@ Norse: In skittles! case it doesn't count because he has to trick 4 year olds into it by telling them it's a lollypop or something.
@ Hecter: There are quite a few people in the USA that can't afford one or more pairs of clothing.
The top 3% of the population hold most of the worlds wealth.
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
-
reverend_kyle
- Posts: 9250
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
- Location: 1000 post club
- Contact:
-
hecter
- Posts: 14632
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
- Contact:
My point was that was ONLY the US population, and was excluding Canada, all of Europe, ect.reverend_kyle wrote:@ Norse: In skittles! case it doesn't count because he has to trick 4 year olds into it by telling them it's a lollypop or something.
@ Hecter: There are quite a few people in the USA that can't afford one or more pairs of clothing.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
-
reverend_kyle
- Posts: 9250
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
- Location: 1000 post club
- Contact:
Canada and all of europe are godless commies, and thus are in the lowest 97% who can't feed themselves.hecter wrote:My point was that was ONLY the US population, and was excluding Canada, all of Europe, ect.reverend_kyle wrote:@ Norse: In skittles! case it doesn't count because he has to trick 4 year olds into it by telling them it's a lollypop or something.
@ Hecter: There are quite a few people in the USA that can't afford one or more pairs of clothing.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
A woman is not a "his"MeDeFe wrote:Why? I never said the women would get less, did I?Norse wrote:That sounds sexist...MeDeFe wrote:YES! Redistribute it all my way and I'll make sure that everyone gets his fair share!
I was being pedantic.
b.k. barunt wrote:Snorri's like one of those fufu dogs who get all excited and dance around pissing on themself.
suggs wrote:scared off by all the pervs and wankers already? No? Then let me introduce myself, I'm Mr Pervy Wank.
Richest 2% hold half the world's assets
By Chris Giles, Economics Editor in London
Published: December 5 2006 13:13 | Last updated: December 5 2006 13:13
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world's assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.
A survey released on Tuesday shows that middle-income countries with high growth rates still have a long way to go before they have a hope of catching up with the levels of prosperity of the richest.
Adults with more than $2,200 of assets were in the top half of the global wealth league table, while those with more than $61,000 were in the top 10 per cent, according to the data from the World Institute fpr Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-Wider).
To belong to the top 1 per cent of the world's wealthiest adults you would need more than $500,000, something that 37m adults have achieved.
So much of the world's wealth is concentrated in few hands that if all the world's wealth was distributed evenly, each person would have $20,500 of assets to use.
Almost 90 per cent of the world's wealth is held in North America, Europe and high-income Asian and Pacific countries, such as Japan and Australia.
While North America has 6 per cent of the world's adult population, it accounts for 34 per cent of household wealth.
The concentration of wealth in different countries varies considerably, with the top 10 per cent in the US holding 70 per cent of the country's wealth, compared with 61 per cent in France, 56 per cent in the UK, 44 per cent in Germany and 39 per cent in Japan.
According to Anthony Shorrocks, the director of UNU-Wider, the number of wealthy individuals in a country depends on the size of the population, the average wealth and its inequality.
China fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards, he said.
As countries grow richer, their population changes how it holds wealth, according to the report.
In developing countries, property, particularly land and farm assets are important, while cash savings tend to dominate in middle-income counties.
Only in certain advanced countries such as the US and the UK with developed financial sectors is there a strong appetite for holding equities and other more sophisticated financial assets.
Debt is also low in poor countries because financial institutions do not exist to allow people to borrow.
In contrast, the authors say many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and, somewhat paradoxically, are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.
Wealth is difficult to measure even in the most advanced countries, so the research was based on painstaking compilation of aggregate and survey data for the 38 countries of the world where it exists and statistical models for the rest of the world.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006"
By Chris Giles, Economics Editor in London
Published: December 5 2006 13:13 | Last updated: December 5 2006 13:13
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world's assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.
A survey released on Tuesday shows that middle-income countries with high growth rates still have a long way to go before they have a hope of catching up with the levels of prosperity of the richest.
Adults with more than $2,200 of assets were in the top half of the global wealth league table, while those with more than $61,000 were in the top 10 per cent, according to the data from the World Institute fpr Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-Wider).
To belong to the top 1 per cent of the world's wealthiest adults you would need more than $500,000, something that 37m adults have achieved.
So much of the world's wealth is concentrated in few hands that if all the world's wealth was distributed evenly, each person would have $20,500 of assets to use.
Almost 90 per cent of the world's wealth is held in North America, Europe and high-income Asian and Pacific countries, such as Japan and Australia.
While North America has 6 per cent of the world's adult population, it accounts for 34 per cent of household wealth.
The concentration of wealth in different countries varies considerably, with the top 10 per cent in the US holding 70 per cent of the country's wealth, compared with 61 per cent in France, 56 per cent in the UK, 44 per cent in Germany and 39 per cent in Japan.
According to Anthony Shorrocks, the director of UNU-Wider, the number of wealthy individuals in a country depends on the size of the population, the average wealth and its inequality.
China fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards, he said.
As countries grow richer, their population changes how it holds wealth, according to the report.
In developing countries, property, particularly land and farm assets are important, while cash savings tend to dominate in middle-income counties.
Only in certain advanced countries such as the US and the UK with developed financial sectors is there a strong appetite for holding equities and other more sophisticated financial assets.
Debt is also low in poor countries because financial institutions do not exist to allow people to borrow.
In contrast, the authors say many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and, somewhat paradoxically, are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.
Wealth is difficult to measure even in the most advanced countries, so the research was based on painstaking compilation of aggregate and survey data for the 38 countries of the world where it exists and statistical models for the rest of the world.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006"
Lots of ambiguous terms get thrown around on this data point which makes it very hard to talk about.
I think the really interesting thing is that the vast majority of people in the world are worth almost nothing on a net asset basis. In other words, most of us have just about the same amount of debt and assets. that is what the last part means when it says:
"In contrast, the authors say many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and, somewhat paradoxically, are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth."
Personally I own assets worth between 400,000 and 500,000, but my net worth is less than 50,000. Ironically, even with that much debt, I am still better off than most Americans.
I think the really interesting thing is that the vast majority of people in the world are worth almost nothing on a net asset basis. In other words, most of us have just about the same amount of debt and assets. that is what the last part means when it says:
"In contrast, the authors say many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and, somewhat paradoxically, are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth."
Personally I own assets worth between 400,000 and 500,000, but my net worth is less than 50,000. Ironically, even with that much debt, I am still better off than most Americans.
-
mybike_yourface
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:09 pm
- Location: The dirty southwest
in this IMF report they state that the richest 20% of the world own 82.7% of the wealth. the numbers are from '89 the article 2001. we kniow that world wealth distribution has only grown in inequality since then. and if look at that 20% you'll find a very small percentage of that 20% actually own the most wealth. for instance "A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth." it's a complex subject.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan ... 2/wade.htm
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan ... 2/wade.htm
-
mybike_yourface
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:09 pm
- Location: The dirty southwest
for instance "A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth." what exactly do you think it means to be in the bottom half?Elwar wrote:What? Hell no. Not most. Alot, but the minority.mybike_yourface wrote:3% is high. do your research. most people in the world don't even have potable water and live on less than a dollar a day.
-
Guiscard
- Posts: 4103
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
- Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar
Err... yes it does.Elwar wrote:I think it means they're compartively poor.
I don't think that means less than $1/day or lack of clean water.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
-
mybike_yourface
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:09 pm
- Location: The dirty southwest
Probably a big wake up call for you, but $1/day is pretty good wages on a worldwide basis.Elwar wrote:I think it means they're compartively poor.
I don't think that means less than $1/day or lack of clean water.
of course, people who live like that are also very self-sustaining. They know how to get their own food and water without having to pay for it. They either grow or forage for food, and they simply don't worry about drinking clean water.
Money is just not as important to most of the world as it is to 1st world countries. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the world poor are doing fine, but their mind-set is just completely different from what most of us think.
-
DiM
- Posts: 10415
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: making maps for scooby snacks
the most interesting part is the one about debt.
yes in more advanced countries debt is a common practice. most americans don't own much. the house is actually owned by the banck and you have 50 years worth of monthly installments to pay, same with the car, the boat, the lodge up in the mountains and the little shack down by the beach. so an american that has all these doesn't actually own any of them because they're all bought with money from the back. subtract his bank debt from what he owns and you'll see he has little to no money at all. and yet an american with all that leaves a nice life.
now look at me. i own a 220 thousand $ house and 25 thousand $ car. plus all that's in the house and stuff like that. split that by 2 (cause my wife has half) and that means i have ~130-140 thousand $ .
somewhere in the study presented above it says:
i highly doubt that. i mean yes considering the net value and judging strictly by numbers i would fit in that category but judging by the comfort of life and what i can actually afford i really don't feel like being in the top 10%. i would love to have a house at the beach or in the mountains i would love to drive a boat even if i had to pay for 50-70 years to get them. unfortunately in my country there aren't any loans on such long periods and the general interest for the loans is absurd because of the inflation.
yes in more advanced countries debt is a common practice. most americans don't own much. the house is actually owned by the banck and you have 50 years worth of monthly installments to pay, same with the car, the boat, the lodge up in the mountains and the little shack down by the beach. so an american that has all these doesn't actually own any of them because they're all bought with money from the back. subtract his bank debt from what he owns and you'll see he has little to no money at all. and yet an american with all that leaves a nice life.
now look at me. i own a 220 thousand $ house and 25 thousand $ car. plus all that's in the house and stuff like that. split that by 2 (cause my wife has half) and that means i have ~130-140 thousand $ .
somewhere in the study presented above it says:
so the fact that i own 130-140 thousand $ makes me on of the top 10% richest people in the whole world?Adults with more than $2,200 of assets were in the top half of the global wealth league table, while those with more than $61,000 were in the top 10 per cent
i highly doubt that. i mean yes considering the net value and judging strictly by numbers i would fit in that category but judging by the comfort of life and what i can actually afford i really don't feel like being in the top 10%. i would love to have a house at the beach or in the mountains i would love to drive a boat even if i had to pay for 50-70 years to get them. unfortunately in my country there aren't any loans on such long periods and the general interest for the loans is absurd because of the inflation.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
-
Guiscard
- Posts: 4103
- Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
- Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar
Why is it so hard to believe? Stop trying to see things on a Western scale. If you look at the population numbers for India, China and Africa and realise that the vast vast majority of those people will never see anything like your 130k then it becomes more manageable. I find it really interesting that people cannot get their heads round how comparatively rich we are in the west. the UN tells us that in 2002, 43% of people lived on less than 2 dollars a day (in Nigeria and Mali thats 9/10 people), and 17% less than 1 dollar. Does that make your 10% a bit more manageable?DiM wrote:so the fact that i own 130-140 thousand $ makes me on of the top 10% richest people in the whole world?
i highly doubt that. i mean yes considering the net value and judging strictly by numbers i would fit in that category but judging by the comfort of life and what i can actually afford i really don't feel like being in the top 10%. i would love to have a house at the beach or in the mountains i would love to drive a boat even if i had to pay for 50-70 years to get them. unfortunately in my country there aren't any loans on such long periods and the general interest for the loans is absurd because of the inflation.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
You don't feel like you are in the top 10%, but you are, if what you have listed is right then you can do a short exercise.DiM wrote: i highly doubt that. i mean yes considering the net value and judging strictly by numbers i would fit in that category but judging by the comfort of life and what i can actually afford i really don't feel like being in the top 10%. i would love to have a house at the beach or in the mountains i would love to drive a boat even if i had to pay for 50-70 years to get them. unfortunately in my country there aren't any loans on such long periods and the general interest for the loans is absurd because of the inflation.
Make a list of people you know fairly well. Family, friends, neighbors, co-workers. And then guestimate their net asset worth. If your family has +200,000 in net assets you are doing very well.
Keep in mind that 1-3% of American households are millionaires (depending on how you measure worth), and you are not very far away from that. Even in America alone if you have $200,000 in assets you are probably in the top 15-20%. Worldwide, I would think that you are actually closer to the top 5% as opposed to the top 10%.
Media and advertising in America do an excellent job of making everyone feel like they are not wealthy, and they need the next big asset in order to be wealthy. It is how they keep us rats running the race.
-
DiM
- Posts: 10415
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: making maps for scooby snacks
to guiscard and harijan.
i was actually trying to point out something else.
ok considering my net worth (assets minus debts = net worth) i am in the top 10% of the population. i accept that but numbers aren't everything. the point is despite the fact that i have a 130-140k net worth i'm not living so comfortably as a person that has 2 houses 3 cars a motorbike and a boat, even if that person's net worth is smaller than mine because he purchased all that with the help of loans from banks.
so net worth doesn't mean comfortable life.
let's imagine a person that has a salary of 5000$ he has a house and he pays 2000$ to the bank for the money he borrowed to purchase the house. the house has a value of 100k. loan. so at this point this guy has assets of 100k and a debt of 150k (initial sum + interest) that equals to a net worth of minus 50k.
let's look at another guy. he is homeless and lives under a bridge. also he's unemployed and eats from trashcans. he has assets of 5$ and debts of 0$ so his total net worth is 5$.
when you compare the numbers for those 2 guys the beggar is the winner. he's worth more than the other guy. but in reality the guy that has to pay the loan lives a much better life.
see my point now? i may have a net worth that's bigger than many people's net worth but the fact is i can't afford more than a house and a car at this point. i would like another house in the mountains and one on the beach and perhaps another car for my wife and a bike for me but i can't due to economical reasons. mainly huge interests at the bank. in usa you can take a loan and pay 50 years on it and it feels normal. here i can't.
the good side is that i'm not owing anybody anything and i can do whatever i please with my assets. i don't have loans or mortgages to take care of and if tomorrow i decide to quit my job sell my house and go on a world tour i can do that with ease. if i had dozens of loans i couldn't.
i was actually trying to point out something else.
ok considering my net worth (assets minus debts = net worth) i am in the top 10% of the population. i accept that but numbers aren't everything. the point is despite the fact that i have a 130-140k net worth i'm not living so comfortably as a person that has 2 houses 3 cars a motorbike and a boat, even if that person's net worth is smaller than mine because he purchased all that with the help of loans from banks.
so net worth doesn't mean comfortable life.
let's imagine a person that has a salary of 5000$ he has a house and he pays 2000$ to the bank for the money he borrowed to purchase the house. the house has a value of 100k. loan. so at this point this guy has assets of 100k and a debt of 150k (initial sum + interest) that equals to a net worth of minus 50k.
let's look at another guy. he is homeless and lives under a bridge. also he's unemployed and eats from trashcans. he has assets of 5$ and debts of 0$ so his total net worth is 5$.
when you compare the numbers for those 2 guys the beggar is the winner. he's worth more than the other guy. but in reality the guy that has to pay the loan lives a much better life.
see my point now? i may have a net worth that's bigger than many people's net worth but the fact is i can't afford more than a house and a car at this point. i would like another house in the mountains and one on the beach and perhaps another car for my wife and a bike for me but i can't due to economical reasons. mainly huge interests at the bank. in usa you can take a loan and pay 50 years on it and it feels normal. here i can't.
the good side is that i'm not owing anybody anything and i can do whatever i please with my assets. i don't have loans or mortgages to take care of and if tomorrow i decide to quit my job sell my house and go on a world tour i can do that with ease. if i had dozens of loans i couldn't.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
-
MarketAnarchist
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:14 pm
While I'm not so positive on the "3%" value, I do know that most of the squalid conditions which Keynesians, Socialists, and other various State-economic concepts rage against have been caused by they very government intervention which they seek within the market at various junctures in history, and at present.
Government intervention begets government intervention which begets government intervention which begets government intervention which....
Free the market, eliminate the government, and it'll work itself out.
Government intervention begets government intervention which begets government intervention which begets government intervention which....
Free the market, eliminate the government, and it'll work itself out.
Bollocks. Markets don't produce acceptable outcomes when they're left to their own devices, not least because perfect markets don't exist. Government intervention is needed for all sorts of reasons, not least everytime there's a recession, or one threatens. This has been standard economic practice for decades, regardless of what neo-liberal ideologues have been spouting, and is accepted by everybody these days. The UK and the US governments, for example, have both spent heavily in recent years to prevent/pull out of recessions respectively.MarketAnarchist wrote:While I'm not so positive on the "3%" value, I do know that most of the squalid conditions which Keynesians, Socialists, and other various State-economic concepts rage against have been caused by they very government intervention which they seek within the market at various junctures in history, and at present.
Government intervention begets government intervention which begets government intervention which begets government intervention which....
Free the market, eliminate the government, and it'll work itself out.
Nobunaga wrote:... Income inequality is a good thing! Or why the hell am I working overtime?
Income inequality is a fact of life, and exists/existed even in the most "communistic" of countries. The question is the degree of income inequality, not whether you have inequality per se.
For instance, many would accept that it's OK for the MD of a company to earn 10 times what its lowliest cleaner earns. I'd live with that, personally, and I vote for leftist and centre-left parties.
But an MD being allowed to trouser 100 times the lowest-paid employee is no better than institutionalised theft.
I don't what it is specifically about China you're describing as being "mad", but whatever it is, you can't blame it on "income equality", as it doesn't exist there.Nobunaga wrote:... If you want to see what "income equality" does to a country, go check out China. Madness.
China does, however, have a very high degree of income inequality. Maybe the madness you see can be ascribed to this?
I'm not an economist, by the way, just an accountant, but most of what I've said have been fairly basic points. Just out of interest, here's a graph from Wikipedia, which compares the Gini coefficients of various countries over time, since WWII. The Gini coefficient is one (of many) method of measuring income inequality in a country, and a widely-used one. The higher the country is on a graph, the more unequal it is. I don't think the Gini coefficient takes account of wealth, just income, but don't quote me on that.
Notice that the UK has always been more equal than China since 1980, and it almost certainly was for most of the time China was a "Communist" country as well. I don't think that's made us any madder than the Chinese.