ChatterBank26 mins ago
Is This Really Desirable?
44 Answers
https:/
The richest 1% of the world's population are, on current projections, on course to own 64% of global wealth by 2030.
Of course, making projections into the future is notoriously unreliable. But assuming for the sake of argument that this proves to be accurate - do you think this is a problem we should be trying to solve? Can this really be dismissed as "fair rewards for hard work"?
Even if you do consider this to be a problem, is there anything that can be done or is it too late? Are the rest of us doomed to forever live in the shadow of the wealthy?
The richest 1% of the world's population are, on current projections, on course to own 64% of global wealth by 2030.
Of course, making projections into the future is notoriously unreliable. But assuming for the sake of argument that this proves to be accurate - do you think this is a problem we should be trying to solve? Can this really be dismissed as "fair rewards for hard work"?
Even if you do consider this to be a problem, is there anything that can be done or is it too late? Are the rest of us doomed to forever live in the shadow of the wealthy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Krom, //Wealth doesn't always correlate with talent.//
Indeed, and ‘smartness’ doesn’t necessarily correlate with talent either.
//It's about the consequences of having such an extreme level of inequality.//
The consequences will be as they always were. Some rich and some poor.
Jim, unless you mean Nicholas doesn’t need to be smart because his wealth is inherited, I’m not with you. However, if that is what you mean, Nicholas has to be pretty smart to hang on to his wealth in order to pass it on to the next generation. You can't have it and spend it. Money has to be invested wisely in order for it to grow. How many stately homes are now administered by organisations like The National Trust, or English Heritage, or are simply falling into disrepair solely due to the huge costs involved?
Indeed, and ‘smartness’ doesn’t necessarily correlate with talent either.
//It's about the consequences of having such an extreme level of inequality.//
The consequences will be as they always were. Some rich and some poor.
Jim, unless you mean Nicholas doesn’t need to be smart because his wealth is inherited, I’m not with you. However, if that is what you mean, Nicholas has to be pretty smart to hang on to his wealth in order to pass it on to the next generation. You can't have it and spend it. Money has to be invested wisely in order for it to grow. How many stately homes are now administered by organisations like The National Trust, or English Heritage, or are simply falling into disrepair solely due to the huge costs involved?
spicerack, //Or greedy and amoral, Naomi. //
In some cases, indeed, but then if we accuse others of falling foul of those despicable traits, where do we ourselves draw the line in our own lives? Give that money we were going to spend on a foreign holiday or on Christmas presents for the children to those worse off? We don't do it though, do we.
In some cases, indeed, but then if we accuse others of falling foul of those despicable traits, where do we ourselves draw the line in our own lives? Give that money we were going to spend on a foreign holiday or on Christmas presents for the children to those worse off? We don't do it though, do we.
But how many "Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington IV's" are there in the world ? Not a very large proportion I would wager.
I'd like to see better and more meaningful figures on this, as pointed out above as they are they are pointless.
Interestingly when I raised a similr post on this a few months back I was slammed as a communist!
I'd like to see better and more meaningful figures on this, as pointed out above as they are they are pointless.
Interestingly when I raised a similr post on this a few months back I was slammed as a communist!
//Some rich and some poor. //
But also corruption. Allowing special interests to get too disproportionately wealthy is a very, very bad thing for democracy. Plus declining social mobility is not a good thing: the whole premise of our society is that everyone has equal opportunity (even if not equal outcome), which can hardly be the case if the rich are allowed to become so egregiously rich that they're capable of effectively buying a tier of the country all for themselves. Wealth inequality in the UK is the highest it has been for generations - even in the 1980s and 1990s it was nowhere near as high as it is now, where it is approaching pre-war levels. Surely this can't be something we should be striving for?
But also corruption. Allowing special interests to get too disproportionately wealthy is a very, very bad thing for democracy. Plus declining social mobility is not a good thing: the whole premise of our society is that everyone has equal opportunity (even if not equal outcome), which can hardly be the case if the rich are allowed to become so egregiously rich that they're capable of effectively buying a tier of the country all for themselves. Wealth inequality in the UK is the highest it has been for generations - even in the 1980s and 1990s it was nowhere near as high as it is now, where it is approaching pre-war levels. Surely this can't be something we should be striving for?
Jim, been there and done it. However, I have not said ‘It’s all their fault’. but there are many people who could, if they had the wherewithal, try harder.
Krom, how would you suggest we prevent people from accumulating wealth and distribute whatever wealth we’ve prevented them from accumulating amongst the poor?
Krom, how would you suggest we prevent people from accumulating wealth and distribute whatever wealth we’ve prevented them from accumulating amongst the poor?
Harder question. I don't have a policy handbook to hand, and part of me thinks it's probably too late. But for inspiration I would look to places like Denmark - which has a far smaller wealth gap but is one of the happiest places in the world, and manages to keep that distinction alongside a stable (if unremarkable) economy and a constitutional monarchy.
It's not a question of necessarily trying harder, jim. Life is unequal.
The UK is a comparatively wealthy nation but many people within it are poorer than others. But, as has been pointed out, by contrast those "poor" people have unimaginable wealth compared to many living in underdeveloped countries. Humans have evolved differently across the globe and this evolution has extended to their wealth. There seems to be no particular geographical link. People in China are far poorer (on average) than those in neighbouring Japan. People in Mexico are poorer than those in adjacent USA. Natural resources obviously play a part (hence the wealth of Middle Eastern nations who, without oil, would probably be as poor as many African nations). Inequality is rife within nations and across the globe. But what's probably most salient is that I believe that if you could gather the world's entire wealth and distribute it evenly per head there would not be too much each. But more important than that, within a few days there will be some who have blown their entire share and others well on their way to making their first (new) million. That's the way life is and any attempts to radically manipulate the order of things will be bound to fail.
The UK is a comparatively wealthy nation but many people within it are poorer than others. But, as has been pointed out, by contrast those "poor" people have unimaginable wealth compared to many living in underdeveloped countries. Humans have evolved differently across the globe and this evolution has extended to their wealth. There seems to be no particular geographical link. People in China are far poorer (on average) than those in neighbouring Japan. People in Mexico are poorer than those in adjacent USA. Natural resources obviously play a part (hence the wealth of Middle Eastern nations who, without oil, would probably be as poor as many African nations). Inequality is rife within nations and across the globe. But what's probably most salient is that I believe that if you could gather the world's entire wealth and distribute it evenly per head there would not be too much each. But more important than that, within a few days there will be some who have blown their entire share and others well on their way to making their first (new) million. That's the way life is and any attempts to radically manipulate the order of things will be bound to fail.
