85 wealthiest people richer than half of the worlds population - what are the consequences?

[sandandfoam]

It has been reported that the worlds 85 wealthiest people are richer than half of the worlds population combined - what are the consequences, if any, of this inequality?

source Davos warning: World's 85 richest people have as much as half the rest of us - Independent.ie

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Societal collapse, of course.

 

[freethinker44]

The consequeces? Well, if history is any indicator, they'll get their heads chopped off during a violent uprising.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The consequeces? Well, if history is any indicator, they'll get their heads chopped off during a violent uprising.

I was trying to be nice with my reply, but that's what will happen. There will be violent revolutions and public executions. To be honest, it's not such a bad idea. Sad that it will probably have to come to that, though. I wonder when we'll learn our lesson.

 

[George-ananda]

I guess I need convincing by the negative types here.

These people's wealth are invested in things that create jobs and stimulate economies and advance the human race.

They support humanitarian and charitable things to an extent beyond the imagination of the average person.

If Bill Gates had never existed would the world be better off? Are you calling for his head to be violently removed?

Did communism improve humanity's lot?

 

[Sunstone]

One consequence is an immense concentration of political power in the hands of 85 people.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I need convincing by the negative types here.

These people's wealth are invested in things that create jobs and stimulate economies and advance the human race.

To some extent that is true. The argument is basically that it would be true to a further and safer extent - perhaps a greatly significant extent - were that money not so concentrated in so few hands.

It is certainly true that a less unequal distribution of wealth creates a lot more demand in several significant fields, and makes it less vulnerable to the lack of wisdom of a few.

They support humanitarian and charitable things to an extent beyond the imagination of the average person.

And quite often they make that charity that much more needed in the first place.

If Bill Gates had never existed would the world be better off? Are you calling for his head to be violently removed?

I personally like Bill Gates, among other reasons because he is considerably less alienated than the typical billionaire.

But it is not a matter of what we want, but rather of what is bound to happen.

Too big a social gulf will collapse into itself, if for no other reason because it makes effective communication to ease misgivings from both sides increasingly difficult. At some point - a point that in my opinion is now impossible to avoid reaching - the resentments and lack of trust will simply have to be expressed in some way, and it will not be pretty.

Did communism improve humanity's lot?

No. But we are hardly defending anything similar to communism in any way.

 

[George-ananda]

One consequence is an immense concentration of political power in the hands of 85 people.

I'm not so sure of this either. What does this immense concentration of political power look like in a democratic nation? Do they own Obama for example??

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess I need convincing by the negative types here.

These people's wealth are invested in things that create jobs and stimulate economies and advance the human race.

They support humanitarian and charitable things to an extent beyond the imagination of the average person.

If Bill Gates had never existed would the world be better off? Are you calling for his head to be violently removed?

Really? You cannot see the huge problem with concentrating half of the world's wealth in the hands of only 85 people?!

Your points would be valid if those people were using most of their fortune for those ends, but they're not. They're hoarding it! What they do give to charity is veritable pocket lint and does nothing in the long run to improve the station of the world's poor (which is the majority of humanity - 80% of the world's population live on less than a $1 day according to the World Bank). Plus, I don't see them throwing vast sums of their wealth behind causes to provide a living wage for their workers, or pushing for progressive socio-political change to eradicate poverty. Charity is the equivalent to putting a band-aid on an amputated limb. We don't need anymore charities. We need drastic social change that provides the greatest number of people with the power of self-determination. Since self-determination is largely predicated on how many money you have in the current global system, the vast majority of humans are completely lacking in it and live as paupers in the worst living conditions.

Bill Gates is just another greedy rich ******* who heads a gigantic transnational corporation that is only concerned with sucking up giant sums of money and ripping people off (I hate Microsoft and Apple). I don't care what PR stunts he chooses to throw some pocket lint at to make it seem like he truly cares.

Did communism improve humanity's lot?

True communism has never existed outside of certain communes, religious communities and tribal societies. When Marxists have come to power, they've either become tyrants, proceeded to terrorize the people and commit extreme atrocities or, when they are democratically elected and actually take steps to help the citizens of their country, they are killed in Western-backed operations to remove them and replace them with capitalist lackeys who will keep the status quo of raping their countries alive. (Notice how the Marxists who betray their cause and turn into tyrants are never taken out in covert operations and are allowed to go on? Very fishy.)

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not so sure of this either. What does this immense concentration of political power look like in a democratic nation? Do they own Obama for example??

An in depth knowledge of politics has not exactly been your life long pursuit, has it, George?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not so sure of this either. What does this immense concentration of political power look like in a democratic nation?

That it is that much easier to manipulate public perception, since the media is basically owned by them.

Do they own Obama for example??

They don't need to.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It has been reported that the worlds 85 wealthiest people are richer than half of the worlds population combined - what are the consequences, if any, of this inequality?

source Davos warning: World's 85 richest people have as much as half the rest of us - Independent.ie

If this is true, those folks will find themselves in control of and responsible for more things and more people than they'd considered. I agree that when the poop hits the fan and we witness collapse, people will want blood, and the wealthiest will be the first target.

I doubt any revolt will result in public beheadings, though. It's not the sexiest way of disposing of kings nowadays. I'd gather the public will want to place the wealthiest in the most horrific prisons with cameras on them 24/7 while they are tortured and raped repeatedly by other prisoners and guards.

 

[Sunstone]

They don't need to.

Wall Street led contributions from all other sources in both of Obama's presidential campaigns. Of course, they were just giving to give, and never expected to actually buy a president. I mean who would think that?

 

[Revoltingest]

If this is true, those folks will find themselves in control of and responsible for more things and more people than they'd considered. I agree that when the poop hits the fan and we witness collapse, people will want blood, and the wealthiest will be the first target.
I doubt any revolt will result in public beheadings, though. It's not the sexiest way of disposing of kings nowadays. I'd gather the public will want to place the wealthiest in the most horrific prisons with cameras on them 24/7 while they are tortured and raped repeatedly by other prisoners and guards.

I expect that when the revolution comes, the wealthy will do very well.
The public? They'll turn on each other, with the slightly wealthy suffering most.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I expect that when the revolution comes, the wealthy will do very well.
The public? They'll turn on each other, with the slightly wealthy suffering most.

You think so? I'm thinking of history repeating itself. Too many kings and queens whose heads had been lopped off to consider that the cycle will find a new pattern.

 

[Revoltingest]

You think so? I'm thinking of history repeating itself. Too many kings and queens whose heads had been lopped off to consider that the cycle will find a new pattern.

They were vulnerable cuz they were leaders & very prominent lightning rods for wrath.
But the uber-wealthy are more mobile & anonymous. If any of them get it in the neck, a Donald Trump type would.

 

[Quintessence]

To be honest, I don't really understand how they come up with these numbers. Measuring "wealth" has always struck me as a nebulously abstract enterprise. In my mind, a farmer who owns enough acreage that s/he could hypothetically subsist off the land with their family is more wealthy than these bozos.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm not sure there are any consequences. I think people are generally happy with the inequity because they believe it is good for them.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

They were vulnerable cuz they were leaders & very prominent lightning rods for wrath.
But the uber-wealthy are more mobile & anonymous. If any of them get it in the neck, a Donald Trump type would.

I dunno. Trump probably would be right alongside the Koch brothers, the Mars family, Michael Dell, Bloomberg, and the entire Walton family. Warren Buffett might get away along with Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Karl Albrecht.

Depending on the cringe factor by and large, I guess.

 

[Northern Lights]

One consequence is an immense concentration of political power in the hands of 85 people.

Yes, brilliant observation. This is the real 'danger'.

........That capitalism, in it's distorted/corrupted form that we currently have, places political power in the hands of the rich.

Is a pure capitalist model, that would not (necessarily) happen.

There is some truth in George-Ananda's comment, but it's also wildly naive and western-centric. Do you think the money of these billionaires and oligarchs are working wonders in Africa? ... in rural India? ..... even the run down, depressed suburbs of Northern England where 500 people apply for a single part time job on the checkouts in a supermarket?

The system will collapse ... no doubt. History proves it. Corrupted free market systems are why we HAD communism (for a while) in the first place.

The only question is, when the tipping point will come, and what it will look like.