This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

A "Davos" World In Which The 85 Richest People Have The Same Wealth As Half The World's Population

Tyler Durden's picture




 

There is something morbidly gruesome and ironic in having the world's wealthiest people, among them the presidents and central bank heads of the world's most "advanced" nations, as well as the CEOs of the biggest corporations, sitting down in Davos - a place where the press passes alone cost thousands of dollars - and discussing global inequality: the same inequality that their policies and principles are responsible for. It is even more morbid when one considers that according to a recent Oxfam report, one that will be used in Davos itself, the disparity in wealth between the haves and the have nots has reached absolutely record proportions, surpassing any previous inequality gaps seen before and during the Great Depression.

Which brings us to the topic of wealth.

By now everyone is familiar with the popular wealth pyramid, which shows that "29 million, or 0.6% of those with any actual assets under their name, own $87.4 trillion, or 39.3% of all global assets."

One can extend that rule of thumb to say that almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population, and seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.

However, for the best visual of the disparity between the haves and the have nots we go to Oxfam once more, which just penned the soundbite of the day, and possibly, of the week for suddenly very bleeding-heart Davos:

That's right: "the 85 richest people own the same wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest people" ... aka half the world's population.

Naturally this should come as no surprise: after all the past 5 years of this website have been, more than anything, a testament to the systematic theft, plunder and pillage of the global middle class by a small cabal of global financial oligarchs - those who have implicit control of the printing presses, who have the legal and legislative support of a few, actually make that all, corrupt and purchased politicians, who have merely made this wealth transfer from the poor, not so poor and modestly wealthy to the wealthiest, possible.

And not only possible, but the most rapid it has ever been in history.

The chart below from OxFam summarizes the unprecedented speed of wealth transfer going to the richest 1% courtesy of Bernanke et al's theft-enabling, and Congress-approved policies.

Some of the findings by Oxfam:

Given the scale of rising wealth concentrations, opportunity capture and unequal political representation are a serious and worrying trend. For instance:

  • The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
  • Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
  • The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
  • Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
  • The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
  • In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

Oxfam's conclusions should be perfectly known in advance by anyone who has been following said systematic wealth plunder over the years:

Some economic inequality is essential to drive growth and progress, rewarding those with talent, hard earned skills, and the ambition to innovate and take entrepreneurial risks. However, the extreme levels of wealth concentration occurring today threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.

 

Extreme economic inequality is damaging and worrying for many reasons: it is morally questionable; it can have negative impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction; and it can multiply social problems. It compounds other inequalities, such as those between women and men. In many countries, extreme economic inequality is worrying because of the pernicious impact that wealth concentrations can have on equal political representation. When wealth captures government policymaking, the rules bend to favor the rich, often to the detriment of everyone else. The consequences include the erosion of democratic governance, the pulling apart of social cohesion, and the vanishing of equal opportunities for all. Unless bold political solutions are instituted to curb the influence of wealth on politics, governments will work for the interests of the rich, while economic and political inequalities continue to rise. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’

 

Oxfam is concerned that, left unchecked, the effects are potentially immutable, and will lead to ‘opportunity capture’ – in which the lowest tax rates, the best education, and the best healthcare are claimed by the children of the rich. This creates dynamic and mutually reinforcing cycles of advantage that are transmitted across generations.

It is this threat of a global revolution that suddenly has the panties of all the Davos participants in a bunch: because regardless of the amounts of cholesterol consumed over the past 5 years of epic wealth transfer, we are confident all of these individuals recall well what happened in France in 1789.

This also means that these unbelievably wealthy men and women will suddenly sit down and fight to undo all the legalized theft they have engaged in since the Lehman collapse, and instead fight for the common man.... The same common man, who would be shot on sight if seen walking through one of Davos' marble halls without credentials, by the specially trained army of guards protecting the world's if not best, then certainly wealthiest.

And just who are these kind-hearted Robin Hoods, who will gladly take from themselves and give to the poor? Here, courtesy of RanSquawk, is a very partial list of the people the world's poor should pray to tonight (and every other night):

President and Prime Ministers from the G20 countries who will address the Meeting include:

  • Tony Abbot, PM of Australia and 2014 Chair of the G20
  • Shinzo Abe, PM of Japan
  • David Cameron, PM of the UK
  • Enrico Letta, PM of Italy

Some of the leading public figures who will be participating in the 2014 Annual Meeting are:

  • Mark J. Carney, Governor of the Bank of England
  • Mario Draghi, President, European Central Bank
  • Haruhiko Kuroda, Bank of Japan
  • Thomas J.  Jordan, Swiss National Bank
  • Angel Gurría, Secretary-General, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • Jim Yong Kim, President, The World Bank, Washington DC
  • Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
  • Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations, New York
  • Jacob J. Lew, US Secretary of the Treasury
  • Olli Rehn, Vice-President, Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Commission
  • Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  • Shimon Peres, President of Israel

Some of the leading business figures who will be participating in the 2014 Annual Meeting are:

  • Lloyd Blankfein  - Goldman Sachs
  • Douglas Flint – HSBC Holdings
  • Antony Jenkins – Barclays
  • Laurence Fink – BlackRock
  • Christophe de Margerie – Total
  • Bob Dudley – BP
  • Klaus Kleinfeld – Alcoa
  • Doug McMillon – Wal - Mart
  • Marissa Mayer - Yahoo
  • Joe Kaeser - Siemens
  • Lakshmi Mittal – ArcelorMittal
  • Sir Martin Sorrel – WPP
  • Paul Bulxke - Nestle

Our advice to the disenfranchised and the poor around the globe hoping that any of the people listed above will do much if anything to help their plight: it will get worse... before it gets much worse.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:59 | 4349254 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I'm gonna hold you to that!

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:06 | 4349292 SDShack
SDShack's picture

"Simple.  Money doesn't buy happiness.  How much does a person really need?"

That isn't the world that a sociopath lives in. Understand a sociopath, and you understand why all the money in the world is never enough. TPTB, this 1%, are sociopaths. They will do anything, betray anyone, just to win. This is way beyond capitalism, or even cronyism. The only way to stop a sociopath (short of revolution and guillotines) is to apply the rule of law of the common man judiciously to all for all. Sadly, TPTB have gamed the system so that there is a different rule of law for them versus the common man. That's why we are entering a New Feudal World Order.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:32 | 4349163 syntaxterror
syntaxterror's picture

Dickface was elected to change this. How did that work out?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:36 | 4349164 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

The 85 richest people own the same wealth as 3.5 billion poorest people -- sounds about the same as historical norms....  what's changed from the days of the English King, French King, Spanish King, Austrian Emperor, King of Siam, Chinese Emperor, and Czar of Russia controlling most of the world's wealth????

The middle class is simply a statistical anomaly that will quickly pass from the historical record...

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:44 | 4349210 SDShack
SDShack's picture

Yep, the New Feudal World Order. TPTB are sociopaths and have engineered the system to accomplish exactly what is happening. The only thng you are missing is the Lords (Politicians, Union Leaders, Big Business, etc.) that control the Serfs (Debt Slaves) using food, shelter, etc. and entertainment on one hand (Free Shit Army), and the State Security System on the other hand to quash any rebellion before it starts (IRS, NSA, DHS, FBI, etc). In this New Feudal World Order, if you aren't a Debt Slave (ie. useful serf), you are chaff, and will be relegated to a Fema camp to die or forced to fight for yourself in a demilitarized inner city. Plan accordingly.

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 01:52 | 4350714 Muppetrage
Muppetrage's picture

Technology is our only hope

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:35 | 4349174 Cannon Fodder
Cannon Fodder's picture

Just a random thought here, but how much of this is a function of our current global, interconnected, technological world?

I mean, a few hundred years ago, in a village with 100 people that was based on some kind of farming or hunter gather system, would it be possible of one individual to amass so much more wealth than everyone else? Everyone went out to the fields every day or hunted together. It was in their best interest I would think to not have that disparity in wealth. And even if someon did amass such wealth, how long could he keep it as it would be very easy to identify who the person was, how much he had, and how to take it back from him or at least how to correct in the inbalance.

I'm wondering if this is just the way our current world works and if there is anything that can be done about it.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:39 | 4349188 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

Don't forget, that the 100 people living in that village probably did not own the land, and had to give up most of their annual income to the king or barons or shogun -- and that is where the wealth was concentrated -- Or in other words, a setup similar to today...

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:02 | 4349513 css1971
css1971's picture

Yes, but just one arrow in the back would do the trick.

Nature or nurture? Here's a thought. The more sociopaths who die before reproducing the fewer will appear in the future. It may be in humanity's long term interest to clean the gene pool regularly.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:38 | 4349182 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Mitt the Twit opens his mouth and speaks more truthiness hilarity ensues.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/in-new-interview-mitt-romney-admit...

A new documentary about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney premiered Friday night at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah. During one of the final scenes in the movie, a confession is admitted.

Given what has come before it in the film — Romney's defeatism in the
debates — the scene leaves the impression that perhaps in his heart of
hearts Romney never really believed he could win. That also seems the
message of one of the last scenes of "Mitt," the day after the election,

when Romney addressed staff at his Boston campaign headquarters. The
old lack of confidence came out again as Romney suggested he never felt
comfortable in the race. He passed on something someone at headquarters
had told him: "In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican
nomination.
Our party is Southern, evangelical and populist. And you're
Northern, and you're Mormon, and you're rich. And these do not match
well with our party."

...

And lest we forget this sham at the RNC convention in 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg

The Convention is where delegates are meant to cast votes for the nominee, yet the Tampa Bay Times Forum was already plastered with embedded Romney banners.

 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:42 | 4349197 jim249
jim249's picture

What, no Rothschilds in that list?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:04 | 4349288 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

No they sent 85 lackeys.

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 05:45 | 4350931 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

They are the house. And the house not only always wins - it also is already there, always.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:15 | 4349340 Mi Naem
Mi Naem's picture

Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc. have more discretion and influence than to allow themselves to be placed on "lists" with the nouveau riche and riff raff such as that.  The people on this list work for the ultra-rich whose wealth and power are incalculable by standards we might intuitively grasp.  Only because you and I don't matter are we allowed to utter or write their names without prior permission. 

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 03:14 | 4350815 salman
salman's picture

No cause, they own the 85.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:46 | 4349214 _SILENCER
_SILENCER's picture

Nothing has changed. The possession of material wealth and power by the ruling elite has always been horrendously lopsided....of course, that's why they see thmselves as The Elite. Largely, they're psychopathic predators that don't give a feathered fuck about what others think, they protect only themselves and a small puddle of their own. If you're not in the club, or useful to the agenda in any way, you're to be shaved naked. Piss on you.  Even if you are of some use to the mechanism, you'll be the first sacrificed if the rabble gets a little uppity and starts up the path to The Main House.

The same people Shakespeare wrote about are still here, degenrates and inbred all, the superiority and longevity of their bloodlines top priority. They kill wantonly. They kill each other. They lie and stay in the shadows, their front men taking the blame and jibes and wrath in exchange for a taste of the lifestyle, and maybe a small peak at the hidden knowledge and tech to which the slaves have no access. Every now and then they still put on their old world royalty clown suits and frolic around, but they're a school of cold fish, sequestered in deep, deep waters where our hooks rarely venture.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:49 | 4349225 shepherd
shepherd's picture

(Almost) None of those people is royality. At least in the western world.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:50 | 4349226 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

This could be a problem. How exactly did they determine worth? Did they consider land, livestock. Many in the third world don't have money, so if that's the standard then I'm richer than probably 10% of the worlds population combined. Did they count children who don't usually have money? The calculation required is too complicated for this attention grabbing headline.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:03 | 4349279 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

The single greatest compliment that can be recieved here at ZH is the reply-less down click. Nothing says I hate you, but I can't counter your argument like that. It always makes me smile when I get one.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:53 | 4349233 shutdown
shutdown's picture

Oh, goodie! A tiny, isolated, impenetrable aristocracy class. This is precisely what causes damn near all leftist revolutions. The sooner we toss those rats out of their mansions the betteri

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:57 | 4349240 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

That's interesting, since they are generally leftists. You think the Socialists are looking to take out that ultra conservative Soros? The left has won big guy. The U.S. even, is now a socialist country. What you're looking at is a Socialist victory.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:36 | 4349430 skipjack
skipjack's picture

no...fascism won. 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:57 | 4349502 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

Fascism is more a destination. People hardly ever set out to live in a Fascist system. It usually starts with some fuzzy, feel good ideology like Marxism, and devolves into Fascism.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:21 | 4349585 shutdown
shutdown's picture

Left, right, who cares? Just bring it on! I don't care who takes 'em down. 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:30 | 4349619 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

Take who down? The elite? Why bother, since they'll just be replaced by a new elite. The Czars were replaced by the party leaders, and on and on. You are trying to fix something that cannot be fixed. Give people an equal opportunity to achieve and then get out of the way, but don't try to equal outcomes. It's folly and ends up with a brand new elite that purchased their positions with a huge pile of dead bodies.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 22:11 | 4350187 Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

that is exactly what those 85 people want you to believe.... congratulations.

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 05:49 | 4350934 Bearwagon
Bearwagon's picture

Of course we are looking at a socialist victory. But it is socialism for the banks and banksters, in case you didn't notice. Or didn't you mean to talk about that socialism, hm? Listen to old Warren, he told you - right in your face.

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 06:35 | 4350990 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

That's not socialism, dip. It's corporate fascism, but I don't care for either.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 17:56 | 4349247 fijisailor
fijisailor's picture

Mel Gibson owns Mango Island in Fiji.  He's pretty rich but is lucky to get 1 week a year to visit his own island.  I know because I've drunk kava with some of the caretakers.  Now those guys have a nice easy life.  Screw being Mel Gibson.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:04 | 4349263 Icewater Enema
Icewater Enema's picture

Others above have implied it above, and not to seem to seem too Pollyanna-ish, but:

3,500,000,000/85 = 411,764,705 +/- 1

You'd like to think that even if 1% of them were armed, "greater equality" would ensue.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:03 | 4349265 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Thank God for Gore-Tex, otherwise I'd be absolutely soaked from the torrential trickle-down.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:02 | 4349268 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

pretty stupid comparison....

I probably have more than 1 million of the poorest who have nothing.
what does that say?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:07 | 4349294 Tinky
Tinky's picture

It says that you are a budding oligarch, and God is displeased.

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 06:35 | 4349348 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

Can I be an oligarch too? I probably have more money that nearly 25% of the U.S. population COMBINED. Well, that is till we finally rescind child labor laws and those little brats get to actually make some money.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:17 | 4349350 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

so i'm going to hell with all the hookers and partypeople?.'..

it could be worse :)

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:31 | 4349413 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." Mark Twain

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:03 | 4349280 Reference Variable
Reference Variable's picture

Logic would allow you to conclude easily that half the world is... dirt fucking poor = zero net worth. If arbitrarily, 85 people let's say, are very rich... viola they hold more net worth than half the world population. Everyone knew this all along; all you had to do was think. It's always been this way, always will.

We are being misdirected here with sensationalism. The underlying question is who benefits from a story like this and why...

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 20:50 | 4349898 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Why we want to despise the wealthy and yearn for their heads on pikes. Its about class warfare to enable the government to raise taxes and expropriate wealth from those who have more than you. Yes I know, it likely will NOT be those top 85 or even 30,000. It will be, you guessed it, you and me. Yes, us, the rich ones. The ones who saved a little and maybe own our home. You know, the rich folks in the top what, 5%, 10%? I mean what does it matter right? The rich people who we find out are us, only after it is too late, again. People are so very predictable and easily manipulated, but we really like to hate others, if not for their race then their money or religion. Just about anything will do. Height, weight, hair color, sexual orientation, brand or size or type of car. Its really endless and the best part, when we start running out of money to spend on making us feel better about "me", we can just start hating on people because its free!

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 02:15 | 4350750 Muppetrage
Muppetrage's picture

Don't you have to kinda ask why half the worlds population is dirt fucking poor? Is it because they're just too fucking lazy? Maybe they're just being over taxed.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:05 | 4349285 putaipan
putaipan's picture

what cracks me up when i see the names named .... is that all i see is INSOLVANCY written in capital letters next to these corporate entities. and yet- they want to be made whole by further sacrafices by us.

there is a reason kings of old instituted jubalees. it's not just the blood of plebes that is spared. but this time around they seem so attatched to that imaginary lucre that they are willing to take us all down to preserve it.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:40 | 4349438 skipjack
skipjack's picture

We all have it within us to solve this problem. Starve the beast...

 

Get out of debt - sell everything you have or default and walk away, whichever suits you. Don't do business with banks. Buy local only, know your farmer, purchase next to nothing from multinational corporations. Reduce your circumstances and your income to as little as possible to as to become a burden on the system.

 

Then, sit back and wait for the collapse.  It is coming..in China, the US, the EU, and everywhere. Hasten it along.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:10 | 4349316 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

   I thought for sure that the "Alien" population was higher then 85... Scratching head?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:14 | 4349331 teolawki
teolawki's picture

Definitive proof that indeed shit does float.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:14 | 4349337 zippy_uk
zippy_uk's picture

This is the result of the inflation / deflation economic paradigm where assets / bosses / ruling classess have income or asset inflation and workers have wage deflation and debt and tax inflation.

So there are a few policies one might consider:

1. Abolish corporate taxes except on land, consumption or polution.

WHY?: Will break corporate monopolies e.g. Amazon, banks who can take advantage of tax loop hole and put cash in to out investing competitors. Also stops "transfer pricing" where profits a "washed away" though various tax devices. Taxing resources and consumption forces economic behaviour to consider what is needed, what is wanted or not wanted. This tends to increase productivity in the right areas.

2. Abolish income tax. 

WHY?: When you want discourage something (smoking, drinking, porn, carbon fuels) you tax it. So the tax system is saying - "don't bother working because we will take your money off you as soon as you get it". Why does income get taxed ? To "redistribute" to the poor - my argument is that this has failed spectacularly. Only the Middle class really pay as a proportion of income net of benefits recieved. Also, if you have a consumption tax, any money you spend is taxed anyway.

3. Flat taxes:

WHY?: Complex taxes are hard to collect and easy to avoid. They also prevent transparency so when the government needs to up taxation from 30% to 50% to pay for that useless oil war in the middle east that makes things worse, it is easier to hide.

4. Welfare reform

WHY?: Welfare is important because it provides dignity to people facing difficult economic situations and provides emergency demand when there is a temporary economic shock. This is a good thing. However when welfare systems are complex, the are not transparent, inefficient, costly and lose connection with the principle that you must first pay in to recieve. This creates a structural bind on the economy as people find is not worth pursuing lower paid jobs. This gets made worse with income tax at a low thresh hold.

5. Abolish bogus credit

When banks run out of funds, banks should not call "Benny" or "Marky" or who ever is central banker of the month for more "money". They should either - sell assets, make cut costs, raise funds privately or ultimately go bust. Credit is not money - it is not equally rationed out and the highest cost goes always to the poorest.

6. Cut centalisation

Power is ever more centralised - but for whose benefit ? Local power is about meeting the needs of those who are local. Elites can easily manipulate central power through wealth and inside knowlege / contacts. Local power is much easier for ordinary people to reach. Wars get started by people in powerful capital cities, not local villages.

7. Let currencies compete

In the electronic age of digitial computing and communication, there is no reason why any given product or service can't be paid in any known and recognised currency (or bit coinage) any where on the planet. This is greate for cutting down cartels and government swiss schemes as there are increase routes to price discovery.

8. My data is private.

If you want my data (digital or otherwise) YOU have to ask. If I say NO, that is the end of the matter. If I say YES, you are expected to pay for it. If I want to check MY data that YOU hold, YOU will yield access for FREE. If you store my data falsely - YOU will be liable.

I believe everyone one of these will "balance things up" - Have you noticed that every policy on the planet involving Governments, NGOs, Corporations is heading opposite direction. No co-incidence for me that inequality is at an all time high. 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:53 | 4349488 css1971
css1971's picture

Nothing you mention would make a blind bit of difference.

 

Go learn what money is.

http://www.positivemoney.org/videos/97-owned-monetary-reform-documentary/

 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:30 | 4349620 zippy_uk
zippy_uk's picture

I checked out your link - my points about stopping bogus credit, or fiat currency cover most of your video - also known as "adopt a gold standard". Gold = real money because its universally accepted for large financial transactions and stored accordingly by governments. Unless your name is Gordon Brown who thinks his socialist economics can abolish boom and bust via the odd covert gold bailout to his chums as RBS.

I added a point also about not insuring banks so they have market accountability - they have no need for this privilege.

Your point seems to be around "we need to nationalise banking" to stop there being rich people because all poor people are victims. Your point is the politics of envy. And I suggest you read my points again after watching your video again.

It is socialists, who want to nationalise everything who don't understand money or where it comes from. Our banking system failed becaused it became a socalist banking system based on too big to fail rather than a market based on where if you do it wrong you go bankrupt.

 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:51 | 4349687 css1971
css1971's picture

Nope. Fractional reserve banking was created and operated just fine with gold over several hundred years.

And Nope, I don't necessarily believe nationalisation is the solution, I don't think there can realistically be a "big bang" solution which fixes the monetary system, there is simply no demand for that, but until monetary reform is under way all of your points are a complete waste of time.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:57 | 4349501 zippy_uk
zippy_uk's picture

One more....

Money left in banks should not be insured (unless you, the depositor pay).

WHY?: Because when you save in a bank, you are effectively loaning the bank your money. You get a reward of interest, but take on a risk of failure. This would put a break risky banking behavior as they would need to avoid bank runs to stay in business. How much criminal behaviour has been uncovered in banks recently ? How many banks would have faced bank runs if there was no deposit insurance in the light of these behaviours becoming exposed.

This principle explains (especially to older people) why interest rates have to stay low currently. There is no reward for capital right now, so there is no demand for capital (borrowing) because no-one feels confident enough find an opportunity such that money can be borrowed and paid back with interest and still make a return. No one wants your money, and without low interest rates money that people had on deposit would have been lost when the banks (should have) gone bust, save for this insurance and the bank bailouts. In fact, those that have borrowed want to pay back as quickly as possible.

Under normal circumstances, high interest rates are a sign of a vigorous economy. With youth unemployment GLOBALLY at record levels, its clear that the economy is broken.

Or put another way, who do you soon to be retired baby boomers think is going to buy your over valued McMansion you are banking on downsizing and pocketing a retirement fund on the side through (unearned) capital appeciation ? Any such transaction is an intergenerational (unearned) wealth transfer.

Any without young people in jobs with decent wages and wage increases, this is not happing - hence interest rates are STAYING LOW.

High interest rates on savings because you have saved alot and feel rates have stayed too low is an ENTITLEMENT argument - what risk did you ACTUALLY take to get that investment income ?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 20:03 | 4349727 OC Sure
OC Sure's picture

Some of your ideas are very good.

However, you need to argue your points on the grounds of morality.

The justification for Capitalism is fundamentally moral. It is not an economic argument. The flourishing economics derived therefrom are just flowers in a meadow full of weeds.

http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble1.htm

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 07:39 | 4351035 scrappy
scrappy's picture

Sounds like some good ingredients zippy_uk.

Add LVT, subtract regressive taxation.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:18 | 4349359 MedicalQuack
MedicalQuack's picture

And how do the rich get wealthier...math models for profit that are proprietary and we can't see the code, running on servers 24/7...how the hedge funds did it and you know with all the hype out there with companies just being server farms running algorithms, i.e. social networks way over valuated and hyped, people don't understand or know where the boundaries are between the "real" world and the software algorithm world.  Two need to be better united..Gates Foundation comes up with tangibles that help people, i.e. a vaccine...does Facebook do anything like that..hell no, they just scrape and sell you data to make money...

Why do you think Google is now buying tangibles...they need to connect software to something that does something..in the real world instead of bullshit algos that just connect data..

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2014/01/big-challenge-at-davos-this-year-...

As I keep saying quantitated justifications with models and algorithms that dupe you in on stuff that is just not true...good clip at this link from Mike Osinski, who wrote the subprime software..money is a drug and you get some and you want more...and you think you are better than everyone else..he was right..and in another clip, "you cans solve anything with software and the virtual worlds".."what counts is the real world as those virtual software worlds can be big fantasies"...he's right..the wealthy folks that can pay the money for the coders to create those worlds are definitely getting richer, all code on servers that keeps inequality growing. 

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantitated-justification-for-bel...

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:24 | 4349384 Zwelgje
Zwelgje's picture

When you´re poor you just have to work harder. The system works fine.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:25 | 4349386 Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

Big rotation coming.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:58 | 4349387 waterhorse
waterhorse's picture

Turbo Tax Timmy isn't attending this year?  Guess that useful little idiot is persona non grata after he gave up the Treasury gig.  Good thing Jacob Lew is there to continue the Rubinomics "legacy".

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:36 | 4349400 deflator
deflator's picture

The central banks and governments in dire need of creating evermore new debt(money) to chase old debt(money), couldnt possibly distribute it equitably lest they create instant hyperinflation. Distributing wealth to only the few allows governments to print money to grow themselves without creating runaway inflation.

 85 mouths to feed is a fuck of a lot easier for central banks and governments than 3.5 billion. 

The path of least resistance is always the path of governments and central bankers.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:19 | 4349575 DFCtomm
DFCtomm's picture

Nice analysis. Control inflation through velocity. What do you think about the push to sign people up on government programs? I took that as an acknowledgement that QE hadn't worked to stimulate consumer spending, and so they had changed strategy and sought a direct method to inject QE that didn't require congressional support. Entitlement programs were the obvious choice.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:34 | 4349412 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Hallelujah! The APex civilization is upon us! 

Glory to the rich. 

Liberty for those who have understood that the only rule in life is there are no rules! 

Now whats morbid about money like water finding its own level (with a little help from the Cbs and crony snivelling politicians)?

 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:35 | 4349428 DIgnified
DIgnified's picture

It will be interesting to see how Arianna Huffington reconciles her Republicans-love-money propaganda at Huffington Post, with shilling for the .001% (http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140114-905166.html).

 

 

 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 18:43 | 4349446 squexx
squexx's picture

Lot of Satanic Tribe names there. Get them first and confiscate their property!

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:06 | 4349522 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Won' any country or corporation go after that scum and put an end to it. Don't you want what you all deserve.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:14 | 4349553 chump666
chump666's picture

Why is this a shock?  We should have gone into a global depression in 2008.  Cept, no one wanted it, so you have a crony bubble and two way central planned money pump from central bank to government.  You'll never see any wealth, ever. 

Humanity allows it's self to be enslaved, always subservient to power. 

So don't cry.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:22 | 4349587 JailBanksters
JailBanksters's picture

More like Laughing all the way to the ....

And all because WE still think this toilet paper with numbers written on it has value.

 

 

 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 19:32 | 4349626 arby63
arby63's picture

Thats fine. In the end, I will take what I need--maybe even what i want. I spent many years preparing for the pathetic future.

 

It is what it is. Options remain if you have half a brain. These folks have it because we GAVE it to them:  NFL, NBA, TV, MGM, VERIZON, TIME WARNER, GM, Ford, etc.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 20:25 | 4349820 Dr_Lucid
Dr_Lucid's picture

Staying out of debt, paying my mortgage twice a month instead of once, ignoring Madison Ave, driving an older car, and as best as I can avoiding the lure of a tech'd out lifestyle.  But the big part is:

"Be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem"

I took a programming job with a "multi family office" a few months ago and I am now deeply seated inside their greed.  My work thus far has been coding their portfolio management system into a near disaster which to me seems nothing short of criminal. I accept this.

As an added bonus, I have introduced their billionaire grandson ( AKA the thin necked zero chinned Harvard CEO grad ) to my loose ass Italian neice from Brooklyn. She wants money and he wants a blow job.  Case closed.

I await the consequences with clenched fists.  No bullshit.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 20:46 | 4349884 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Seems to me that if we combine a version of Agenda 21 with Agenda 85, that we solve numerous problems and redistribute the wealth to the remaining 50%.

Plus Mother Nature would thank you.

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 20:54 | 4349918 LeftyGoldblatt
LeftyGoldblatt's picture

In the Oxfam report - why is GB not shown in the charts ? I can see USA, but where about UK/GB ?

Perhaps Oxfam GB forgot to publish that part?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 20:54 | 4349919 LeftyGoldblatt
LeftyGoldblatt's picture

In the Oxfam report - why is GB not shown in the charts ? I can see USA, but where about UK/GB ?

Perhaps Oxfam GB forgot to publish that part?

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 21:04 | 4349940 ReactionToClose...
ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

Come on Zerohedge --- you can do better than this!

The 'headline' was blatantly incorrect and the initial 'reporting (<?)" media eventually corrected this nonsense.

Will there be a correction at Zerohedge?  Or is ZH only interested in getting the 'pitchforks' going?

I love ZH -- but promoting propaganda is no way to build your credibility>>>>>

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 22:52 | 4350231 chindit13
chindit13's picture

As Bill might say, it depends on what the meaning of ‘wealth’ is.

Off the top of my head I might say “wealth” is more about productive capacity, i.e., the ability to produce needs and wants, than some absolute number.  Yes, a lot of that productive capacity is concentrated, but for the absolute number, it’s best to look under the hood before emotions get the best of everyone.

Most of those who comment here are of the view that world equity markets are in a massive bubble.  Okay, well that bubble represents a good deal of the “wealth” of the 1%.  If all equity markets suddenly opened tomorrow down 90% from the previous close, the absolute only thing that has changed is the shape of that pyramid above.

Jeff Bezos (AMZN) is one of those 85 whose wealth exceeds the bottom 3.5x10^9.  How did he get so “wealthy”?  Because everyone else decided that a 20-year old “start-up” with no profits just has to be in the portfolio.  Now consider that a new child is born every three seconds in India.  If the world took away Bezos’ AMZN stock, which ostensibly gives him a net worth of $40 billion, can a good life for those twenty-a-minute new babies be assured?

One can find a lot of 1%ers in Hong Kong.  They’re living in 400 sq ft three bedroom “luxury apartments” in places with names like Beverly Hills Shores and Double Happiness Golden Good Luck Towers.  Oh, and that 400 sq ft is a circumference measurement, so include in the figure the walls and wiring, closets and kitchen cabinets.  Finally, toss in, on a pro rata basis, a piece of the building’s public space.  Anyone who thinks he just couldn’t pass up a deal like that has to come up with a million US or more just to join that elite crowd in the haze and cacophony of Hong Kong.  Pity the poor guy and his family in Ohio, whose four bedrooms on an acre and a half is only worth $250K, even with the tomato garden.

A place on the Peak in HK will set one back close to US$100,000,000.  There’s a .001%er right there, and all he’s got is one home.  Oh, and the home has cockroaches, and one cannot tell he’s on the Peak, because he can no longer see through the smog to the harbor. Is this guy really twice as wealthy as someone who owns “only” 3000 acres of Nebraska farmland with four feet of topsoil and an underground aquifer?

How about what the elite do with each other to jack up their own net worth?  Sounds a little untoward, no?  Well, go to a Sothebys auction and watch what happens to a Francis Bacon painting when at least two guys must have it.  A hundred forty million.  Now there’s where somebody could really complain about paper vs. spot.  Francis, where did pork bellies settle today?

Yes, the uber rich are way above the masses in terms of wealth.  A lot of that is illusory, however, and it can’t really be redistributed, if that is anyone’s intent.  Bill Gates’ Microsoft stock might be worth $60 billion, but if a billion people were all given shares, not a one of them would realize his $60.  Neither would that transfer change the productive value of the underlying entity, Microsoft.  Windows 8 wouldn’t work any better, but nobody would lose his job.  All of the actual value of the underlying entity---computers, buildings, brainpower, etc.---cannot be transferred to some downtrodden masses half a world away.

This whole wealth thing, while clearly unequal and unfair in many ways (owing primarily to cronyism and corruption) is a little more complicated than a simple look at the numbers would indicate. 

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 23:12 | 4350394 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

+100

Mon, 01/20/2014 - 23:07 | 4350380 401-Kulak
401-Kulak's picture

My that is a tiny correction at the bottom of the article - top 85 only own .7% of total wealth

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 01:00 | 4350639 LibertarianMenace
LibertarianMenace's picture

Hmmm...the problem of consolidation. Perhaps a little rebellion now and then, and then some more, is indicated. If not, then the only palliative (don't kid yourself there ain't no cure, no final solution) has to be competition-setting one's imperfection against another's thus reducing the amount present in both. Half the world's assets is alot of money, so we should at least demand that they earn it.

Now there's only 85 of them and 7.13 billion of us, so it should be a simple thing to get them going fisticuffs on each other. How to do it? Something similar to Trading Places comes to mind. Change their yardstick, and introduce competition into the monetary system.

Hell, likely no need to do anything at all but sit back and wait, since a single screwup from any one of these subhumans and its chaos anyway.

Tue, 01/21/2014 - 13:26 | 4351909 moneybots
moneybots's picture

As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, ‘We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.’

 

It is a republic.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!