Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

[Ace Pace]

Beeb

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

There have of course been many studies of worldwide inequality.

But what is new about this report, the authors say, is its coverage.

It deals with all countries in the world - either actual data or estimates based on statistical analysis - and it deals with wealth, where most previous research has looked at income.

What they mean by wealth in this study is what people own, less what they owe - their debts. The assets include land, buildings, animals and financial assets.

Different assets

The analysis shows, as have many other less comprehensive studies, striking divergences in wealth between countries.

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and some countries in the Asia Pacific region, such as Japan and Australia.

These countries account for 90% of household wealth.

The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.

And it uncovers some striking differences in the types of assets that dominate in different countries.

In less developed nations, land and farm assets are more important, reflecting the greater importance of agriculture in those economies.

In addition, the report says the weighting is the result of "immature" financial institutions, which make it much harder for people to have savings accounts or shares.

In contrast, some citizens of the rich countries have more debt than assets - making them, the report says, among the poorest in the world in terms of household wealth.

However, they are presumably better off in terms of what they consume than many people in developing countries.

Comprehensive

The survey is based on data for the year 2000. The authors say a more recent year would have involved more gaps in the data. As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.

is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.

Why does it matter? Because wealth serves as insurance against times when income tends to fall, such as unemployment, sickness or old age.

It is also a source of finance for small businesses, a particularly important point since it is the countries with lower levels of personal wealth which also tend to have weaker financial systems without the funds, ability or inclination to lend to small firms.

The report is not about policy recommendations.

But one of the authors, Professor Anthony Shorrocks, says it does draw attention to the importance of enhancing banking systems in developing countries to help generate the funds for business investment.

[Darth Wong]

This is nothing new. What's more disturbing is the fact that so much of the population does not see it as a problem.

[K. A. Pital]

2% own half of wealth? That's the world average?

Looks little better than Russia's 90's situation where 5% owned 90% of wealth...

Sad. But yes, people do not perceive it as a problem - despite World Bank studies that inequality is a source of deep and massive problems of society, despite studies about the vicious cycle of poverty and poor countries, and that unegalitarian development can cause massive social catastrophies, and in fact is causing them now.

I guess "equality, the fist wish of man" is nowaday reserved only for those who're out of the 2% of the elite.

[Shinova]

I'm sure most people think, "They're rich, I'm not. Don't be ashamed of it," and just accept it and move on. I'm also sure that they're afraid of looking like stingy beggars by complaining that some people have more money than they do, and are afraid of people looking down at them and telling them to work harder if they want money that badly.

It's a distressing reality that people in general seem to have suppressed into the back of their minds for pride's sake.

[weemadando]

I don't find it surprising at all. Thought I did find the other stat surprising.

That the bottom 50% only owned 1%.

One FUCKING percent!

[Big Orange]

Ah, the boundless greed of capitalism.

[Pick]

Pfft. The free market will fix everything.

That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell .

[SWPIGWANG]

hush hush....we are leaning on the top end here......

[LadyTevar]

So.. where does the Civilized World fit into that?

After all, if this is a World Statistic, it means that it's lumping the Lower Middle Class First-World in with the proverty-stricken 'untouchables' of Africa and India, who may only see pennies a year. So the whole statistic is pretty screwed.

[Jack Bauer]

Clearly the 2% will trickle down their wealth to the rest of us lowly peons!

Capitalism works.

[Alyeska]

I'm always amused when people say there is no need for tax law reform in the US even though 10% of the country has control of something like 60% of its wealth while the middle class which is around 45% of the country pays 90% of the taxes. When the super rich have more combined wealth then the middle class and the middle class is paying 9 times more in taxes then the rich, there is a problem.

Greed at work. When you have money you want to keep it. When you have money you spend in ways to ensure you can keep it.

[Stark]

Jesus you haven't heard the hilarious 'don't punish people for being successful' thing? Remember, it's 'successful' to evade tax and force middle-class to take the strain! You might be down to your last hundred million one day.

As an aside, I've been under the impression the wealth distribution situation has been this bad since the 80s. I learnt in primary school that the top 10% controlled two thirds of the wealth.

[Medic]

Clearly the 2% will trickle down their wealth to the rest of us lowly peons!

Capitalism works.

Eventually.

Really, it's only that %2 of people that would champion Social Darwinism nowadays, I certainly don't know any "evolutionists" that do. [and of course, your random misanthropic fucksticks and sociopaths]

If not by their word than their actions.

[K. A. Pital]

As an aside, I've been under the impression the wealth distribution situation has been this bad since the 80s.

Globalization as it is run by, and in the interest of, current powers is leading to this massive inequality.

When the super rich have more combined wealth then the middle class and the middle class is paying 9 times more in taxes then the rich, there is a problem.

The middle class is good at maintaining a status quo in a political system, but it's utterly weak when it comes to introducing serious change. And it also has very little real political power, because those who are in power are mostly either in the super-rich class already, moving into the super-rich class, or _working_ for the super-rich class.

Even if they came out of Middle Class, they represent their interest no longer.

One of the problems of democracy and capitalism combined - business is politics, and politics is business. Get powerful to get rich, get rich to get powerful.

[Uraniun235]

This is nothing new. What's more disturbing is the fact that so much of the population does not see it as a problem.

I'm sure most people think, "They're rich, I'm not. Don't be ashamed of it," and just accept it and move on. I'm also sure that they're afraid of looking like stingy beggars by complaining that some people have more money than they do, and are afraid of people looking down at them and telling them to work harder if they want money that badly.

It's a distressing reality that people in general seem to have suppressed into the back of their minds for pride's sake.

It's been suggested that the reason the United States has experienced so little in the way of class warfare is due to the prevalence of pop culture as a stress relief valve. Even before we had the calming glow of television, we had vaudeville, penny arcades, radio, movies... all various devices which more or less help people forget that there's people who can afford to buy private yachts or whatever the hell it is rich people do.

The only way you're going to stir real discontent is to screw with their entertainment.

Sad. But yes, people do not perceive it as a problem - despite World Bank studies that inequality is a source of deep and massive problems of society, despite studies about the vicious cycle of poverty and poor countries, and that unegalitarian development can cause massive social catastrophies, and in fact is causing them now.

"World Bank? What's that? I think we do our banking at [insert generic bank name]."

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, the boundless greed of capitalism.

Pfft. The free market will fix everything.

Clearly the 2% will trickle down their wealth to the rest of us lowly peons!

Seeing as this is a world statistic, and that the world is not one market (and parts of it are very lawless indeed), these statements are a more than a little simplistic.

As an aside, I've been under the impression the wealth distribution situation has been this bad since the 80s.

Globalization as it is run by, and in the interest of, current powers is leading to this massive inequality.

Oh? Protectionism and corruption in third world countries plays no part?

[Big Orange]

Seeing as this is a world statistic, and that the world is not one market (and parts of it are very lawless indeed), these statements are a more than a little simplistic.

Maybe, but capitalist countries like America, Britain and others control most sections of the world economy as well.

Oh? Protectionism and corruption in third world countries plays no part?

Of course, there's no need to be PC, when there are many people in Third World countries that are oppressive, greedy and exploitative arsesbags themselves.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh? Protectionism and corruption in third world countries plays no part?

Protectionism? Capital flight would've been impossible if there were strong barriers to that. It's the lack of specific "capital protectionism" I would say that is to blame, not the over-protection.

Free movement of capitals with it's notorious tendency to massive transnational, First-World centered concentration inevitably strikes at the least capable, the most weak and vulnerable...

[haard]

Pfft. The free market will fix everything.

That's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell .

There is no global free market. The US and EU subsidise their own industry adn dump the goods abroad, while imposing protectionist fees against goods from the so-called third world.

At the same time, woe to the country in Africa that wants to support their own insdustry usign the same means.

Basically, the industrialized world says "Free market is good for you, so we'll force you to it. Meanwhile, we can be protectionist, since we got the powah of the €$"

[K. A. Pital]

haard

At the same time, woe to the country in Africa that wants to support their own insdustry usign the same means.

Basically, the industrialized world says "Free market is good for you, so we'll force you to it. Meanwhile, we can be protectionist, since we got the powah of the €$"

Generally, this is simply a farther extension of market ways. From a rationalist POV, a market is a system that technically can be applied to the international arena - there are "agents" which are nations, and they compete. Competition is vicious, then some aquire immense wealth and power, and those who're more powerful dictate the rules of the game.

Only one problem - in the market of nations, the "loss" of a competitor is misery or death of nations, and there's no oversight over this market, essentially making it so that the biggest players dictate their will to everyone.

That's why super-powers are bad, "Pax Romana", "Pax Americana" or any other "Pax" is bullshit. Countries work to their own benefit.

[Big Orange]

Pax Soviet?

[K. A. Pital]

Pax Soviet?

It's "Pax Sovietica" And yes, it is bullshit. I put more faith in movements like Non-Aligned movement than in huge conglomerates spreading their influence over the world.
And one more trend - the less "powers", the worse, actually. A "monopolar" world is ripe with potential of major abuse by the sole "super"-player. A bipolar is bad, but not as bad - at least A and B check on each other. A multipolar world where various political forces have roughly equal power or at least can stand in the international community on equal footing is the best.

[Darth Wong]

Seeing as this is a world statistic, and that the world is not one market (and parts of it are very lawless indeed), these statements are a more than a little simplistic.

The underlying point is still valid if you consider only the United States, as most Americans are wont to do. The wealth gap in the United States has grown so much in the last 30 years that virtually all its economic growth has gone exclusively to the wealthy class.

[haard]

haard

At the same time, woe to the country in Africa that wants to support their own insdustry usign the same means.

Basically, the industrialized world says "Free market is good for you, so we'll force you to it. Meanwhile, we can be protectionist, since we got the powah of the €$"

Generally, this is simply a farther extension of market ways. From a rationalist POV, a market is a system that technically can be applied to the international arena - there are "agents" which are nations, and they compete. Competition is vicious, then some aquire immense wealth and power, and those who're more powerful dictate the rules of the game.

Only one problem - in the market of nations, the "loss" of a competitor is misery or death of nations, and there's no oversight over this market, essentially making it so that the biggest players dictate their will to everyone.

That's why super-powers are bad, "Pax Romana", "Pax Americana" or any other "Pax" is bullshit. Countries work to their own benefit.

I know thats the way it is, but I still think that's not how it ought to be. Color me idealistic. While I believe in the concept of free market, I also belive that no control is as bad as too much control - it leads to, well, this shit. Might makes right, anyone?

[K. A. Pital]

I know thats the way it is, but I still think that's not how it ought to be. Color me idealistic.

So what's your solution, I'm sorry? I mean, I'm also "idealistic" and believe in redistribution, etc. but I realize that as long as means of mass production of the most common commodities are limited, the feud will not end, and most powerful agents of capitalism will be getting more and more violent to protect their "locked wealth", I mean the "golden billion".

Ending this vicious cycle would require creating abundance of means of production of goods from the very low start (food, cloth...) in all countries poor and rich. This is only viable with technical progress and frankly has nothing to do with social progress. Without technical progress, nothing better than capitalism will ever emerge. A child of technical progress itself, it will not go, neither can it's effects be negated under the current technical base and the hard resource cap on world resources.

I think with what we have now, redistribution of wealth is a dire necessity, but it has to have the form of direct investment, always, thus avoiding the speculative markets, avoid monetary form which can "flee" as mobile capital, etc. - for example, a "grant" or "donation" to the Third World should only be in the form of hard machines, industrial power, etc. and it should be forbidden to sell them. Giving them monetary capitals _does not solve ANYTHING_. These capitals simply concentrate in the super-wealthy hands, "flee" from the country and operate in speculative markets.

Capital should be concentrated heavily in the 3rd world, and in physical non-monetary forms so that they cannot be moved away... And since capital is a capped resource, it's re-distribution to the 3W will mean massive losses for the First World. Which the hegemonic countries will not tolerate, and neither will it be tolerated by populations used to having lots of capital to work on... and high costs of labour...