It’s what we long suspected. Control of global wealth is grossly lopsided.
In “A Landmark Study on Household Wealth” just issued by the United Nations, we learn that 2% of the people on the planet commandeer half the world’s wealth, while the bottom 50% control, as a whole, only 1%.
The study by the United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economic Research “WIDER” said that regional dissemination of wealth, including property and financial assets, was even more lopsided. The report’s data is based on information from 2000, because evidently information in this day and age is hard to come by.
Although wealth in some countries has been studied by economists for quite some time, this is the first comprehensive study of its kind – believe it or not. It’s the first to cover virtually all countries in the world and take into account all the variables including land, household debt, other financial assets and liabilities, as well as income.
The whole thing is here in PowerPoint, pdf or press release.
And surprise, surprise. Africa and India don't look so good, but then again, China doesn't appear at all in this study! That’s not so good either in view of its huge population and actual wealth. Maybe that is why the Chinese are so desperately trying to scarf of all of Sudan’s oil; incarcerate dissenters, and desperately need the Olympic Games that they should never have been rewarded.
But I digress.
Surprising News?
Good for the UN for doing the study, I guess. But tell me something - because I am not an economics aficionado and made it through econ by grace of Buddha. Is this really surprising news?
Has something changed significantly in the last 50 years? If the world has been headed in this direction for some time and everyone has known this, why is it that we don’t just dive in and do something to change it? Why bother with studies such as this when we already know most of this anyway? I know that economic researchers need jobs and we all want definitive studies, but is this going to change the planet?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Peter J
Cooper
Let me be the first to tell you to go run and hide. Whenever someone even whispers the words "redistribute the wealth" every person with so much as a savings account wants to tar and feather, behead, flagellate, and hang your ass. All at the same time. Don't you dare touch their lousy pittance, do you think it's easy being a slumlord?
You would think that, in the age where people, when pressed with a singular heart throb story, will come together and pool rescources, draw massive media attention, have rock songs written and dedicated and corporate donations out the ass but when told that 50% of the population are existing on 1% of the wealth they just say "well too fuckin bad for them, let them get a job and get their own money".
First of all, the numbers by themselves don't really say much. That 50% is from the world population, counting third world countries where 80% of the people are on the verge of starving to death. Fuck them.
So then, let's stick to at least this one country, ours, the USA.
When it's said that 2% account for over half the wealth that's theirs, they own it, no problem. But it also should be no problem that they pay their far share (that's %) of taxes on that wealth.
As far as redistributing wealth, well, your gonna hear it so I'll leave the name calling to those better suited to name calling.
I think tho, if there is anything that definitely needs redistributing in this country it is income.
I begin to beat the ridiculous "minimum wage"horse again. All I have to say about the minimum wage, even at 7.35 an hour is it's a crying fucking shame. It's a damn shame in a country where a friggin ball player, guitar player, half ass,ass kissin, son-in-law jerk-off CEO makes more money than teachers. It's also a shame when a man can give 40 honest,hard working hours a week, or more in most cases and not make at the MINIMUM 30,000. a year.
I can't wait for all the cheap nit-wits to whip out their slide rules and tell us all how easy it is to live on 300. a week. Anyone who would even present that argument should be ashamed. Would you want your son, his wife and kid to get kicked out on the street tomorrow with no more than a 300. dollar a week check to live on? Sure, Ma can go back to work for a lousy 250. since women always make less than men but who watches the kid? Uncle Diddle? Or don't you believe in the family unit where Mom stays home and schools Jr., especially since he sure can't get a reasonable education when all that's taught in school is how to pass a test. But shit, what do you expect from teachers who make 35,00. a year?
Sorry, cooper,, no one wants to share in this country, it's just to fuckin Un-American!
2 - Peter J
Sorry Cooper, by the way, it's a good article and you are a gentleman.
3 - troll
we don't need a socialist redistribution of wealth (with its attendant government control over individuals' freedom)...we need a basic re-evaluation of the value of labor and an organizing principle for production other than (but as efficient as) simply maximizing profit
.....now is that too much to ask - ?
4 - cooper
And now that you mention teachers and their salaries, we come to redistribution of priorities; that is really at the heart of the matter not only for our country but for the globe.
If anyone cared about the state of education in this country teachers would be the gods and their salaries would be scaled to prove it; if anyone cared about global poverty their priorities would be sustainable income for third world countries.
Thanks for calling me a gentleman, there are so few out there these days.
5 - Peter J
Well put Troll,
it's never been too much to ask, the problem is it's never been addressed properly and when it has been the parties responsible for the re-evaluation are generally the CEO's, upper level managers and major shareholders whose pocketbooks would be affected. And who could blame them, I know if I were knocking down 250,000.+ a year or more for being a suit I know I wouldn't want to give up so much as a nickel. Do you know how difficult it is voting those raises for yourself year after year.
And they wonder why American products suck!
6 - pia
I don't think most people understand what "redistributing wealth" means. It's not about taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, it's about making industry work everywhere
How it can be done should be a pressing issue.
Think I read today that one percent of all Americans control 40% of the assets. New York is the most extreme example as we are corp headquarters and Wall Street. Then we have The Bronx which is the nation's poorest urban county.
There is much potential for industry and growth there but we set people up to fail by giving them subpar schools and much more. Yet it has incredible apartment buildings, the most amount of parkland in the city and plenty of places where it could be renovated, and industries built, effectively displacing nobody or chop shops. It's close to Manhattan with good public transportation, and it and Long Island City could then be on a par with Manhattan.
I use The Bronx as an example rather than a rural county or Africa because I know it better, but redistributing wealth is all about building new industries that might compete with current industries, but there is room for all.
It's about teaching kids properly, making good health care avaliable to all--people who aren't eligible for Medicaid here, should be able to afford decent health care. Many American's are one or two major sicknesses away from bankruptcy.
Great post, Gentleman Cooper
7 - STM
Take (a bit) from the rich and give (a lot) to the poor. Increase taxes on the mega-wealthy, who will hardly miss what they lose, and divvy it out to people who really need it. Oh, and did I mention that that would have to include folks like Bono.
Money where mouths are, please. Literally, and at both ends of the picture.
8 - Maurice
Very Keynesian (heavy sarcasm).
Is it a zero sum game?
Milton Friedman debunked these theories and got a nobel prize in the process.
9 - Clavos
Historically, 2% of the population (or thereabouts) has ALWAYS controlled most of the wealth, going all the way back to barter, before money was invented.
No amount of social engineering is going to change that for any significant amount of time.
Better we should focus on providing everyone with the tools to at least obtain the necessities by education, starting with doing away (in this country) with the idea that EVERYONE deserves (or can handle) a college education. Let's produce GOOD plumbers, electricians, machinery operators, etc. and pay them life sustaining wages.
If we just take from the haves and give to the have nots, in less than three generations we'll be back in the same boat.
10 - cooper
Pia, Africa or the US the basic principle is the same. You got to bring in industry, provide a real living wage and them make sure there are ample opportunities for those who want them, stemming from an equal public education for all.
Maurice,
Unfortunately I am an anthropology major not an econ major, but I do believe there is some debate among academics as well as among economist in regard to the "greatness of Friedman".
Granted he changed things up a bit post depression, but then again this years Nobel Prize winner seems to be the other side of the coin.
I wouldn't give too much credence to a past Nobel Prize winner. I think even in economics, we change with the times and it is best to learn from history not repeat it. Especially if it what worked once is no longer doing the job.
Clavos, that is what programs which provide sustainable wealth do, and it is something that is not all that hard to accomplish. What has always been does not have to always be. The biggest problem is as the population of the world increases, poverty increases exponentially and that can be altered with commitment to sustainable wealth programs. To guarantee a living, not riches, but a decent livable income, food , shelter and clothing to all.
Or else really what good are all these ridiculous studies.
11 - RedTard
I agree with Clavos that the basics arrangement of society can't be changed too much. I'm not aware of any society, regardless of wealth, that has eliminated 'poverty'. The few countries that have good wealth and distribution seem to import foreigners to fill they're poverty slots.
'Poverty' will always exist and is more a social status than an actual condition, especially in the US. No one here is starving, clothes are thrown out by the ton, and there are shelters aplenty yet the concept of 'poverty' still exists.
I believe that some concept of poverty or poorness is necessary to entice people to work. If one could achieve good comfortable socially acceptable status without doing any service for your fellow man (work), then wouldn't everyone want to do that as opposed to cleaning shit at the sewer plant or picking up garbage?
12 - cooper
Sure, but what we are talking about here is a study which clearly showed where the wealth is; we also know that to redistribute it or to provide sustainable income would pull many out of poverty; we’re talking about - in the case of parts of Africa, as an example - people who want to work, are willing to work to make a living. Coming up with ways to allow them to do that is what we need to address.
We are also talking about providing the opportunity via equal, quality education in this country.
There will always be some who do not want to work, there will be people with little ambition, great ambition, simple needs, complicated needs, high IQ's and Low IQ's.
Things are not equal. I think what we are talking about here is ways to make the baseline as equal as possible, allow for a decent living and let the individuals take it from there. The inequity of it all is appalling and obviously something went very wrong with Friedman’s theories or at least the applications over time there-of. Take into account politics and the corruption that comes from the power of it and add that to Friedman's theory and you end up where the world is today.
Bono's EDUN program is not really a bad model, Rwanda baskets for Macy's is not either. Columbia University has a couple of sustainable wealth programs out of Africa that are working. I think it is just that the magnitude of what would actually have to be done compared to what is being done...it's not even close.
13 - STM
Clavos wrote: "Better we should focus on providing everyone with the tools to at least obtain the necessities by education, starting with doing away (in this country) with the idea that EVERYONE deserves (or can handle) a college education. Let's produce GOOD plumbers, electricians, machinery operators, etc. and pay them life sustaining wages."
Yes, Clav, too right ... we did that in Australia but it's gone pear-shaped for now (until the next election, at least). One of my mates is a lawyer, the other a plumber. The plumber controls ALL the wealth in our little gang, and the surfboard shaper runs a close second because his boards are highly sought-after.
The plumber was once called to the lawyer's house bright and early on a Sunday to fix a toilet that had backwashed after a big party (we later speculated that he might have contributed heavily to the blockage, considering how much food he ate at the barbecue).
The lawyer's wife seemed to be doing an awful lot of high-pitched squealing, judging from the fact that you could hear it 100 yards down the street at the beach. Plumber was there for some hours, and put off going for a surf in rare, perfect, 6ft summer conditions to do the job.
After farting around for most of the morning with an electric eel, by which time the onshore wind had kicked in and turned the surf to big chunks of unrideable slop, he handed our lawyer mate an invoice for $800.
When city lawyer, who routinely charges $300-plus an hour (slightly less for mates), complained, he was told: a) it's Sunday morning and I've got a f.cking hangover; b) the surf is perfect and I'm here cleaning up your shit, literally, c) that almost makes up for the $1000 you charged me three weeks ago for making three phone calls and organising two pieces of paper for me to sign and d) if you don't like it, I can reblock the toilet for you so that it keeps flooding and you can take your chances with some other poor bastard.
However, on a serious note, our Prime Minister has recently discouraged kids from taking up trades by removing most of their rights under a new American-style industrial relations system, so they are now dependent for their continuing employment on the whims of an employer.
There must be some protections for skilled workers through continuing abitration and legally-binding awards if we are to encourage a return to the trades.
14 - Clavos
Reminds me of the story my brother in law, who is a physician tells, though it's most certainly apocryphal:
Seems he had to hire a plumber some time ago to take care of some problems at his office.
Well, the fellow labored several hours, but was finally done, and presented his bill to my brother in law, Mike.
Mike looked at the bill and almost dropped it in shock, "Three hundred dollars and hour? Holy cow, man, I'm a doctor, and I don't make that much an hour!!"
To which the fellow replied, "Neither did I, when I was a doctor!"
(rimshot)
15 - STM
Maybe it's not apocryphal, although I have heard it before. There's probably a grain of truth in it though. But my story is fair-dinkum.
He is the wealthiest of all of us (I'm not at all wealthy, so I wouldn't even fit in the picture except that I have been surfing there the longest).
He wasn't too happy about being called out, and suggested to our lawyer mate that he'd come AFTER he'd been for a surf.
That wasn't an option as the poo victim's wife was going ballistic and was in the bathroom in her bare feet when it flooded. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person, either.
16 - Clavos
Cooper #12:
We are also talking about providing the opportunity via equal, quality education in this country.
I can only partly agree with that. I think we need to model our educational system on some of the European systems (e.g. Germany's) where everyone gets an equal education through high school. At that point, those who want further education are tested, for aptitude as well as intellect, then steered either on to university if qualified, or trade school according to aptitude. Makes a lot more sense to me than our efforts to squeeze everyone into the college mold.
Adopting such a system would also tend to improve the quality of our higher education, because more of the students would actually be qualified, which is not the case today. My mother in law was an English Lit professor at various colleges in her lifetime. Every year, she was required to teach one section of Remedial English (yes, reading and writing!) to incoming Freshmen. Remedial English!!...To college students!!
One more point:
The inequity of it all is appalling and obviously something went very wrong with Friedman's theories or at least the applications over time there-of. Take into account politics and the corruption that comes from the power of it and add that to Friedman's theory and you end up where the world is today.
I don't think Professor Friedman's theories are to blame. As I said in # 9 above, all societies since the dawn of commerce have concentrated their wealth in the top percentiles.
That phenomenon is nothing new, and I doubt we'll ever successfully do away with it.
And perhaps we shouldn't.
17 - cooper
"I can only partly agree with that. I think we need to model our educational system on some of the European systems (e.g. Germany's) where everyone gets an equal education through high school. At that point, those who want further education are tested, for aptitude as well as intellect, then steered either on to university if qualified, or trade school according to aptitude. Makes a lot more sense to me than our efforts to squeeze everyone into the college mold."
Certainly, the whole point is that after having that "equal opportunity" students will be better able to make choices and those with aptitude and desire will be better prepared to go on. I am also in favor of' at the very least' state institutions of higher learning staying affordable.
The comment on his theories was partially humorous the fact is that after the depression his theories worked well, but as time goes on it seems to me one would have to adjust the economic pretense to the times, the population, technology and the politics. It does not appear that has happened overall except in an academic way. Nothing really applied with any success.
You folks are very interesting.
I am not in Australia, although I lived there twice and loved it, and must sleep.
Very good points from everyone.
18 - STM
In my view, most western countries have similar - if not identical - education systems, and America's in particular is very good. Around the English-speaking world, most of the higher-education degrees are transferable, even law with a bit of extra study. Although we know it not be fact in practice, at least in theory in all our countries anyone can do well in the state-funded education systems if they have the aptitude. Everyone, too, is entitled to free, quality, legal representation if they need it.
However, if we are speaking of the US, it is in the health system that this old conservative, right-wing socialist (yes, there is such a thing) believes America falls down heavily.
If you are wealthy, you get the best of care, if you are "middle-class" you pay for insurance through the nose that might not cover you completely and which may cost you your house if you get really sick, and if you are poor you are completely f.cked.
I like the idea that for a few extra dollars paid in tax at the higher end of a sliding scale under our health system, I am contributing to the well-being of someone less well-off who will receive the same high-quality care that I get.
Access to universal, quality medical care is a right, not a privilege, I believe ... and even conservative governments here have not had the balls to tamper with it too much because most of us feel the same way.
I also believe that Americans could so easily have a similar system and the mega rich in particular wouldn't miss those few extra dollars it costs.
There is more to being a community and a nation than keeping all that filthy lucre to ourselves. It's good karma to spread it around, even if only a bit.
19 - Baronius
If we really cared about education in this country we'd reward the good teachers, and make firing the bad ones easier than sneezing. We'd cut back on the regulations that do nothing but increase administrative expenses. We'd de-emphasize teaching degrees. We'd make disagreeing with me a crime; no, wait, that's a different list of things we should do.
If we want to eliminate poverty, we've got to make it financially beneficial to do so. Get that crazy Western wealth involved. Make it profitable to invest, educate, and build an infrastructure. Make it costly (you can take that however you want to) for a corrupt government to impede wealth-building.
If it helps the rich get richer, but the poor get richer, so be it. If people call it economic imperialism, and it hurts our feelings, but the poor get richer, so be it.
20 - RedTard
"If we really cared about education in this country we'd reward the good teachers, and make firing the bad ones easier than sneezing."
That's a common mantra, and one you'd have to be almost crazy to argue with, so let me at it. In my view of education I've had only one bad public school teacher (who was fired quickly), and a couple of incompetent college professors. I've known and witnessed personally scores of bad parents.
I've also noticed a trend where the school districts with all the bad parents (with poorly disciplined children) somehow always end up complaining about the bad teachers. Now, that makes me wonder, do we have a teaching problem or a parenting problem?
Of course, it's easier to point the finger at teachers because that's easier to control but I'm not certain that's the root of the problem.
21 - Bliffle
"Milton Friedman debunked these theories and got a nobel prize in the process."
Not a Real Nobel Prize, but rather a sortof Rump Prize awarded by a bank that invented that prize "in memory of Alfred Nobel" in 1969. YOU could invent a similar prize for Blog Authorship and say it's in honor of Alfred Nobel, award one to your wife, say, and then she could claim to have a Nobel Prize In Blogging.
Mohamad Yunus, on the other hand, won the REAL Nobel Peace Prize (as founded by Alfred Nobel and administered by his institution) for the profound effect of his economic innovations on the lives of very ordinary people.
It is worth noting that Yunus' ideas of financing The Least Of These are diametrically opposed to Friedmans notions of manipulating economic monoliths thru obscure financial instruments, the effect of which is to further enrich his powerful patrons. Strange, is it not, that an avowed champion of liberty like Friedman should align himself with a thoroughly Sovietized economic engine?
22 - gramo
Poverty exists in western countries and USA. Global wealth is a utopia. Interesting post and comments.
23 - Maurice
Cooper
there is debate with physicists about Einsteins work also - but his Nobel Prize and his work is no less valid. By citing Friedman I was really only trying to point out that the idea of a zero sum game is false. That means there is no correlation between those who have wealth and the very poor.
One analogy would be 2 farmers that have 10 acres each. One has let his land go to ruin and has no food. The other has worked very hard to make his farm produce an abundance of food. Is the hungry farmer hungry because the hard worker worked?
Frederic Bastiat is another of my favorite economists.
24 - Dave Nalle
Not a Real Nobel Prize, but rather a sortof Rump Prize awarded by a bank that invented that prize "in memory of Alfred Nobel" in 1969. YOU could invent a similar prize for Blog Authorship and say it's in honor of Alfred Nobel, award one to your wife, say, and then she could claim to have a Nobel Prize In Blogging.
Bullshit, Bliffle. It's awarded by the Nobel committee at the same ceremony. The fact that it's funded from a different source because it was created after Nobel's death is irrelevant.
Dave
25 - Dave Nalle
I can only partly agree with that. I think we need to model our educational system on some of the European systems (e.g. Germany's) where everyone gets an equal education through high school.
Why not model our system on Belgiums where there is a diverse selection of schools using different methods and aimed at different types of learners and you get a tuition voucher and get to choose your school?
Dave