[PaulB]

Bernie Sanders wrote a piece in yesterday's Guardian where he trotted out oft quoted stats (Top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 99%).

Reading those things, I was thinking "'twas ever thus', but thinking further realised that it wasn't. When did it become this? I'm not a historian, but presumably "cavemen" (for want of a better term (hunter gatherers?)) would have been more equal.... When did "territory" give way to property and (land) ownership?

Back to Sanders, he doesn't have many answers (other than working to remove tax havens)... what *is* the solution? We've touched on this before. Why should those at the top be so rich whilst those who work for them rely on state handouts?

I guess we won't resolve this in my lifetime.....

[felixflyer]

The ability to make money, be entrepreneurial etc. and more importantly, hold onto your money and grow it once you have made it is a trait that only certain people possess. Just as some are skilled in sports, some have a mathematical mind or are artistic there are some who just understand money and how to make it work for them.

There are numerous instances of people who do not possess this mindset becoming wealthy through another skill they do have such as sports, the arts or just through luck via lotteries. Without having the above or taking advice from someone who does, the money does not tend to last very long and is spent on liabilities rather than assets.

We are all different and that's what makes the world go round, should all the wealth be suddenly equally distributed we would soon end up with the same people accumulating it and the same people having none within a fairly short time.

[PaulB]

We are all different and that's what makes the world go round, should all the wealth be suddenly equally distributed we would soon end up with the same people accumulating it and the same people having none within a fairly short time.

Don't think anyone is saying equal..... The system seems skewed to benefit those with the most at the expense of those with the least. We (if we are as civilised as we claim to be) need to redress that balance slightly.

[johnm]

It's a very interesting question with a lot of components, as to when it started that was when we stopped being nomad hunter gatherers and became farmers. Acquisition of land and the wealth and power that it generated was spotted by some and exploited quite early on. Egyptian, Roman and other major civilisations were built from that basically.

The big change in recent years, especially here and in the USA, has been the focus on money (or financial instruments more accurately) as a commodity to be traded rather than as mechanism to facilitate trade and investment in useful "stuff" and services. That's what led to 2008 crash and we've learned precisely nothing since.

That has benefitted those actively involved in the commodity aspects much more than those just getting paid for doing the basic stuff or living on subsistence farming.

[/oversimplification]

[Flyingfemme]

Interesting piece and he's right, to a degree. It's not for "the American people" to decide the future of the planet; it's for everyone - but let's not split hairs.
I've also always found the monetary income definition of "poverty" to be somewhat lacking - poverty should be defined in terms of rights and abilities rather than "surviving on x dollars a day". Things cost vastly different amounts in other parts of the world and it is quite possible to live on a lot less dollars than most western city dwellers have at their disposal. Freedom from hunger and physical safety are real requirements.
It's time now for the "people" to decide what sort of a world they want to live in and, unfortunately, it won't work unless and until the whole world agrees and takes part. As long as there is one jurisdiction that won't partake, money will migrate there.
It's also time to properly define "a fair share" of tax.......what most people mean when they say that is that "rich" people or companies (because companies are not people, are they?) should pay all the taxes. That will not work. Everyone who participates in "society" should pay something and the burden should not fall more heavily on those who "have" simply because theydo have. I am coming round to the idea of some sort of universal income because a large proportion of menial jobs will simply not be there soon and we cannot have half the population vegging out on benefits...........but what should they do with their time?
So many questions and the current political system(s) are not going to answer them due to the time required to make such huge changes. I foresee trouble ahead...

[Paul_Sengupta]

It's a very interesting question with a lot of components, as to when it started that was when we stopped being nomad hunter gatherers and became farmers.

I would guess this happened somewhere in the region of between 100,000 and 10,000 years ago.

The big change in recent years, especially here and in the USA, has been the focus on money (or financial instruments more accurately) as a commodity to be traded rather than as mechanism to facilitate trade and investment in useful "stuff" and services. That's what led to 2008 crash and we've learned precisely nothing since.

Not in recent years. It's ever since the stock market and banks were invented and probably before that in whatever financial systems existed back then.

I would suggest that worldwide, the money naturally flows from the rich countries to the poorer countries as goods and services are undercut. Global socialism by capitalism if you will, and I've mentioned it on here a few times before. Look where India and China are now compared with where they were 50 years ago. Though the reasons that they were poor countries 50 years ago could be debated.

[johnm]

Not in recent years. It's ever since the stock market and banks were invented and probably before that in whatever financial systems existed back then.

I did say I'd oversimplified

However it's been a staged process whereby the connection of financial instruments to anything real has become more tenuous. It started with abandonment of the gold standard and moved through the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and is still happening today.

If one moves away from hard standards then regulation is crucial to ensure a fair field. No hard standards and no regulation is a highly risky mix.

I accept also the move of money from rich countries to poor as we have seen with steel, coal and the like. It's not a bad thing of itself, but needs some level of regulation to ensure quality and in most cases that's achieved by supply and demand. Tariffs to restrict trade are usually counter-productive, regulation to drive innovation and quality is a positive approach IMHO.

[JoeC]

The ability to make money, be entrepreneurial etc. and more importantly, hold onto your money and grow it once you have made it is a trait that only certain people possess. Just as some are skilled in sports, some have a mathematical mind or are artistic there are some who just understand money and how to make it work for them.

There are numerous instances of people who do not possess this mindset becoming wealthy through another skill they do have such as sports, the arts or just through luck via lotteries. Without having the above or taking advice from someone who does, the money does not tend to last very long and is spent on liabilities rather than assets.

We are all different and that's what makes the world go round, should all the wealth be suddenly equally distributed we would soon end up with the same people accumulating it and the same people having none within a fairly short time.

^^^this is the problem.

The concept that wealth retention/creation is some sort of genetic right is patently ludicrous. Yet this appeals speciously to people who want to keep those with less than them in their box or give those who feel they have (incorrectly) failed in the money making game a valid excuse for their position in life.

[felixflyer]

The concept that wealth retention/creation is some sort of genetic right is patently ludicrous.

You may think so, I would say the proof is out there and plain to see. There are plenty of people who earn a good income yet are always 1 wage away from financial disaster. There are also those who turn a modest lifetime income into a good retirement. It is a mindset based around how you see money.

Becoming rich is achievable by anyone through various means but the OP was talking about the top 1% and this is something else, (i'm talking about the wealth creator here not those siblings who may inherit it) these people, can be compared to those few who make the grade as pro athletes etc. I do believe they have a different mindset that predisposes them towards massive wealth. Not just getting rich and spending it on luxuries but growing that wealth ever larger.

Some may like to think that we are all equal but we are not, just like not everyone could paint the Mona Lisa or break a 100m record, not everyone could create and keep the huge wealth of the top 1%.

[PaulB]

It's not about being in the top 1% or the top 10% or even the bottom 1%.... it's the magnitude of the absolute difference and the of the spread.

[cockney steve]

Will someone make a stab at why some,- nay,- many of the super-wealthy continue in their wealth-generation, merely to give it away.
Jobs, Ellison, Gates, Buffett are all names that spring to mind.....Barclay Bros. Rausing Bros. ... there are loads more not just a modern phenomenon, in fact, what about the American billionaire philanthropists. Carnegie, Henry Ford, the Rockefellers,Getty.

All fabulously wealthy....Why didn't they pay their staff better?- Some did, the most striking example is the John Lewis Partnership. Lord Leverhulme is another example, built a complete town for his staff! (Port Sunlight ) More recently, John Walton, dressed like a labourer, drove a battered old pickup truck and created Walmart/ Asda. What drove him?

At the other extreme....Viv Nicholson. Won a fortune and frittered the lot.(Football pools) Ditto Michael Carroll Who won, and blew 9.7 million in 10 years. (lottery)
I have never understood the stock-market, As I see it, once the firm has sold it's shares , it makes no difference to the company's operation, whatever the buying and selling gamblers do to the price of their shares
the company's had it's cash!....OTOH, If they(or their directors) have more to sell, then, of course, there's a huge temptation to hype and pump, dump and run.....but they wouldn't do that, would they

[Chris Martyr]

Haven't seen old Bernie on telly very much just lately either .

[ not since Schnorbitz died in fact ]

[PaulB]

There are said to be around 700 million people in the world living on less than $1.90 per day.

Warren Buffett isreported to have had an income of $12billion in 2016.

So, if you were to plot those on a line chart and make $1.90 a day ($693/yr) 1mm high then Warren Buffett's line would be over 17 KILOMETRES high.

Is that level of inequality reasonable in a civilised world?

[cockney steve]

^^^^^^^^ That does remind me of Disney's Donald Duck cartoons, where Uncle Scrooge had a swimming-pool full of gold coins and notes. Loved the cartoons, but all those dollar bills sticking out, were doomed to get wet and soggy and disintegrate, thus destroying a part of his wealth.

Yes, I was a very odd child, nothing much changes.

[felixflyer]

What is the alternative? How could it ever be any other way?

Warren Buffett has donated huge amounts to charities over the years, Bill Gates the same. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are using their wealth to push the boundaries into space and create whole new technologies that will also benefit the poor in terms of power generation.

There will never be equality, those who create jobs, enable growth and revolutionise industries deserve to be rewarded.

When I think about unreasonable wealth distribution then I look more at Africa and the Middle East/Southern Asia rather than the western world.