THE 1%.

[lawnseed]

Just read a strange article. According to oxfam by the end of 2016. 1% or the worlds population will have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%.!! Dont know how theyve worked this out. But after the fall of "communism" persay the problem seems to have flurished.. Thats if your in the 99% if your in the 1% well things are rosy.

[Syferus]

The only time I worried about the 1% is when a download gets stuck on it.

[lawnseed]

The only time I worried about the 1% is when a download gets stuck on it.

Then your not in the 1% thier time is way too valuable to spend looking at a computer

[seafoid]

The only time I worried about the 1% is when a download gets stuck on it.

If you really are in college Syf you won't get much of a pension. That is the way the system works now.


Here's a good outline of how the system works in the UK, for the benefit of the few at the top , from an FT comment

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f89e774a-7956-11e4-9567-00144feabdc0.html

" Well. Wages for the vast majority of the population have fallen dramatically in the last 5 years, compounding a decline that started under Margaret Thatcher. This wage decline has occurred at precisely the same time as incomes for the very wealthy have rocketed. The lie churned out by the very wealthy is that wealth trickles down into the real economy. It never has - it has trickled into the banking system and into normal peoples pockets in the form of cheap debt.The *real* problem is that a few wealthy people who are very adept at avoiding tax can never ever make up for 10s of millions of people earning decent wages and spending that on goods and services.
As per my post below, it's because you are asking them to solve an equation which is unsolvable, no matter if you are Einstein. Start point of massive national debt + further spending demands of the electorate + globalisation taking "Joe Public" jobs away from UK + decline in UK of heavy industry + ageing population (pensions/NHS impact & demand) + five year election cycle does not = solvable solution for government finances. "

[lawnseed]

This problem waa most pronounced in history in america where despite having enjoyed the fastest period of growth in the short history of the country america still wound up in a depression. At the beginning  of last century practically all the country's wealth had ended  up in the hands of bankers and rich industrialists. There were parts of the central and midwestern states where there was literally no cash or credit.. Small banks wer closing cause they had no money to lend farmers couldnt plants crops because they couldnt buy seed.  In desparation the president sought ideas to restart the economy.. Then the saviour arrives.  morgan convinces congress to allow the mass production of paper dollars which he distributes through his new banks and the ones he takes over.. America has never stopped printing money since and still just like a plughole the wealth is still drawn back to the same people

[muppet]

Just read a strange article. According to oxfam by the end of 2016. 1% or the worlds population will have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%.!! Dont know how theyve worked this out. But after the fall of "communism" persay the problem seems to have flurished.. Thats if your in the 99% if your in the 1% well things are rosy.

So this is down to the fall of Communism?

Go on, please explain.

[seafoid]

Just read a strange article. According to oxfam by the end of 2016. 1% or the worlds population will have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%.!! Dont know how theyve worked this out. But after the fall of "communism" persay the problem seems to have flurished.. Thats if your in the 99% if your in the 1% well things are rosy.

So this is down to the fall of Communism?

Go on, please explain.

I think I read something about the fall of communism being the trigger for the intensification and expansion of neoliberalism. With more computing power the financiers took over.

the chart here shows US public debt as a percentage of GDP and in the early 90s it takes off
http://www.texasenterprise.utexas.edu/article/us-debt-%E2%80%93-historical-look-deficits

[muppet]

Just read a strange article. According to oxfam by the end of 2016. 1% or the worlds population will have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%.!! Dont know how theyve worked this out. But after the fall of "communism" persay the problem seems to have flurished.. Thats if your in the 99% if your in the 1% well things are rosy.

So this is down to the fall of Communism?

Go on, please explain.

I think I read something about the fall of communism being the trigger for the intensification and expansion of neoliberalism. With more computing power the financiers took over.

the chart here shows US public debt as a percentage of GDP and in the early 90s it takes off
http://www.texasenterprise.utexas.edu/article/us-debt-%E2%80%93-historical-look-deficits

Interesting graph. Particularly that receipts & spending have remained largely the same, but debts went through the roof when Dubya arrived.

I don't see any correlation on that chart with the fall of Communism though. It is hard to imagine that the people of Eastern Europe or Russia are poorer now than they were in 1985.

[seafoid]

Just read a strange article. According to oxfam by the end of 2016. 1% or the worlds population will have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%.!! Dont know how theyve worked this out. But after the fall of "communism" persay the problem seems to have flurished.. Thats if your in the 99% if your in the 1% well things are rosy.

So this is down to the fall of Communism?

Go on, please explain.

I think I read something about the fall of communism being the trigger for the intensification and expansion of neoliberalism. With more computing power the financiers took over.

the chart here shows US public debt as a percentage of GDP and in the early 90s it takes off
http://www.texasenterprise.utexas.edu/article/us-debt-%E2%80%93-historical-look-deficits

Interesting graph. Particularly that receipts & spending have remained largely the same, but debts went through the roof when Dubya arrived.

I don't see any correlation on that chart with the fall of Communism though. It is hard to imagine that the people of Eastern Europe or Russia are poorer now than they were in 1985.

I think it was more to do with the end of the cold war and a change of focus. The Yanks had more mojo after they defeated the evil empire - something like that. The new world order included financialisation.
  South Africa gave up apartheid around the same time and even Israel thought about peace.

[lawnseed]

Just read a strange article. According to oxfam by the end of 2016. 1% or the worlds population will have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%.!! Dont know how theyve worked this out. But after the fall of "communism" persay the problem seems to have flurished.. Thats if your in the 99% if your in the 1% well things are rosy.

So this is down to the fall of Communism?

Go on, please explain.

I think I read something about the fall of communism being the trigger for the intensification and expansion of neoliberalism. With more computing power the financiers took over.

the chart here shows US public debt as a percentage of GDP and in the early 90s it takes off
http://www.texasenterprise.utexas.edu/article/us-debt-%E2%80%93-historical-look-deficits

Interesting graph. Particularly that receipts & spending have remained largely the same, but debts went through the roof when Dubya arrived.

I don't see any correlation on that chart with the fall of Communism though. It is hard to imagine that the people of Eastern Europe or Russia are poorer now than they were in 1985.

You seem caught up in the communism thing. America and the uk are example of wealthy countries where tbe wealth is trapped by the 1%. It seems to be the nture of capitolism that while it  professes to promote and encourage trade the direction of the flow of wealth is only one way

[seafoid]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8eb5e942-e49d-11e3-894f-00144feabdc0.html

"Finance has driven income inequality, because credit booms accelerate economic growth and because bankers tend to be rich. In the US income inequalities sharpened in the information-technology boom in 2000, again in the housing-finance bubble in 2007, and yet again as the banks and the stock market recovered after 2010.


Across the world, income inequality became more marked in the two decades from 1980. The trend started with the global debt crisis in Latin America and Africa, swept through central and eastern Europe, and moved on to Asia. Only countries that were outside the global financial system (notably China and India) were largely unaffected in the 1980s – though in the 1990s inequality rose with market reforms in both places. Worldwide, as a very broad generalisation, it seems that inequality peaked in 2000.

Political structures matter: social democracies are more egalitarian. Institutional changes matter: military coups (Chile in 1973, Argentina in 1976) precipitated rising inequality. Revolution (Iran in 1979) brought a sharp fall. The rise in the 1980s and 1990s was stronger in countries with weak institutions and weaker in countries with strong ones. In a few sturdy places, such as Denmark, inequality barely rose at all."

[bailestil]

https://fullfact.org/article/economy/oxfam_1_percent-38483?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The above is a good response to Oxfam's chart.

Just shows that even charities are playing able to spin things to their agenda.

Never understood why there isn't punitive death taxes. Earn it and spend it in your lifetime.
After that the Govt takes a massive chunk to invest in the next generation. Would halt the snowballing of wealth down through generations of families.

[macdanger2]

Yeah, the extrapolation of the graph seems to be suspect at the very least.

I thought this piece was interesting:

What it takes to be at the top

Midway through 2014, it took just £2,200 in net wealth to be in the top half of the adult population worldwide.

3.3 billion people—70% of the world's adult population—had less than £6,000 in net wealth, and together accounted for around 3% of all global wealth.

The richest 10% of adults held about 87% of the world's wealth. To be in that group, you needed net wealth of about £46,000.

To be in the richest 1% of adults, you needed £473,000. If you're debt free and own an average priced London house outright, you are the 1%. This exclusive club has almost 50 million members, which is roughly the population of England.

It seems to be basically saying that yes the wealth of the world is concentrated in a very small % of the world population but don't worry, chances are you're in that small % or close to it so don't rock the boat!!

[seafoid]

The 1% are never happy with what they have and this is  prime cause of global financial instability which is usually dealt with by shafting the 99%.

[Mike Sheehy]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8eb5e942-e49d-11e3-894f-00144feabdc0.html

"Finance has driven income inequality, because credit booms accelerate economic growth and because bankers tend to be rich. In the US income inequalities sharpened in the information-technology boom in 2000, again in the housing-finance bubble in 2007, and yet again as the banks and the stock market recovered after 2010.


Across the world, income inequality became more marked in the two decades from 1980. The trend started with the global debt crisis in Latin America and Africa, swept through central and eastern Europe, and moved on to Asia. Only countries that were outside the global financial system (notably China and India) were largely unaffected in the 1980s – though in the 1990s inequality rose with market reforms in both places. Worldwide, as a very broad generalisation, it seems that inequality peaked in 2000.

Political structures matter: social democracies are more egalitarian. Institutional changes matter: military coups (Chile in 1973, Argentina in 1976) precipitated rising inequality. Revolution (Iran in 1979) brought a sharp fall. The rise in the 1980s and 1990s was stronger in countries with weak institutions and weaker in countries with strong ones. In a few sturdy places, such as Denmark, inequality barely rose at all."

I believe that is a subscription site .. what was the title of the article ?