Richest 2% own more than half the world - study

[lionrock88]

http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Economy/10087450.html

"Two per cent of adults command more than half of the world's wealth, while the bottom 50 per cent possesses just one per cent, according to a UN development institute study released yesterday...

If the world's population was reduced to a group of 10 people, one person would hold $99 and the remaining nine would share $1...."

[HK_Newbie100]

Don't worry, those 2% assure us that their wealth will eventually 'trickle down' to the unwashed masses so that we all benefit. In the mean time, we ourselves dream of being in the 2% club so that we can also eventually benefit those below us. So you should realise that this whole capitalist game is ulimately for the good of all, that the millions slain in the fight to accrue wealth, displace those at the top and maintain that position is not in vain.

[mongkokrat]

So when it's your turn in the top 2%, I assure you there will be another zealous internet forum poster expressing his desires to overthrow you as well.

[RastaMan]

When is my turn to be in the top 2%? I can't wait.

It's Friday evening, 7.30 PM, and I am still in the office...

[links]

Supposed Pareto said 20% owns 80% of the wealth in the world in last century..but now become 10% own 80% of the wealth in the world..wealth gap is sarcastically wide...


There is something call Gini Coefficient in measuring the fairness level in the income distribution.

scale of Gini Coefficient:

below 0.2 means the income are very fairly distributed；
0.2-0.3 means fairly distributed；
0.3-0.4 means acceptable；
0.4-0.5 means slightly unbalance；
0.6 and above means very unbalance

The current Gini coefficient relased by UN is 0.66 which is the worse case in the income distribution gap.....

In the past, when the wealth distribution gap go too wide and there will be high chance of rebels. Hopefully the world will be peaceful......

I am not an economist myself, please correct me if I mis-interpreted anything.

[howard_roark]

http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Economy/10087450.html

"Two per cent of adults command more than half of the world's wealth, while the bottom 50 per cent possesses just one per cent, according to a UN development institute study released yesterday...

If the world's population was reduced to a group of 10 people, one person would hold $99 and the remaining nine would share $1...."

So what's wrong with that?

[howard_roark]

Supposed Pareto said 20% owns 80% of the wealth in the world in last century..but now become 10% own 80% of the wealth in the world..wealth gap is sarcastically wide...


There is something call Gini Coefficient in measuring the fairness level in the income distribution.

scale of Gini Coefficient:

below 0.2 means the income are very fairly distributed；
0.2-0.3 means fairly distributed；
0.3-0.4 means acceptable；
0.4-0.5 means slightly unbalance；
0.6 and above means very unbalance

The current Gini coefficient relased by UN is 0.66 which is the worse case in the income distribution gap.....

In the past, when the wealth distribution gap go too wide and there will be high chance of rebels. Hopefully the world will be peaceful......

I am not an economist myself, please correct me if I mis-interpreted anything.

Your interpretation is correct with some caveats:

1) The Gini coefficient is defined as a ratio of the areas on the Lorenz curve; it is more relevant to study monolithic economies. When the ratio is generalized for across the world it becomes less precise because it does not factor the inequalities of tax rates and social welfare systems and other motivational factors that drive the economic behavior.

2) Every society has different mode of contributions to the "wealth" - in typical developing societies, the wealth can also be measured the support of family members that do elderly care or work in farms - compared against western societies, that has institutionalized the support systems.

3) Due to vagaries of statistics and associated differential equations - the ratio is more sensitive to the income of medians.

4) It does not factor the efficient usage of wealth, case in point - the world would be a better place if 100% of wealth resided with M/S Buffet & Gates.

Having said that, the ratio is one of the most basic tools utilized for credit risk management.

The Armchair Economist.

[RastaMan]

4) It does not factor the efficient usage of wealth, case in point - the world would be a better place if 100% of wealth resided with M/S Buffet & Gates.

Gates is supposed to use his wealth efficiently? Why don't you add Soros then?

The two Gini indices being cited for Hong Kong are 0.434 in 1996 (UNDP) and 0.522 in 2003 (World Bank).

World map of the Gini coefficient:

We Europeans are the best!

[howard_roark]

Gates is supposed to use his wealth efficiently? Why don't you add Soros then?

www.gatesfoundation.com

Yup, we could add Soros and few others as well.

[RastaMan]

www.gatesfoundation.com

First he sells overpriced products because of he has a monopoly, then he gives off his spare change to charity and he becomes a philantropist?

Yup, we could add Soros and few others as well.

First he causes a financial crisis that bankrupts millions, then he gives off his spare change to charity and he becomes a philantropist?

Funny how this thread was about the rich using their money more efficiently than the poor. I see we have a different point of view what efficiently means. To me it doesn't mean making even more money with complete disregard of other people's livelihoods.