According to the latest Oxfam publication on the issue, 8 people, that's right, eight. Have more wealth amongst themselves than 3.6 Billion of the poorest people on earth. At least according to this AP article on the topic: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-15-19-02-51
It would be murder, and that's a bad thing. Besides, you don't really need to kill people in order to redistribute their wealth. Of course they are also creating robots to do those jobs but hey!
I mean, as far as not needing to kill people for wealth redistribution, Stalin isn't exactly the best example.
Shhhh, I am trying to judge when best to stop the Stalinists. we need some Trotskyists, Leninists, and Marxists in here. they will either Balance out the Stalinism... or die trying.
Not that it changes anything, but I wonder (note that I did approximately zero research on this topic). : If the top 8 have 400 billion (figure comes from radio news this morning), 3.5 billion people have around 100 (€\$). So they have about ~100 on average. What exactly does this mein? Do they have this money at the beginning or end of each month, or in savings, or ...? I think this matters! Stupid example: As a student, I had no money at the end of each month, still I was doing fine. Again: Not that I doubt the seriousness of what Oxfam says, I merely do not know what it entails.
It entails that wealth distribution is ridiculous and could use some reshaping. Violent or not, I don't much care.
I would assume (stressed) that it means total wealth. If they measure the wealth of the top 8 people as 400 billion, that's net worth most likely. I doubt that means they have a monthly income of 400 billion. Than logically you'd compare that to the same variable (net worth) of those 3,5 billion people. So I'm assuming in their case that's personal belongings mostly.
my mental interpretation of the lowest 3.5 billion people is that very few of them are in western countries- are there numbers anywhere with that estimate divvied up by country or region?
Not sure. But yeah, I estimate even the poorest individuals in western society have a a little more than the poorest in many a worse place on earth. Are there enough poor people in these worse places on earth to not include much western people in these statistics? Not sure. There would be some, most likely, from western countries. But then it would depend on what you define as western to see how large that number is. I assume you'd find more of these statistics in countries like Portugal, Spain and Greece are first world. Though their economic situation hasn't exactly been stellar the last couple of years, far from it.
The power of people against poverty Extreme inequality Runaway inequality has created a world where just 8 men own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population. We must take urgent action to reverse it now. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/ As one can see here, https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/...half-the-world?utm_term=.lfn1LOEZb#.laeOaJGB9 , all of these uber wealthy chaps look white. According to some, that is terrible because they are men and they are white and their success automatically means they "stole" opportunities from billions of other people. Triple whammy of sin. How many of these guys are Righties? How many of these dudes don't pay lots of taxes? How many of these peeps refuse to donate to charity? How many of these hombres failed to create 100s or 1000s of new millionaires? What does "urgent action" look like? Enquiring minds be wonderin. Salaam.
why are you doing the thing with the colours and the blogging style posting again? anyways I have no problem with at least 5 of them being male or traditional white ( there are some I don't think quite count? I think one of them might be more asian than european. who cares about that!) but when 8 people have as much resources at their disposal as half the population then there is a problem and while Ohmin tells me murder is bad, and unnecesary, it would probably be the fastest solution towards greater equity.