The Rich Get Richer: 1% of the Population Controls a Third of the World's Wealth

[Tender Branson]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The numbers of millionaire households globally grew by 14 percent in 2006 from 2005 and now control a third of the estimated $100 trillion in wealth, a new study by Boston Consulting Group released on Tuesday found.

These 9.6 million families, comprising 0.7 percent of world's households, now control some $33.2 trillion, the BCG study found. About half are located in the United States and Canada, a quarter in Europe and a fifth in the Asia-Pacific region, it said.

The study is the latest to quantify a continued widening of the global gap between rich and poor, with the rich getting richer by saving and investing more.

The study, seventh in a series, found that assets held by non-wealthy households - defined as those with less than $100,000 in financial assets - declined slightly from 2001 to 2006. But assets held by households with more than $100,000 climbed from $51.4 trillion to $84.5 trillion during the same period.

"Assets under management was further concentrated among the wealthiest households, with the richest 0.1 percent - those with more than $5 million in assets under management - owning 17.5 percent of global wealth," the survey said.

Story continues ...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=3680863

[Speed of Sound]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

[Gabu]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

The problem is that a lot of people see absolutely nothing wrong with this and feel that it's simply the case that the other 99% need to try harder.

[2952-0-0]

The irony here is that no matter how much middle-class Americans complain about the rich getting richer, they're still in the top 5% globally.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The irony here is that no matter how much middle-class Americans complain about the rich getting richer, they're still in the top 5% globally.

And the real irony about it all, is that no matter how much middle-class Canadians complain about the rich getting richer, the world still says "OMG!  Are you American?"

[opebo]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

The problem is that a lot of people see absolutely nothing wrong with this and feel that it's simply the case that the other 99% need to try harder.

What nearly everyone fails to understand is that these owners get everything they 'own', or putting it in another way their social position, directly from the State. 

[Gustaf]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

The problem is that a lot of people see absolutely nothing wrong with this and feel that it's simply the case that the other 99% need to try harder.

I would say that there are other problems. For instance, I'd like to know what your solution to this problem is. Total redistribution? Equal outcomes for everyone?

Also, I strongly dislike the posing of looking at the top percentage instead of looking at actual people.

[opebo]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

The problem is that a lot of people see absolutely nothing wrong with this and feel that it's simply the case that the other 99% need to try harder.

I would say that there are other problems. For instance, I'd like to know what your solution to this problem is. Total redistribution? Equal outcomes for everyone?

Outcomes are already predetermined by power-relationships, Gustaf.  Horatio-Alger is propaganda.

Keep in mind that RE distribution is merely the State changing the way it distributes things in the first place.  Currently it distributes all that it practically can to the top 1%.  Why?  Because they have the power.

[Gabu]

I would say that there are other problems. For instance, I'd like to know what your solution to this problem is. Total redistribution? Equal outcomes for everyone?

Yes, because obviously there is nothing in between doing nothing and full-blown communism.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

Socialism doesn't work SoS. All socialist governance does is enrichen a nomenklatura class at the expense of the rest of society.

[Storebought]

They fail to mention that the number of people living on less than $1 a day (or its equivalent) has fallen too.

And even among those who live on $1 a day, they still have the power to make their own economic choices, but, usually, to their own detriment -- poor people are poor because (1) they mismanage money (2) they tend to make poor life decisions consistently

I know I will get flamed for this, so I might as well state that I've drawn these conclusions from The Economist

[Speed of Sound]

And I still get shoved in the corner and ignored when I talk politics...people are way too content complaining about problems...

Socialism doesn't work SoS. All socialist governance does is enrichen a nomenklatura class at the expense of the rest of society.

No one else seems to have a good idea, and capitalism seems to be doing one hell of a job at solving the problem. Give actual socialism a shot, and we'll see what happens. (SOCIALISM, not USSR mix of bullsh**t, or Chinese "Communism" AKA capitalism)

Look at Sweden, run by socialists. Theyre doing horribly with thier 18th overall GDP per capita, 4th overall Human Development Index ranking, its on track plan to be the first oil free country, and its 25 on the Gini economical equality scale (0 being perfect equality, 100 being perfect inequality)

[2952-0-0]

You should probably mention that the same Sweden is also looking at contracting out public services to the private sector and deregulating the economy to let more big business grow.

[Speed of Sound]

You should probably mention that the same Sweden is also looking at contracting out public services to the private sector and deregulating the economy to let more big business grow.

1) Government contracts are still government regulated (most of the time)

2) Just because somethings working doesnt mean political pressure wont put an end to it.

[2952-0-0]

Even though Sweden is as close to a "perfect" society as you can get, it's imperfect. The government was accused of undercounting the unemployed, and then creating make-work projects that artificially reduce the number of unemployed. Then there are people who abuse the welfare system. And because so many people are unionized there was no need for a government-set minimum wage (but when trucking companies started hiring Lithuanians in 2005 for much lower wages than unions would allow this caused outrage and much debate). So if you play around with the numbers, Sweden has unemployment above 10% (though by other definitions the US has more jobless). Anyways, there have been extensive reforms in the early 1990s where banks, airlines, telecoms, alcohol, etc were privatized.

[opebo]

I know I will get flamed for this, so I might as well state that I've drawn these conclusions from The Economist

You think citing the Economist boosts your case??  Its just propaganda!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Propaganda? Your posts are communist propaganda while the economist is fair and balanced.

[??????????]

Storebought is absolutely correct again. Of course logic is going to get burned around here these days.

[opebo]

Propaganda? Your posts are communist propaganda while the economist is fair and balanced.

No, the Economist is blatantly biased in favour of 'liberalism', in the European meaning of the term.  They quite openly advocate it and criticize the more egalitarian model.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Socialism doesn't work.

[opebo]

Socialism doesn't work.

Leaving aside the fact that your assertion is baseless, trite, simplistic, and meaningless, let me retort:  Capitalism doesn't work.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes it does. Anyone who argues that socialism works is ignorant.

[opebo]

Yes it does. Anyone who argues that socialism works is ignorant.

An ignorant.  But what do you mean by 'works', straha?  Capitalism certainly works well for a particular class of people, but not at all 'well' for most people. 

Anyway, there's no point in arguing these completely subjective preferences (though I'd like it if you'ld admit that's what they are).  I'm just wondering if you realize how conventional your position is.  Think for once, don't just swallow what you're fed.  Can you not see why those who control you would prefer you to believe that socialism does not 'work'?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I win.

[opebo]

I win.

You mean because I'm talking to you?