• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Eight richest men own as much as 3.6 billion poor"

Goshin

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,457
Reaction score
53,140
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Interesting shame-a-thon article about how the world's 8 richest men own "half the wealth" of the world, though actually it is the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion in the world. Now the first article was in my news-feed and contains the following line...
Picked from Forbes' billionaires list, they include Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.
Click to expand...

... but doesn't name the other five wealthy men. I thought this was odd so I did some searching, and found the second article which names them all, and interestingly enough those other names include...
The eight individuals named in the report are Gates, Inditex founder Amancio Ortega, veteran investor Warren Buffett, Mexico's Carlos Slim, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle's Larry Ellison and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

One wonders at the omission of Buffett and Bloomberg in the first, front-page article....


https://www.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-wealth-oxfam-001214017.html


http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/
 
Those people also have very little cash. An overwhelming amount of their wealth is stake in companies that are very rich. And yes, I'm sure that gives them access to vast sums of cash, but the whole concept of "8 richest men" is designed to paint a mental image of these old white dudes literally swimming in their money vaults like Scrooge McDuck.

They built wealth that did not exist in the world before they built it, and almost all of it is in their companies.
 
Goshin said:
Interesting shame-a-thon article about how the world's 8 richest men own "half the wealth" of the world, though actually it is the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion in the world. Now the first article was in my news-feed and contains the following line...


... but doesn't name the other five wealthy men. I thought this was odd so I did some searching, and found the second article which names them all, and interestingly enough those other names include...


One wonders at the omission of Buffett and Bloomberg in the first, front-page article....


https://www.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-wealth-oxfam-001214017.html


http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/
Click to expand...

I wonder if they got paid... :lol:
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Those people also have very little cash. An overwhelming amount of their wealth is stake in companies that are very rich. And yes, I'm sure that gives them access to vast sums of cash, but the whole concept of "8 richest men" is designed to paint a mental image of these old white dudes literally swimming in their money vaults like Scrooge McDuck.

They built wealth that did not exist in the world before they built it, and almost all of it is in their companies.
Click to expand...
The rhetoric will always be about how 'unfair' it is that the wealthy are wealthy. The weak minded will whine about how unfair it is. Ultimately the rhetoric will lead to how they got their wealth by stealing the pennies of the poor. Some foolish souls will bleat on a few times about a 'revolution' (usually those that will make such ridiculous statements are in college on another persons dime).
 
Fortunately they didn't go to #9 or we might have seen my name on that list ;)
 
It is bad that eight individuals have half the world's wealth.

Edit: I cast no judgement on the drive or those men, or their productivity and success. I'm wealth and success driven as well.

However looking at it from the perspective of the continued success and long-term survival of the human species - We need our wealth to be invested in the correct places.

A million individuals, who if they suddenly did have to worry about health, shelter and nutrition, and therefore were enabled to pursue education, careers and self-development ... It is a million times more valuable to us as a species than a single individual with billions of dollars to his/her name.
 
Last edited:
Good thing that the total value of the holding of government doesn't get counted as wealth. Another manufactured outrage story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Those people also have very little cash. An overwhelming amount of their wealth is stake in companies that are very rich. And yes, I'm sure that gives them access to vast sums of cash, but the whole concept of "8 richest men" is designed to paint a mental image of these old white dudes literally swimming in their money vaults like Scrooge McDuck.

They built wealth that did not exist in the world before they built it, and almost all of it is in their companies.
Click to expand...

Claiming these individuals have "very little cash" relative to the total amount of wealth they control is disingenuous sophistry. :roll:

If 8 people control 50% of the world's wealth, then "very little cash" actually amounts to each having a hell of a lot more money "in hand" than anyone else has.

VanceMack said:
The rhetoric will always be about how 'unfair' it is that the wealthy are wealthy. The weak minded will whine about how unfair it is. Ultimately the rhetoric will lead to how they got their wealth by stealing the pennies of the poor. Some foolish souls will bleat on a few times about a 'revolution' (usually those that will make such ridiculous statements are in college on another persons dime).
Click to expand...

It isn't an issue of unfairness based on their skills, abilities, and sometimes luck that allowed them to accumulate this wealth. :no:

No, it is both their example which encourages other members of the elite toward rapacious rather than enlightened capitalism to abound, and the fact that they (with one or two exceptions in Gates and Buffet) are not acting to invest in business methodologies allowing more people to earn a share of the pie. Even Gate's and Buffet's charities are merely typical examples of remorse in old age some of the worst robber barons (J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie come to mind) exhibited in their twilight years.

Nice, but like giving a man a fish rather than teaching him how to fish. :shrug:

AliHajiSheik said:
Good thing that the total value of the holding of government doesn't get counted as wealth. Another manufactured outrage story.
Click to expand...

Red Herring. Government "wealth" is held in trust for the governed, not actually "owned" by the government. (Unless the government is an absolute Monarchy or the like). :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Really your biggest objection to this is the "media bias"? Still way too much for a few while way too many suffer, whether it's half the wealth literally or as much wealth as half the planet
 
One needs the other to buy their fortunes for their wealth to be what it is stated as being. Bill Gates' wealth, for instance, can swing by billions in any given week.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Claiming these individuals have "very little cash" relative to the total amount of wealth they control is disingenuous sophistry. :roll:

If 8 people control 50% of the world's wealth, then "very little cash" actually amounts to each having a hell of a lot more money "in hand" than anyone else has.



It isn't an issue of unfairness based on their skills, abilities, and sometimes luck that allowed them to accumulate this wealth. :no:

No, it is both their example which encourages other members of the elite toward rapacious rather than enlightened capitalism to abound, and the fact that they (with one or two exceptions in Gates and Buffet) are not acting to invest in business methodologies allowing more people to earn a share of the pie. Even Gate's and Buffet's charities are merely typical examples of remorse in old age some of the worst robber barons (J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie come to mind) exhibited in their twilight years.

Nice, but like giving a man a fish rather than teaching him how to fish. :shrug:



Red Herring. Government "wealth" is held in trust for the governed, not actually "owned" by the government. (Unless the government is an absolute Monarchy or the like). :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

It most definitely is not a red herring since I did not make the assertion you think I made. Perhaps you read it the way you wanted to read it, not the way I wrote it.

This is a very narrow comparison based on estimates. These 8 people vs how many people are estimated to have comparable wealth and the number is supposedly 3.6 billion. I'd be more interested in how much wealth do these 8 individuals have compared to the total wealth in the world. The people who worry about the size of the pie and how it is being slices never look at the total size and usually discount the idea that the pie grows.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
And, this isn't proof we live in a Plutocracy?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. These 8 individuals do not rule or control society. As a percentage of wealth in the US, they are collectively not even .5% of the whole.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Claiming these individuals have "very little cash" relative to the total amount of wealth they control is disingenuous sophistry.
Click to expand...

But it's not money in the sense of cash. The value of the "hoard", if thought of it like one, can evaporate in a flash. In fact, the act of cashing out can itself plummet the value of the stock it is based on.

Again, the idea that these rich people are swimming in their money vaults is the disingenuous notion.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
No it isn't. These 8 individuals do not rule or control society. As a percentage of wealth in the US, they are collectively not even .5% of the whole.
Click to expand...

Yes they surely due. They set up think tanks, spend money to influence state government and spend massive amounts of money for public relation campaigns.
 
Goshin said:
Interesting shame-a-thon article about how the world's 8 richest men own "half the wealth" of the world, though actually it is the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion in the world. Now the first article was in my news-feed and contains the following line...


... but doesn't name the other five wealthy men. I thought this was odd so I did some searching, and found the second article which names them all, and interestingly enough those other names include...


One wonders at the omission of Buffett and Bloomberg in the first, front-page article....


https://www.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-wealth-oxfam-001214017.html


http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/
Click to expand...

Bias? Cos Zuckerberg and Bezos are such hardcore conservatives? :roll:
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes they surely due. They set up think tanks, spend money to influence state government and spend massive amounts of money for public relation campaigns.
Click to expand...

If they were oligarchs, they wouldn't need to influence anyone, they would already have the power.

Please list a think tank associated with any of these 8 people. Please provide an example of a public relations campaign any of them funded, let alone what you define as "massive amounts of money".
 
Goshin said:
Interesting shame-a-thon article about how the world's 8 richest men own "half the wealth" of the world, though actually it is the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion in the world. Now the first article was in my news-feed and contains the following line...


... but doesn't name the other five wealthy men. I thought this was odd so I did some searching, and found the second article which names them all, and interestingly enough those other names include...


One wonders at the omission of Buffett and Bloomberg in the first, front-page article....


https://www.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-wealth-oxfam-001214017.html


http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/
Click to expand...

Interesting. I can tell you from the horse's mouth, that Larry Ellison is an animal and encourages his corporate people to terrorize employees. As for others, I think that your point is that of those named, they all seem to be of a liberal political lean. I would argue, that it's not so much who holds the wealth, but what they do with it. And, as far as I know, none of those named are on the bastion of abusive and almost criminal behavior.

Interesting too that Oprah Windbag is not on that list...
 
Goshin said:
Interesting shame-a-thon article about how the world's 8 richest men own "half the wealth" of the world, though actually it is the same wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion in the world. Now the first article was in my news-feed and contains the following line...


... but doesn't name the other five wealthy men. I thought this was odd so I did some searching, and found the second article which names them all, and interestingly enough those other names include...


One wonders at the omission of Buffett and Bloomberg in the first, front-page article....


https://www.yahoo.com/news/eight-men-own-half-worlds-wealth-oxfam-001214017.html


http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/world-richest-men-income-equality/
Click to expand...

They left out Putin who is 2.5 times richer than Bill Gates...There is no doubt that Trump has not missed this though.

Although Putin's exact wealth is unclear, hedge fund manager Bill Browder previously estimated it at $200 billion during an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

(As a reference point, that would make Putin 2.5 times as rich as Bill Gates, who is considerd to be the world's richest man.)

"After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on — all that money is in property, Swiss bank accounts, shares, [and] hedge funds managed for Putin and his cronies."

The "first eight or 10 years about reign over Russia was about stealing as much money that he could," Browder added.

Pugachev said Putin's immense wealth is not an accident.
Click to expand...
Former Kremlin banker: Putin 'is the richest person in the world until he leaves power' - Business Insider
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If they were oligarchs, they wouldn't need to influence anyone, they would already have the power.

Please list a think tank associated with any of these 8 people. Please provide an example of a public relations campaign any of them funded, let alone what you define as "massive amounts of money".
Click to expand...

AliHajiSheik said:
If they were oligarchs, they wouldn't need to influence anyone, they would already have the power.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Please list a think tank associated with any of these 8 people. Please provide an example of a public relations campaign any of them funded, let alone what you define as "massive amounts of money".
Click to expand...

Let's start with Bill Gates and the Melinda Foundation. From their own website; Partners Pledge $30 Million to Strengthen African Think Tanks to Inform Development Policy - Bill & Melinda Gates - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

They along with Bloomberg have a large hand in corporate reforms toward public education. Public Education: Who Are the Corporate Reformers? | BillMoyers.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html
 
It's important because people who own this much money (whether liquid or assets) have major influence in economies and government policies. There's nothing wrong with accumulating wealth, I just think there should be legal limits on how people with money are allowed to toss it around. For instance, in the U.S. we have the Constitution which limits what the government can do, but we don't have many limits on how corporations can tinker with government. The founding fathers did not envision how insanely large and powerful businesses were going to get on a global scale.

At this point big businesses have potential power to usurp entire countries, with the help of the banks.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
But it's not money in the sense of cash. The value of the "hoard", if thought of it like one, can evaporate in a flash. In fact, the act of cashing out can itself plummet the value of the stock it is based on.

Again, the idea that these rich people are swimming in their money vaults is the disingenuous notion.
Click to expand...

You think they could not take a dip in their cash if they wanted too? Why would they though? What do you mean by disingenuous ?
 
Northern Light said:
It's important because people who own this much money (whether liquid or assets) have major influence in economies and government policies. There's nothing wrong with accumulating wealth, I just think there should be legal limits on how people with money are allowed to toss it around. For instance, in the U.S. we have the Constitution which limits what the government can do, but we don't have many limits on how corporations can tinker with government. The founding fathers did not envision how insanely large and powerful businesses were going to get on a global scale.

At this point big businesses have potential power to usurp entire countries, with the help of the banks.
Click to expand...

And what is stopping the government itself from tinkering with us? The Fourth Amendment exists, yet so does the PATRIOT Act and all of the NSA privacy infringements. Congress used to be required to go to war, but now the Executive can simply decide a war is a non-war and go anyway. "No money in politics" covers a ****-ton of really good laws and rules that the government has figured out ways around, which is what you are really complaining about when talking about how influence can hop from the private sector to the public.

Is the answer, at this point, more government?
 
When you see articles like these or statements that are similar the implication - i.e "the world's wealth" the implication is that wealth is something the world owns and that some people are hoarding it unfairly. Nice try, collectivists. Wealth isn't a collective asset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom