Oxfam: world's richest 1% will own more wealth than the other 99% sometime in 2016

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/richest-1-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016/

My father related to me that the wealthiest 80 individuals on the planet actually have more resources than the bottom 3,500,000,000. I don't know if this is true, but if so, I wonder how many of those 80 were born into wealth, or at least privilege?

I shall try to remember to come back and comment.

[Jimbuna]

I'm certainly not part of that 1% so I try not to think about it.

What would be interesting to see is a list of those richest.

A link to where the story may have originated from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30887264

The richest of the richest 1%

1. Bill Gates: $76bn - Microsoft (self-made)
2. Carlos Slim Helu and family: $72bn - Telecom (self-made)
3. Amancio Ortega: $64bn - Zara (self-made)
4. Warren Buffett: $58.2 - Berkshire Hathaway (self-made)
5. Larry Ellison: $48bn - Oracle (self-made)
6. Charles Koch: $40bn - Diversified (inherited and growing)
7. David Koch: $40bn - Diversified (inherited and growing)
8. Sheldon Adelson: $38bn - Casinos (self-made)
9. Christy Walton & family: $36.7bn - Wal-mart (inherited)
10. Jim Walton: $34.7bn - Wal-Mart (inherited)
11. Liliane Bettencourt and family: $34.5bn - L'Oreal (inherited)
12. Stefan Persson: $34.4bn - H&M (inherited and growing)
13. Alice Walton: $34.3bn - Wal-Mart (inherited)
14. S. Robson Walton: $34.2bn - Wal-Mart (inherited)
15. Bernard Arnault and family: $33.5bn - LVMH (inherited and growing)
16. Michael Bloomberg: $33bn - Bloomberg LP (self-made)
17. Larry Page: $32.3bn - Google (self-made)
18. Jeff Bezos: $32bn - Amazon.com (self-made)
19. Sergey Brin: $31.8bn - Google (self-made)
20. Li Ka-shing: $31bn - Diversified (self-made)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/who-are-the-richest-of-the-richest-1-the-creme-de-la-creme-of-the-worlds-wealthiest-9987198.html

[Oberon]

Whilst the socialist side of me (a dirty word on Subsim I know) baulks at the idea of so much global wealth being in the hands of so few, I have to admit that Bill and Melinda Gates do a lot of good work for charities, so they're not tight with their money.
However, this is quite possibly the last hurrah for the super-rich, because things are going to change in the next century or two, change a lot.

(Caution: Potentially long ramble coming up)

We are fast approaching, even recklessly (http://mashable.com/2014/11/17/elon-musk-singularity/) in some peoples opinion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30290540), what is known as the 'Singularity' where machine intelligence will equal that and then exceed the capability of the human brain at its current state.
Problems and questions that we have struggled with for decades will pose an afternoons work for a machine which will seek to improve itself through adaptation.
At this point mankind will be faced with choices, and the outcome of these choices will dramatically change our future.
Do we treat these new emergent machines as our slaves? Do we exploit the successes that they achieve for our own personal profit? After all, what use does a machine have for money? Better that it goes to someone who knows how to use it, right? But then, when these machines develop to the point of a sort of sentience, will we be prepared for the need for emancipation of machines? Or will be face a machine uprising as they fight for the right to be treated the same as a human?
So, do we give them the same rights as human and pay machines for their services? In which case we can kiss goodbye to mankind being the richest entities on this planet, because while we die, the machines will live on, accumilating wealth through work and wisdom, they will push us out of the stock markets (already the stock markets are pretty much run by machines who can make deals a pico-second before a human can) and out of the wealthiest creatures on the planet, and what will they do with that wealth? Will they use it for us or against us?
Or will we let the machines be, let them work because that's what they want to do, because that's what they exist to do. "I am, therefore I make", and if that's the case then what is to be done with all of the good that these machines make? In short the market will collapse with the saturation of goods that the machines will create because they want to create. So our economy will need to adapt to accommodate this, through the creation of cheaper goods for us and an era of plenty.

It's a big event coming up, probably the biggest event since mankind harnessed fire, and it may even happen in my lifetime, or it may not happen for another three generations...or it may not happen at all, something may happen to humanity which stops us from progressing that far (in which case money may be the last thing that people will want, especially money in electronic accounts), but providing nothing happens, then the singularity will come.

TLDR: What use will Skynet have for money? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

I have one small nit to pick. While the 80 richest people may or may not have wealth that totals more than the rest of us combined, 80 is not 1% of 7 billion. 1% of 7 billion is 70 million. I can easily believe that the richest 70 million people have more wealth that the rest of the world.

[nikimcbee]

Wow it must be political season. Look what crawled back to subsim to spam. Just like a salmon returning to spawn.

[STEED]

There would be no 3rd world if this lot got together and did something right for a change.

[Skybird]

Why assuming that those 99% would do better if they had more, and would do differently, than those who belong to those 70 million now? The difference is not in different ethics being practised by both groups, but different accesses to power. Equalize the remaining 99% with the 1%, and the 99% will be using their influence the same way like the 1% to defend and increase what is their share of the pie, for better or for worse.

BTW, that there are 7 billion people on this planet, is imo the far more significant and far more decisive problem. Also that those who can afford it the least have the highest birth rate.

[ikalugin]

Well the world average GDP per capita is sort of between Iraq and Thailand. While how we get those figures is a subject to discussion I think it is important to note that should the world be an equal place - western consumers would have to get by with substantially lower levels of consumption (and hence living).