The Credit Suisse global wealth report (pdf), is out and it has some surprising findings on the world wealth distribution. The report says that the richest 1% of the world’s population is not only getting wealthier but owns more than 48% of global wealth. The bottom half of the world population owns less than one percent of the world’s wealth.
The report also found that a person needs just $3,650 – including the value of equity in their home – to be among the wealthiest half of world citizens. The amount however goes up dramatically from that point. In order to be considered in the top ten percent, you need more than $77,000 and to be in the top one percent you need $798,000.
The world wealth itself is at an all-time high — twice that of the year 2000, or $263tn.
The China, the communist People’s Paradise, has the fourth largest number of people in the top ten percent. First place is still held by the United States followed by Japan. After China, there is France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
66 thoughts on “Wealth Gap: Just $3,650 Puts A Person In Top Half of Wealth In The World”
if you have the chance to grow up
Or worse….grow up black in Ferguson.
That’s a point, doc.
Hate the rich again! This whole report seems weird. How do you count people in strange places with nothing? If you work hard and have the things you need (and some you don’t, but want), access to good food, health, libraries, etc., what more do you need? If you’re happy with your quality of life why be angry at the Koch Brothers? When you go to museums and symphonies, etc., look at their donor wall. There are people with wealth giving it away to hospitals, schools, research, so many things. Appreciate them for their generosity. I don’t care about being rich, but I’m sure glad I didn’t grow up in Ferguson.
My mother once said, “The poor in America aren’t what they used to be, and that goes for a lot of countries too.” She was right. When she came to the USA, she lived in a mining camp in a one room shack with dirt floors, only one stove to heat and cook on. But her father and mother saved every penny they could and bought a two story brick home. They felt very rich, though they were far from it. They were grateful for America and for capitalism.
Today, most poor live in apartments and homes with all the utilities, food, welfare help, a car, and more. Fewer and fewer of our poor are homeless–quite different then the good old days.
When I look back on this country and those who helped build it, I can’t be bitter because that they were richer than most–and often corrupt. No, I have to be thankful for all those middle and lower class people who where given jobs so they could provide a comfortable home for their families. A few that I thank are Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, Durant, Vanderbuilt, Ford, Astor, Giannini for their contributions to our country–imperfect people in an imperfect world.
Join the club
I’m not sure I understand your point.
As long as there is free will, there will be evil. Wishing it away will not cause it to not exist.
That is the fundamental dogma of authoritarians.
No free will = no evil.
In is fundamentally wrong because it does not comprehend either “free” or “will.”
Or that it is the evil it seeks to avoid.
I understand your skepticism. My ideas and ideals may seem unrealistic when only compared to current beliefs regarding war. I’m trying to look beyond that.
No one would have to enforce the behavior because it is the belief that the behavior is the right thing to do that would create the behavior. The same as the belief that war is desirable or unavoidable or necessary causes or allows wars to exist now. The trick would be finding the element(s) of the belief that would get people to adopt it in the first place. I’m asking the questions I am to get a few individuals to start questioning the validity of the current behavior over the long run. It may take a while, but if it is ever going to happen, it has to start sometime. Why not now? The current system of politics and religion hasn’t produced worldwide peace in over 2000 years, but that doesn’t mean that something else couldn’t be more successful in a shorter time if the right concept can be formulated to convince enough people to believe in it. That’s as logical as the current systems are, and perhaps more so eventually.
Tyger Gilbert – “LOL. Yes, Paul, sad but true. But if someone didn’t start a war, and others didn’t allow it, and still others didn’t march off and fight it, no one would have to choose to run from it or stay and die because of it. Wars ARE a natural trait of human behavior, but human intelligence does have the ability of override it.”
Tyger, Who would enforce this new behavior? What methods would be used to enforce it? Would we go to war to stop others from going to war? I am not an advocate for war, but I believe evil exists and when confronted with evil, you must defend yourself and others from it. As long as there is free will, there will be evil. Wishing it away will not cause it to not exist.
I’ve written it before on this site. The proposal in Lennon’s song “Imagine” sounds like an awfully boring existence.
Paul, just because everybody does it, and always has done it, doesn’t make it right. Someday, someone will find a way to stop it. Why not us, now? We can at least seriously explore the idea, don’t you think? Why just accept it? A reasonable concept started now might spread and eventually make a meaningful difference.
Tyger Gilbert – we have tried to be isolationist and it did us no good. We just kicked the can down the road.
By “we”, I assume you mean the United States, and I assume by “tried to be isolationist”, you are referring to the US trying to stay out of WWII by only providing arms and supplies to the Allies until the US itself got bombed by the Japanese. Sending troops around the world today and becoming involved with every conflict that exists isn’t doing the US any good either, except to make its war industry wealthy while exhausting its natural and economic resources. But again, that’s irrelevant to my questions. I’m talking about an idea or philosophy that applies to all nations and all peoples, and which makes enough sense that it begins to convince individuals everywhere that war is not the answer to conflict and aggression. A concept that will spread until more people than not refuse to support war and won’t let their governments go there. I think it doesn’t hurt to try to discuss the possibilities and try to formulate something, but I suspect it probably will take the actual, potential destruction of humanity, or a live credible attempt at it, before enough people will begin to consider the abolition of war possible.
Tyger Gilbert – you cannot have a philosophy that fits all countries because that is just silly beyond measure. For example, are you in a relationship with a significant other? If so, you should know that the only person you can change is yourself. Let’s move that some idea to the world stage. We can move ourselves, but we cannot control our allies.
BTW, by isolationism I was talking about the period prior to Lend-Lease and the Flying Tigers.
As the world’s single super-power I think we have a military obligation to settle some of the petty squabble between local bullies in various areas. Sadly, the current CinC has chipped away at that status and doesn’t know what to do with that power.
LOL. Yes, Paul, sad but true. But if someone didn’t start a war, and others didn’t allow it, and still others didn’t march off and fight it, no one would have to choose to run from it or stay and die because of it. Wars ARE a natural trait of human behavior, but human intelligence does have the ability of override it.
Tyger Gilbert – in the history of mankind or personkind it is thought that the total amount of time that someone somewhere has not been at war totals a couple of weeks. Remember warfare comes in several models. There is not just weaponized warfare, but economic warfare as well. Even during the Cold War we were having proxy wars with surrogates to test our weapons and keep our military sharp. So were the Russians and Chinese.
Paul, my point is that many people belief that wars are desirable, or at least a necessary evil, and this has been true throughout the ages. Wars have been started for a lot of different reasons, but if people didn’t feel that war is an acceptable way to resolve the issues involved, they wouldn’t allow their governments to wage wars. The concept is antiquated and uncivilized, and needs to be eliminated in the modern societies of the world today. Humanity must find a way to control its violent nature, to instill a philosophy or belief system that requires peaceful and constructive solutions to disputes and other problems. Governments and religions have professed to be the answer, but they have yet to accomplish this.
DBQ, you are probably right about rinse and repeat, in a potentially big way.
Tyger Gilbert – I would posit that wars are as natural to humanity as breathing. I do not find them desirable, but I do not run from them if necessary. Do you know what you call a country that has given peace a chance? Conquered.
Comments are closed.