- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,599
- 19
- 81
Oxfam Study Finds Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016
1 of them has more than half of the pile of resources.
The other half gets what's left. If one of that half asks for more, the majority-holder tells them to stop being greedy, and that their greed will destabilize the whole system.
Then with each passing year, the one individual insists on taking more and more of the available resources, sometimes lamenting about the hardships of having to manage so much wealth.
In small groups, that kind of disparity isn't likely to be tolerated for very long. Someone will probably "challenge" the majority-holder for control, usually by force.
Meanwhile, a surprising number of us in the US are in that wealth-challenged majority but say "Give more to those who already have most of it!"
Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
Repeatedly throughout history, our species shows that it cannot handle heavily-concentrated power any more responsibly than a spoiled toddler. Yet every time we implement measures which attempt to reduce its incidence, they are slowly worn away and we end up right back at the same conclusion. Rinse, repeat.
So you're in a room of 100 people.The richest 1 percent are likely to control more than half of the globe’s total wealth by next year, the charity Oxfam reported in a study released on Monday.
1 of them has more than half of the pile of resources.
The other half gets what's left. If one of that half asks for more, the majority-holder tells them to stop being greedy, and that their greed will destabilize the whole system.
Then with each passing year, the one individual insists on taking more and more of the available resources, sometimes lamenting about the hardships of having to manage so much wealth.
So 1:100 is off by a several orders of magnitude.The 80 wealthiest people in the world altogether own $1.9 trillion, the report found, nearly the same amount shared by the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale.
In small groups, that kind of disparity isn't likely to be tolerated for very long. Someone will probably "challenge" the majority-holder for control, usually by force.
Meanwhile, a surprising number of us in the US are in that wealth-challenged majority but say "Give more to those who already have most of it!"
Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
Repeatedly throughout history, our species shows that it cannot handle heavily-concentrated power any more responsibly than a spoiled toddler. Yet every time we implement measures which attempt to reduce its incidence, they are slowly worn away and we end up right back at the same conclusion. Rinse, repeat.
Last edited: