The Richest 85 People in the World Have as Much Wealth As the Poorest 3.5bn--This won't end well
Candidates for 2016 are going to have to deal with this down the road and we need to hold their "feet to the fire" over how they are going to address this in the coming election...
to "Bill USA: who posted this in "DU Econmics Group:"
----------
IMF Director bemoans Worldwide slow growth, offers suggestions, ignores biggest reason 4 slow growth
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/04/09/imf-largarde-lift-growth-speech/25512675/
The head of the International Monetary Fund said Thursday that global growth remains "moderate and uneven" and that's "just not good enough" to erase the scars of the Great Recession.
IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, speaking ahead of next week's IMF-World Bank spring meetings in Washington, D.C., proposed steps governments can take to reduce debt, reform product and labor markets, and promote more cooperation among countries.
Lagarde's speech comes two days after World Bank President Jim Yong Kim told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that slow global economic growth threatened the World Bank's goal of nearly wiping out extreme world poverty by 2030.
Bettering the world economy will be discussed more at next week's IMF-World Bank meetings that will be attended by central bank governors and finance ministers from 188 countries.
-----------------
The richest 85 people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5bn. That should be a wake-up call to the deepest sleepers
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
The richest 85 people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion or half the world's entire population put together. This is the stark headline of a report from Oxfam ahead of the World Economic Forum at Davos. Is there a reason why the world's powerful, gathering at the exclusive resort to sip cognac and eat blinis, should care? Well, yes.
If one subscribes to the charitable view that neoliberal philosophy was simply naive or misguided in thinking that "trickle down" would work infinitely, then evidence that it doesn't, should be cause for concern. It is a fundamental building block of supply-side economic theory the tool of choice these past few decades for those in charge to make adjustments. The realisation that governments have been pulling at economic levers which, for some time, have been attached to nothing, should be a wake-up call to the deepest sleepers.
Even if one subscribes to the cynical view that the elite knew what they were doing all along, observing that the "rising tide" is lifting fewer and fewer boats and leaving more and more to rot in the sediment both at a personal and national level must make most wonder "am I in the right boat and is it big enough?" Concentration is rampant. Credit Suisse estimates that the world will have 11 trillionaires within two generations.
It is not so much that the supply-side principle "if you build it, they will come" is no longer true. It is more that we appear to have passed a tipping point, where so much wealth has been concentrated at the top, they no longer need bother to "build" anything. In short, it has become more economically efficient to buy countries' economic policy than to create value in order to sell it on. If one can control government to favour the richest, while raising barriers for new entrants, thus increasing their share of the pie exponentially, what is the incentive to grow the pie?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)This is just so wrong.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the rich. The IMF and the World Bank are the ones who have been pushing the supply side policies for decades now. Country after country failed and these banksters did not learn any lessons.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)more like heartless blood suckers. These are the financial vampires of our days.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)give to each person in that one half of humanity (assume 6 Billion folks in this mess with us). (Using 3.5 billion, it would be even less -- $544).
And that makes a big assumption, the paper assets those 80 billionaires own, don't drop like a rock.
Point is, simply taking from the rich ain't gonna get us where we want to be. On the other hand, not taking/taxing a fair share, makes the effort even harder.
On the other hand, not taking/taxing a fair share, makes the effort even harder.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I put it in a spreadsheet.. Took less than 5 minutes.. If you find an error, please post it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Defending trickle down?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)No change on the horizon
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]