Visual Summary Of The World's High Net Worth Individuals

Tyler Durden's picture

With a record 44 million Americans collecting foodstamps, the topic of a systemic and systematic class divides (especially now that Mort Zuckerman picked up on some of the very troubling developments to Marxists everywhere, first caught by Zero Hedge) will only get increasingly pronounced, and of all troubling trends in global finance, is likely the one to be the catalyst (as it always has in world history) for less than peaceful class upheavals. We have written extensively on the topic in the past (here and here), although for those new to this theme, below is a chart from the Guardian which effectively summarizes the snapshot distribution of the world's wealthiest at the end of 2010. As the bottom chart shows, the aftereffects of the financial crisis may be here to stay for 99% of the population... but not for the world's wealthiest 1%.

Source: Guardian

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
zorba THE GREEK's picture

 The last time the wealth was distributed as it is today was in the late 1920s

 just before the great depression. Here we go again.

sun tzu's picture

The 1920's was more like the 1990's. Even the shoe shiners were investing in stocks and making money. This is getting to be more like a modern slave plantation. 

decon's picture

The data would be more meaningful if it was displayed in both nominal numbers and as a percentage of the country/region's population.  These kinds of distributions can certainly be a catalyst for change.

Bob Sacamano's picture

To get to the equality so many want, should be shown only on a global basis (why should the US be so unequal with the rest of the world?). 

Looking forward to those in favor of economic equality voluntarily divesting themselves (i.e., give away their wealth) down to the world average levels.  The poorest in the US will need to divest as well to reach world averages.

Unless poverty is discussed on an absolute basis (vs relative), it is seems the only rational argument is that all must have equal economic outcomes. Arguing about the precise "correct" degree of inequality makes little sense - who decides? and who is the genius central planner that ensures the inequality targets are met?   

spiral_eyes's picture


sorry to spam, but zh people, get in this chatroom and convince lulzsec to use their considerable internet firepower to break into goldman sachs/ jpm.

 

http://irc.lc/anonops/antisec/anonyops@@@

 

thank me later.

Ying-Yang's picture

Nope that shipped has sailed into the sunset.

macholatte's picture

To get to the equality so many want....

 

like who?

are you claiming that YOU want to be equal to a Mexican peon?

or, are you saying that the peon wants to be like you?

Jealousy is both reasonable and belongs to reasonable men, while envy is base and belongs to the base, for the one makes himself get good things by jealousy, while the other does not allow his neighbour to have them through envy.
Aristotle

Bob Sacamano's picture

The wealth gap / income gap is constantly in the news (and on this site) for the last couple of years.  Most seem to believe this inequality is wrong. 

I thought we defeated the idea that equal economic outcomes is a good idea some time in the last century -- it appears I was wrong.  It seems to be very popular. 

macholatte's picture

The wealth gap / income gap is constantly in the news

Isn't that one of the elements that breeds class envy which is one of the elements used to defeat the sheeple. When was the last time that you saw a movie star getting ripped for making a lot of money? Wouldn't that be MSM suicide?

Maybe you need a propaganda tune-up (we all do). Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs

 

Great Dane's picture

And voila'.... class envy is the seeming source to many riots and such things.  I ver much recall the long conversation with my father about his history in Detroit circa 1967 when MLK fired up a hellava lotta people which sunsequently burned 1/2 the city to the ground.

then hollywood went and started 'exporting' the middle class lifestyle around the worlkd without the middle class earnings to go with it.  voila'  WWIII.

Mec-sick-o's picture

The dichotomy of an aristocratic Aristotle reasoning paired with a barbarian disdainful thought of poor Mexicans is so pathetic.

Open your fridge, chances are your fresh produce inside there was picked up by a Mexican bracero.  Go work for a day at that American farm, do the same bracero job, and you will certainly find out why they want your American dream.

nuinut's picture

(why should the US be so unequal with the rest of the world?

 

Might have something to do with winning two consecutive world wars, and installing an inequitable global monetary system as the spoils.

The system they replaced was inequitable itself, but that is simply a function of using debt as money (which is the root of our problems since 1694) which results in an Artificial Scarcity.

macholatte's picture

And, it might have something to do with the guys who set it up to begin with, the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution and apple pie.

nuinut's picture

Dunno about the apple pie, but I agree that the others no doubt were influential... but note that the inequality seems to have accelerated in favor of the US concurrent with a diminishment in the influence of the constitution inside the US.

dougngen's picture

Apparently, you don't know what is in the constitution.

Banjo's picture

Start with the billionaires and work your way down slowly over time e.g. 20 year time frame. A capital tax and corresponding national dividend would be a step in the right direction as well as a Tobin tax on financial transactions including algo HFT (yes even not executed ones)

Have flat income taxes. Make sure everyone pays outlaw trusts and other vehicles that dodge tax.

Don't print more money that the supply of real values in the economy.

Remove forever the concept of too big to fail. If you make bad bets you fail. When the game changes you fail e.g. fall of FSU.

Work to bring up standards of living in Africa/India/China/US/Eur. Unknown to many is that most US citizens have zero real savings just piles of debt. Stop performing economic hit men activities against global value producing citizens. (aka workers)

Bob Sacamano's picture

So unequal outcomes should be eliminated....?  MSM and many here seem to agree. 

Thought we defeated that idea last century.  Oh well.  Someone tell the Soviets they actually won.

Good luck. 

Freddie's picture

ZH is filled with loads of marxist/Dems who in 2008 went for Hope & Change.  It is all over their faces still like......

Flakmeister's picture

You obviously don't hang out here much....

equity_momo's picture

I think hes closer to the mark than you realize. Plenty of marxists showing up here lately.

Flakmeister's picture

No.... a few liberal democrats/socialists. Real Marxists? Nary a one. Most Americans, which are the majority of posters here, wouldn't know a Marxist if they pissed in their cornflakes... There are people acquainted with Marx's analysis of Capitalism (spot on BTW), that does not make them Marxist. 

Rynak's picture

Almost, what has recently increased, is the amount of vocal people, who are not *purely* anarcho-capitalist free market proponents.... and who take the benefits and flaws of other strategies into account too. That does not automatically make them socialists, marxists, fascists, collectivists, or whatever.... it just means that those people do not consider anarcho-capitalism the one thing that can fix everything, and who think more complementary, than contrary.

As for me: I consider the "what" secondary, and the "how" primary. I think that most approaches and models have useful ways in how they can be used, yet currently, all of them are just used for shit, including capitalism.

P.S.: Another aspect is that a lot of people apparently define models, by describing results. I.e., they say "if this and that is the case, then that free market capitalism" and "if this and that is the case, then that's communism", "if this and that is the case, then that's fascism", and so on..... While this in some way does make sense, by judgeing things for what they achieve, it can easily lead to an age old and still widely popular sophistic tactic: Equaling the "method" with what it is used for (purpose). This allows a very lazy argumentation tactic: I define a model, by a certain outcome, and then imply, that certain methods result in this outcome. Then, whenever my model does not result in the desired outcome, i just do a lame ass excuse of the form "Well, it didn't achieve X, so its not true InsertModelNameHere".... this way, i never have to address issues with my model, because it is considered perfect by definition.

Flakmeister's picture

Fair enough.... we are all but quibbling. As I have said many times, it is far more instructive when examining the political economy to identify how a system can fail and not how it can succeed. From my own viewpoint, this is the single biggest shortcoming of the "anarcho-capitalist free market proponents"...

Call me a Social Empiro-Pragmatist, we have enough data and history to know what does not work. Rational analysis combined with the principle that the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few should be the foundation. Ideology and philosophy be damned.

Rynak's picture

Partially agree. The problem is that such a mindset can easily lead to a contradictory split between individuals and collective - as if the collective has nothing to do with its individuals. I.e., when constantly putting "the collective" over the individual, you may end up with the collective mostly consisting of individuals with a shitty live, and paradoxically possibly even a few leeching from the majority.

This is, what kills pure collectivism, and pure fascism, specifically: Corruption from inside. When everyone looks "for the group", and no one (or only a few) looks for the individuals, then in the end everyone may end up with crap.  (Individualism does the opposite mistake).

A balanced approach would be: Consider that most individuals, are operating from a common platform, called the collective. I.e., you have those roads and stuff around you, you have easy access to water, food, shelter, etc etc. If such a collective platform works efficient, then individuals on average are better of, because solving such common stuff on a common level, is more efficient and consistent. And yet, there are also many things which are specific to me, or just a few.... and those things i and others should deal with individually.

So, what i'm hinting at is: Address common things on a common level. Address individual things individually. Start addressing common stuff individually, or individual stuff commonly, and you already for purely logical reasons must end up with shit.

Flakmeister's picture

I didn't realize that we were moving from the sound-bite phase on to deeper things!

Pure collectivism fails at any level beyond hunter-gatherer, this is well known.

I implicitly assume that the individual and their freedoms are at the forefront. However, the grey area is where the exercise of freedom impinges upon the freedom of others.....And as much as I would like, this is not the time to go into that (time to create something in the kitchen!)

nuinut's picture

So on a collective level we must operate objectively, while at the individual level we can be subjective... and the root failing of our collective (monetary) system is lack of objectivity, for which we need an objective reference point.

 

Pure collectivism fails at any level beyond hunter-gatherer

Because the individuals inside the collective continue to assess subjectively.

Rynak's picture

I'd go more simple: The root failing of our monetary system, is that it is capable of influencing everything, is managed by a few, and not understood at all by the majority. Something as powerful as money should be understandable by everyone, and everyone be able to influence it.

This does not necessary need to mean that it is totally decentralized. I.e., one could have PM coins for direct trade, and centrally managed PM trusts for digital transfers.... however, just as with the current PM situation, the public should have an easy way to check actual allocation for the trusts, and should by constitutional law be able to interfere if it is mismanaged.

nuinut's picture

The purpose of our monetary system is the equitable exchange of value, is it not?

Thus the fact that it is capable of influencing everything does not strike me as the problem, but rather that the current system is inequitable, thus its resulting influence is distorting.

Something as powerful as money should be understandable by everyone, and everyone be able to influence it.

Totally agree. This: A Freegold Standard, does exactly that, as far as I can tell.

By having a single objective proxy for value (unencumbered physical gold) freely available at a floating rate, the collective (ie. all users of the monetary system) have equity. Individually we still subjectively assess value based upon our own criteria, but when engaging with one another we have an objective benchmark. All surplus value can flow into gold and disadvantage no one, because gold has no other utility, and can remain there, unthreatened, until such time as its owner wishes to redeploy it back into the economy.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ $55,000

You knew it was coming...

tarsubil's picture

 "Rational analysis combined with the principle that the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few should be the foundation."

Sounds great in Never Never Land but it would be setting yourself up for painful and spectacular failure here in the real world. Government should worry about each individual's rights equally. That's relatively achievable. Rational analysis is as common as pixie dust and weighing the "needs" of many and few is ripe for corruption. Come on, Flak. Edited due to two golden monkeys and some crown.

 

 

 

 

Flakmeister's picture

I was not expecting to write a treatise on this when I first posted....

Rational analysis exists, just because some people don't like the answers doesn't mean it hasn't been done or it is not applicable... e.g. look at studies of the role of banks in society. Any rational analysis would point to a banking system modelled on Canada, i.e. a regulated public utility.  The bankers don't get to gamble with savings of the depositers. Investment banking is a different matter....

Rational analysis would have identified the unsustainability of oil as a primary transportation fuel... FWIW, the analysis was first done in 1956. While on the topic, google Hirsch Report

equity_momo's picture

I see lots of people who cannot accept that THEIR standard of living should be part of the equation but at the same time preach everyones standard of living should and will decline. I see lots of people jealous of wealth regardless how it was acquired. For every true free market capitalist here there is another govn goon who ultimately survives due to state benefits , handouts and contracts. And therein lies THE problem.

In a word , i see alot of hypocrisy. Which is the word i would use to sum up the neo-socialists view on the world. Hypocritical.

Flakmeister's picture

I think you see what you want to see...you are guilty of projecting your ideology.

I see a lot of people from all political stripes pissed off at how a few a have hijacked to system to the detriment of all... 

equity_momo's picture

Possible.

Im just ticked at articles lately on ZH that seem contradictory in nature. This is one of them and the fact more posters arent prepared to pick up on the obvious slant in the article is troubling. 

My belief , born about through experience ,  is that society is by and large lazy and will ultimately roll over for the caring hand of the State when the alternative seems like too much hard work and trouble.   Im not a fan of anyone that derives their livlihood from the taxpayer , whether that is someone who works at  TBTF bank or some invisible govn drone. 

And let me pick up on your last point : the system was hijackesd but NOT to the detriment of all. Those on the govn teet and who want to stay on the govn teet have done better than they could ever have imagined.  It has only been to the detriment of those that wish to make an honest wage and stay out of the claws of growing govn and regulation. Huge distinction to make there.

Flakmeister's picture

In my books, 99% equals all...

Why should all ZH articles espouse the same viewpoint? One of the strengths of this website is the diversity of articles. Always beware of group-think, even in those cases where you might agree.

The strength of the US Constitution was that it was the result of Rational men who had differing viewpoints.

I am also against chickenshit regulation, that is what occurs when you have politicians making them and not techocrats. 

Kayman's picture

Freddie

Let's dispense with Too Big To Fail and let capitalism thrive.  America's crony capitalism has stunted this country.

We are now an inverted pyramid ready to topple over.

Adam Smith didn't imagine a debt based Central Bank system that was a blood-sucking parasite attached to productive enterprises and people.

Many buyers and sellers is the basis of competitive capitalism not controlled markets and telephone calls to your lobbyist.

Franken_Stein's picture

 

Leaked 1955 Bilderberg Docs Outline Plan For Single European Currency

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-1955-bilderberg-docs-outline-plan-for...

 

Yes, my friends, that's the sad truth.

We've all been fooled, including me here in Germany.

 

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

It took you way to long to figure that one out.  Of course it was planned long ago.  Go back two spaces.

Sean7k's picture

The Bilderbergers don't "leak" anything they don't want leaked. The Elites seek totalitarian control, what is there to be fooled about?

The only fool is the one that yells, "conspiracy theory" , while going back to slave away in the salt mines of the world economy. Blissful in their feelings of "security".

We all have the power to confound the Elites. It is found in community and the determined actions that divorce ourselves from the economy of socialism. The Elites require your complicity, your taxes and the profits from their manipulations in the financial markets.

We all have the choice of how to live, invest and produce wealth. Who will get it and how. They would have you believe you have no choices. They would have you succumb to the propaganda of hopelessness.

You can be a center for education and a fortress against the attacks of your government and system of "law". The Elites need players on the field. All we have to do is skip the game and play in our fields of production. Never share what you don't have to. Starve the evil that permeates and operates all governments. 

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

David Rockefeller junked you.

JW n FL's picture

.308 to the Top 1% and all the Lobby Whores that Work for them!

tarsubil's picture

Here here! But I would qualify the statement by saying the 99% of the top 1% which achieved their fortunes through Mammon.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Well said Sean.

Now if you look at the chart, see which country has the highest growth in HNI.

India. Up 20%.

And from in here, in the belly of the beast, let me assure that is the largest heist of global money after China. CHina and India are th etwo most capitally in-efficient countries.

But we're screaming up the rich-folk ladder. And there is the tell.

It's one giant kleptocracy now. Or always was, not it's out on the surface.

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/whither-india/

PS: Ever notice that generous people never get rich?

scratch_and_sniff's picture

Jesus, they even fooled you there in Germany? they must be good.

falak pema's picture

This is Jean Monet's thesis right from day one BEFORE the war ended. He was a visionary who said "the only way out of this current recurrent nation bashing mess is a United States of Europe". He said it to FDR in DC back in 1943. He didn't invent it : Victor Hugo said the same thing one hundred years earlier! 

So European unity has been there for donkey's years! No the NEW twist is REGANomICS and NWO which brings into the elitist net the ORIENT. Now that is beyond "Atlantic to Urals!" And GWB/NWO-WS oligarchs have done it! So its history and we can't run away from it!

 

yesmassarothschild's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ExoaDv6uTM
HD Damian Marley - Road To Zion ft. Nas

In this world of calamity

Dirty looks and grudges and jealousy

And police weh abuse dem authority

Media clowns weh nuh know 'bout variety
Boom!

- - - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxejaKtf-Zs
Damian Marley - Educated Fools

Well educated fools they have ruined di world

And start make it hard for both di boys and di girls

Dem steal all di Africans diamonds and pearls

And start bank it up inna federal reserves

And then Rasta fuck it up and insight riot

Warn dem fi cool and we did warn dem fi quiet

Now dem hear the kick drum di snare and di hi hat

Load up dem belly with? some copper shot diet..

JW n FL's picture

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ***** Educated Fools *****

zorba THE GREEK's picture

 The last time the wealth was distributed as it is today was in the late 1920s

 just before the great depression. Here we go again.