This study is stupid as fuck and is rigged. Actually if you look closely, 10% of the poorest people in the world are...american.

This study actually calculate how rich people are by substracting a people's debt from his mobile and immobile posessions. Meaning seomeone living in New York earning 50k a year but having a mortgage of 900k (pretty standard for NY) is actually considered to be poorer than an ethiopian kid dying of hunger in the desert.

It also only takes into account net worth, not relative to the place of living. When I lived alone in Brussels and earned 3k/month, I had a "poorer" way of life than my brother living in El Salvador who has less than 1,5k/month for his whole family.

Oh and that fabled "1%" of awefull rich people? If your grandpa is freshly retired and finished paying the mortgage of his house, he's probably part of that "1%"

Get your facts straight for god's sake. Yes poverty is a plague, and wealth gap is one of the biggest challenge of our time, but manipulating numbers like that is criminal and stupid.

Bottom line. Oxfam sucks.

Edited 1/22/2015 15:45:34

oh really? i would like to see some proof, but if its true, i applaud you

It's all logical assumptions, not statistics. No proof needed.

Storman, which study are you refering to? Im impressed that you found it and read it. I couldnt find any sources for the claims in the oxfam video. Reading between the lines, I presume that the study is not calculating how rich people in new york or african deserts are, it also isnt making a comment about quality of life. Infact myhands title is quite specific, its about how much of the resources in the world are owned by what % of the population. Dont you think the net worth of the bottom 99% Vs the top 1%s net worth is a valid way to measure ownership distribution? I cant think of a better way.

Your hypothetical grandpa owns more resources than me, and all of my 98 closest school friends put together. He has a house and a huge chunk of savings, and we have debt and pocket change. why is counting him among the top 1% of resource owners wrong?

The "study" of Oxfam is here http://www.oxfamfrance.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/rapport_oxfam_insatiable_richesse_0.pdf (albeit in french)

It's based on a true study from a swiss bank the "Crédit Suisse" whose methodology has also been since criticized.

So here are a few numbers if you want them.

30% of the world's population has more debts than possessions. Meaning if you have no debts and living on the street, you're technically richer than 30% of persons.

To be considered part of the 50% of richest people in the plant, you need to have 3000 euros of active worth. meaning if you own a 2002 toyota corolla and live in it, you're a rich bastard.

As for the 1%, to be in it you need to have a net worth of 650 000 euros. So yeah, if your grandpa lives near a city, chances are his house is not far from that value. I'm not saying all retired people are part of that 1%, far from it, just that the "1% of richest person on earth" is not a bilionaire living on his yacht. It's a normal dude who spend his life working a good enough job, bought a house, a car and a nice tv.

Now, again, I'm not saying that there is'nt a problem. The wealth gap is at its highest in...well ever, and some of the problems pointed out there are quite valid. But for the most part, it completely miss the point.

Shhhh, stop bringing logic into discussion. It's not welcome here.

Storman, hush. I want to have a good enough reason to become a Viking Lord and invade England.

if you own a 2002 toyota corolla and live in it, you're a rich bastard.

WHY... DID... YOU... HAVE... TO... BUY... SUCH... A... STUPID... CAR...

YOU... ARE... SO... DAMN... POOR... IN... THE... HEAD...


SO in conclusion, owning a top-of-the-line laptop makes you one of the 50% rich? I have been given 5 bucks a week to be put in an account since i was born and now i am apparently rich?

"It's a normal dude who spend his life working a good enough job, bought a house, a car and a nice tv." You are completely misunderstanding what is normal. people like you think that owning $half a million+ of real estate is a normal outcome in life and its not, if thats the only thing the study shows you, then it was worthwhile. How many chinese and indian people do you think see that as normal? People who can 'work a good enough job' are not normal they are incredibly lucky. The 1% is not russian oil barrons and wall st bankers, its people you see every day. when looked at from the point of view of the entire world, you live in an incredibly privlieged position.

The research did not measure how rich people are. its being used to assess concentration of control of resources. How would you do that? I think youre criticising the study for failing to do something it never set out to do. It set out to show that 50% of peoples net worth is less than a 2002 toyota. And the implication is that thats unacceptable, everyone posting in this thread agrees, so lets do something about it.

What is wrong with 1% of the world owning more than 99%??

Technically, nothing is wrong with this. 1% of people is so many that it's not going to devolve Earth into some slaves to their masters. Besides, an Oligarchical regime does have potential to do good. That said, I'd still rather live in my cruddy Democratic ( wink wink ) - Republic system.

^oligarchies only benefit the rulers

Edited 1/24/2015 04:52:36

"Governments only benefit governments"

A whole bunch of Polish philosophers

"all form of Governments are corrupt." me

"all form of Governments are corrupt."

"all form of Governments that is not under control of the inhabitants are corrupt."
Politicians are not to be trust, and will not rule by the people desire, if you do not control them by law. One this moment, Switzerland is the only country with a Governments that has to do what their inhabitants desire by law.

"Storman should be president of the world" Storman

And even though logic is not wanted here, dead piggy you are missing MY point ^^

Seriously though, I said (at lenght) that there is INDEED a BIG problem in wealth inequality, that is a direct consequence of globalisation. All I'm saying is that the 1% of disgusting rich people are not necessarly super rich, and that this study is way too simplified in order to make people get all emotional.

Again, a dude living in NY owning a small one room appartement is worth at least 650 000 euros, and is considered super rich, while my brother lives in El Salvador, has a hotel, a villa on the beach, a pool, two cars and yet, as he did a bank loan to build all this, (+ he just did another bank loan to buy worthless lands in the mountain), his net worth is probably negative ! Meaning he is considered as part of the 10% of poorest people on earth while the dude in NY living in a small moldy appartment is part of the 1% of richest people...

You can't make these kind of studies on a worldwide level, it's moronic. People in Switzerland earn more than twice the income of their neighbours in France. So technically they are twice as rich, according to this study. But the cost of life in Switzerland is actually more than twice as expensive as in France...the average indian salary may be 300 dollars a month, but you can afford to rent an appartment in the outskirts of Dehli for 50 bucks, while were I live you'd need 450 a motnh to live in a shared flat with 4 other people...

Bottom line, stop trying to make things simple ! The world ain't simple, life ain't simple, you can't just waltz in and say "huuu yeah...like...people are too rich...and that's...y'know...bad and stuff"

You think that the study is moronic because 1. the way it measures wealth doesnt take into account differernig costs of living around the world 2. it treats net worth as equal to wealth. You think it oversimplifies a complex situation for political gain. Am I understanding you?

How would you measure wealth and how would you conduct the study in such a way as that it didnt "for the most part, completely miss the point."?

The average Indian salary is much less, maybe 2000 rupees, or 40 dollars a month
But anyways, I think some of the problem here is caused by inheritance. Say there's a rich person, who has built him empire from the ground up, he marries a beautiful, but stupid, woman, then has a child. The child, nowhere near as smart as his dad, will get all the money and will use it to, well, you know what. Those who get rich on their own mostly do not bribe politicians, only those who have gotten it easily will use it so. I think that only intelligent people should be rich, but since there is not way to measure intelligence, that would be very hard to do

30% of the world's population has more debts than possessions.

voodoo economics = shrug
a study not adequately accounting for voodoo economics which distort statistics = 10 paragraphs why oxfam sucks

To be considered part of the 50% of richest people in the plant, you need to have 3000 euros of active worth. meaning if you own a 2002 toyota corolla and live in it, you're a rich bastard.

"rich bastard" = of precisely average wealth globally
strawman.jpg

Now, again, I'm not saying that there is'nt a problem. The wealth gap is at its highest in...well ever, and some of the problems pointed out there are quite valid. But for the most part, it completely miss the point.

they used a flawed study to demonstrate something that is undeniably true and important. you focused on the flawed study, attacking a charity, defending the super-rich (whether purposefully or not), and making szeweningen feel smug. somebody missed the point.

OMG EVERYBODY A MARKETING DEPARTMENT USED MISELEADING STASTISTISCS!!!"21!"!!"!!!"!121!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bottom line, stop trying to make things simple ! The world ain't simple, life ain't simple, you can't just waltz in and say "huuu yeah...like...people are too rich...and that's...y'know...bad and stuff"

but people are simple. people are fucking idiots. truth isn't important. it's nice that oxfam are the ones tricking them for a change, rather than szeweningen and his autist/psychopath robo-feudalist pals.

not joking about killing the rich btw :)

like, everything you're saying is correct, and it's interesting to read.

but then szew gives you a smug passive-aggressive compliment.

and you have to ask yourself, why are you saying any of it at all?

it makes me sad to see somebody even more naive than me. because that means i'm becoming cynical now.
i'm a nice person. i just want to feast on the blood of the rich and for everybody to be happy forever :(

stop trying to make things simple

politics.jpg