in a period of time (usually a year). The GDP of Tuvalu, a country with 10,000 people, is $38 million, so they produced $38 million worth of goods last year.
In 2017 Microsoft had $90 billion in revenue, Amazon had $178 billion, and Berkshire Hathaway had $223 billion in 2016. So combined, the three companies have around $491 billion. That would be a closer comparison to the GDP of the lowest 92 countries.
So, in other words, three individuals, and their approximately 600,000 employees have created a similar GDP to the 92 least performing states. Of course, a workforce of 600,000 is much larger than many of these small island nations, but that's impressive.
Five days ago Amazon's market value — its closing share price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding — rose to $702.5 billion on Wednesday, and for the first time passed Microsoft, which is worth $699.2 billion as of the close of trading (CNBC). These individuals are shareholders in companies, so essentially their net worth is really just an estimation on the evaluation of the companies they founded and head, so it's kind of a moot comparison.
Instead of hating on these three, I applaud them for providing 600,000 jobs around the world and being just so damn productive.
Capitalism 1, Anti-capitalism 0
- Youn Hoo Fatt
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:23 pm
we are glad you got that off your chest migs
in the process of fucking off to the land of honey and free beer
Anyone who knows the life stories of those 3 in particular knows that they started out with no advantages over others and no great wealth. You can add Jobs and Zuckerberg and many others on that same list. They did it themselves with talent and hard work and the have given opportunity via employment to hundreds of thousands. Only warped, frustrated losers obsess over the wealth of others who earned it and try to delegitimize what they have achieved. If anything, vlad should be harping on and on about how Putin got his fortune, which has nothing to do with capitalism.Bill Gates: $86 billion
Warren Buffet: $76 billion
Jeff Bezos: $73 billion
"The final straw actually involved my mortal enemy vladimir, who you may or may not know is an insufferable, overposting asshat."
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1568
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:13 pm
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
Top heavy distributions far out date capitalism by just a little bit (the Pareto distribution even applies to the mass of stars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution).
Economic systems should be judged by their efficiency (how much they expand the pie), and not by their distribution (how that pie is divided). The reason being that whatever system you put in place, it will always end up back at the Pareto distribution eventually. So probably best to choose the path that doesn't involve gulags or pogroms.
Economic systems should be judged by their efficiency (how much they expand the pie), and not by their distribution (how that pie is divided). The reason being that whatever system you put in place, it will always end up back at the Pareto distribution eventually. So probably best to choose the path that doesn't involve gulags or pogroms.
- Playboy
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 288
- Posts: 24827
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:30 pm
- Location: Hotel K: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
- Contact:
Hang on, are you telling me that gulags are now out of favour ??
Bloody liberals, they will be after the work houses next !!
Sent from my SM-G928C using Tapatalk
Bloody liberals, they will be after the work houses next !!
Sent from my SM-G928C using Tapatalk
"We, the sons of John Company, have arrived"
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
There's this idea floating around that the richest few live in some kind of Arcadia completely disconnected from the masses. There may be some truth in there but these people are also the largest employers, the whole of society would break down without them. While I don't agree with overly exploitative practices in the workplace I also recognize that it's a dog eat dog world out there.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
Should also be mentioned that many of the world's richest, including Gates and Buffett, give untold billions to charity and have pledged to donate practically all of their net worths to charity upon their deaths and have encouraged many others of the richest to pledge to do the same.Lucky Lucan wrote:There's this idea floating around that the richest few live in some kind of Arcadia completely disconnected from the masses. There may be some truth in there but these people are also the largest employers, the whole of society would break down without them. While I don't agree with overly exploitative practices in the workplace I also recognize that it's a dog eat dog world out there.
https://givingpledge.org/
The Gates Foundation in particular has done more than any other organization or government to get millions of the world's poorest people access to HIV testing, medical care and free HIV medications (medications which costs Americans around $3000 per month).
"The final straw actually involved my mortal enemy vladimir, who you may or may not know is an insufferable, overposting asshat."
-
- I Am Losing It All to the Internet
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:44 pm
- Youn Hoo Fatt
- I have Cheap Mobile Internet
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:23 pm
guess it depend how many thousands of dead world citizens a year you are able to turn a blind eye to so that you can have fuel for your Porsche to drive to the deli on the corner
in the process of fucking off to the land of honey and free beer
That's a lot of interviewing, how did they have time for anything else?Miguelito wrote:I applaud them for providing 600,000 jobs
Oh that's right, those 600,000 people were actually the ones who built and run the businesses.
The billionaires may have started the companies, and led them, so deserve some riches, but not to own it all, IMHO.
Then there's the fact that much of the infrastructure and basic research that enables those companies to succeed was publicly funded, eg the DARPA-Internet, etc, and then fractional reserve/credit that has wildly inflated asset prices over the last 50 years.
Last edited by electron on Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
So you're claiming capitalism is directly to blame for such deaths, as opposed to specific individuals or governments? Is communism then to blame for the tens (or hundreds) of millions dead from the insane policies of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.? What alternative economic system currently available in practice is able to completely eliminate the worst excesses and impulses of all human beings?Youn Hoo Fatt wrote:guess it depend how many thousands of dead world citizens a year you are able to turn a blind eye to so that you can have fuel for your Porsche to drive to the deli on the corner
"The final straw actually involved my mortal enemy vladimir, who you may or may not know is an insufferable, overposting asshat."
- spitthedog
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 123
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 pm
Buffett is the man. I heard he's thinking of buying a 50 cents beer bar in Cambodia? Found the article below interesting regarding capitalism the other day though.
Warren Buffett should not be celebrated as an avatar of American capitalism; he should be decried as a prime example of its failure, a false prophet leading the nation toward more monopoly and inequality
“Companies in Buffett’s portfolio have extorted windfall profits, ripped off taxpayers, and abused customers,” he says, adding that Buffett “makes no secret of his fondness for monopoly. He repeatedly highlights the key to his personal fortune: finding businesses surrounded by a monopoly moat, keeping competitors at bay.”
Moat-wise, Buffett has said as much.
“If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business,” Buffett once said. “If you’ve got a good enough business, if you have a monopoly newspaper or if you have a network television station, your idiot nephew could run it.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-w ... 2018-02-15
Warren Buffett should not be celebrated as an avatar of American capitalism; he should be decried as a prime example of its failure, a false prophet leading the nation toward more monopoly and inequality
“Companies in Buffett’s portfolio have extorted windfall profits, ripped off taxpayers, and abused customers,” he says, adding that Buffett “makes no secret of his fondness for monopoly. He repeatedly highlights the key to his personal fortune: finding businesses surrounded by a monopoly moat, keeping competitors at bay.”
Moat-wise, Buffett has said as much.
“If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business,” Buffett once said. “If you’ve got a good enough business, if you have a monopoly newspaper or if you have a network television station, your idiot nephew could run it.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-w ... 2018-02-15
"I don't care what the people are thinking, i ain't drunk i'm just drinking"