Topic: 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (Read 6219 times)

Money makes more money indeed, because its hard to fail when u have all the time in the world to make your next move.
Typical example would be to start a contest in bussines ideas, the best idea gets funded by you.
Give all ideas to economy expert , and what he decides is the best you finance , and recieve a precentage of profit without spending any time on that project anymore,
allowing you to rinse and repeat.

(Red colorization mine.)



Even if the position currently occupied by the Emperor was not so occupied, you would still “live within” (teukon) those bodies that would have been superior to his own.

(Red colorization mine.)

Bad logic:

• Either X is true or Y is true.
• X and Y would both be bad, and for the same reason.
• Therefore we must accept X as a necessary evil.

Furthermore, the real world serves as a counter-example to your claim.  We do not live within a single state.  There are in fact hundreds of different countries in the world.


So in particular, there is nothing to protect people from the state.  You discard absence of a state without a second thought but, by this logic, I can discard the state with equal ease.

money makes money.

With infamous examples, the power of 1-to-9 scheme (1 dollar in, 10 dollars out) is incredible.

The rich have been protecting this for years. So nothing special, only keep making worse.

Indeed, it is human nature to abuse of force.  This is why the idea to give force to someone (almost no matter whom, as you point out) in order to enforce "the common good" will always end up corrupted in using that force for "the oligarches' good".

On the other hand (as username quoted Kant), in order to have freedom, one needs to be free of the arbitrary violence of others, and one needs one's fundamental freedoms to be protected (by force - there's no other way: nothing that is not force, can impose something to something that uses force).

So here's the fundamental dilemma of statesmanship:

- in order to protect the freedoms of the citizens, a violence monopolist who is stronger than any contender (in a certain territory) needs to exist (the State),

- but any one having the authority to handle the State's violence will always end up using the State's means for his own purpose and not for the general good (in as much as that can even be defined).

So a (violent) state is a necessity, and an unavoidable evil.  It is even an unavoidable thing, even if it weren't a necessity: *somebody* will end up being the strongest, and hence the de facto violence monopolist.  So a state is not only an evil necessity, it is an unavoidable evil.

This is why I'm for a minimalistic state, with as few competences as possible.  However, this hope bites in its own tail, because who's going to limit the prerogatives of the violence monopolist ?

My only hope is that people understand the mechanism of power, and generally start understanding the fundamental but unavoidable and even necessary evil of the state.

As long as there are idiots cheering for "more state" my hope is vain.  It is like turkeys cheering for Christmas.

But the same pattern between Bitcoin and real world rich people, must be a coincidence.

By the way, nice analysis.

They are not the cause, the cause is human nature. Replace them with other people, and after a couple decades we'll end up the same.
Bitcoin: Same thing, we have inequality because people want to amass and not share. At least tho we know the system can't be perverted in the sense of creating random money pressing a button.

You're right, property is nothing but a privilege granted by the state, or a state-like entity. All of it has roots in violence, theft and war. And any new authoritarian structure, whether state socialism or lubertarian capitalism, will lead to reproduce the same system, or worse.

Very true, we cannot ask the oligarchs  (politicians) to change the actual status quo, this will not work because they ARE the actual cause of the rigged system. And, if you are not already in the oligarchy, you cannot become a leading politician.

Indeed, the distribution of bitcoin supply is not so different than traditional currencies. And, on an unrelated note, probably a good deal of those early adopters are -- together with miners -- keeping us in this long term downtrend.

That's a funny idea.  How could transferring wealth to an unproductive powerful club (= the state), which is at the basis of making undeserved rich people, solve any problem of unequal undeserved wealth distribution ?

After all, the state is always at the origin of the very rich.  The state is the source of (undeserved) wealth.  That has historically been so (the kings became rich on the back of the people, and the kings were the state).  That is still the case.  The state makes fortunes, by exclusivities, granting monopolies, imposing market-skewing rules giving advantage to some, and state contracts to "friends".   The more the state can command wealth (by taxes), the more it can give it in the hands of their friends to make them rich.

The only difference in a democracy is that they now also have to distribute some wealth to sufficient people for buying them their votes, while before, they had to buy people to be violent.  Democracy has shifted things a bit.

You can endorse politicians who support progressive tax

Its a big joke how wealth is so unfairly distributed in this so called world. But what can we do? i think we can do exactly nothing.

Not exactly. The average and the median are two different things. The median person (50th percentile) has less than the average number of coins. The average number of coins is skewed upwards by the very rich. See my post where I give the math (though I don't specifically discuss the median vs. average.)

Just wrote something on the distribution of bitcoins. Thought you guys might be interested. Posted it under Speculation, since that's where I usually post. Very interested in your comments. Thanks.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-many-coins-is-a-lot-finally-answer-inside-946938

Bullshit, 21 million coins divided by 7 billion people means the average amount of bitcoins will be 3 millibitcoin (0.003 Bitcoin) anyone who can't afford 0.003 Bitcoin will be poorer than average (poorest 50%) anyone who has more will belong to the richest 50%. Having a full Bitcoin would make you like a millionaire today.

It's impossible to become rich from faucets unless you have tremendous amounts of luck. Yes LUCK. Because there isn't enough time to become a millonaire if you start from the bottom. To defeat that time/gains balance, you need luck. An insane investment like buying tons of cheap AUR and selling at the top at 0.1, or a lucky bet in a coin casino.

Well I personally know people, who only started with the clothing on their backs and through hard work are millionaires today.

Money gives you the edge, but it's not the alpha and omega to becoming rich in Bitcoin or any other currency. I will respect you more, if you become successful, from starting with faucets.   

Most people cant take the Bitcoin train because they dont have the money and resources to risk on it anyway. And to pick a good spot in the train to become rich, you need a lot of money to buy at least 100 coins.

There is, assuming bitcoin is used as the one and only currency.

If you want food, you'll need to pay with bitcoin.

If you never do anything to earn bitcoin, you'll just keep losing bitcoin to pay for food. Thus, unless you were incredibly rich to start with, you'll need some form of income (= you need to offer something to mankind) to pay your food. You can't just print your way out of it like the rich do now.

Yes, early investors will likely have enough bitcoin to feed themselves and several generations of children and grandchildren but eventually there will be a somewhat even distribution. Since the few people who are rich enough in bitcoin that they don't need to work will only lose bitcoin (they will spend more than they earn), while the relatively poor will work and earn more than they spend. Eventually the gap between poor and rich will close.

That's the effect of a currency that is limited in supply, like gold or bitcoin. At some point, you will need to do someone a favor to gain some commodity in order to get something you want.

There are no free rides in a commodity-based system.

The gap between rich and poor is caused by a lot of things, unlimited printing of dollars is one of the causes (not the only cause however).

Another important cause is because a majority of people is stupid enough to refer to other people as their 'boss' like they are some kind of dog.

Wealth disparity is a sign of unhealthy social structure.

but it may help in some way for sure, by spreading it in the right way, some poor people would have a better living, if they took the bitcoin train

Some of entrepreneurs or very smart people or people with special powers may grow much more logical, maybe governments need to revise their tax policy.

3.5 billion people, not dollars.

(Red colorization mine.)



(Red colorization mine.)

Alexander did, indeed, conquer many a people; however, conquest is a self-preservation technique so primitive as to be employed by chimpanzees.

Why thank you ! A very kind thing to say.


^^ I could not agree more with this. It has taken many a hard working man to create the society in which we are blessed to be currently living in today. Our forefathers have fought for centuries told to fight for the standard of living that most of us in the west enjoy today. They would probably be immensely proud of how far our species has come and the fruits that our and there labour have brought. However, I am also sure they would be a little pleased to see how are appetites for bigger and better have increased exponentially, whereas our hunger to work hard for such improvements has practically vanished.

In Asia, that hunger is growing. Watch the east.

Especially in this forum, just want to point out your comment is very wise and something I subscribe to myself. In a lot of ways, the middle class is voluntarily hanging itself. We need to get re-energized about our place in the world once more. Prior to these inflated decades of entitlement, the middle class man was revered for his sense of duty, honor and commitment to family and friends. He worked hard and it stood for something. Getting rich was not his idea of life, though perhaps a by-product.

Maybe he meant the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people?

Yes ofcourse is trillions.

The problem isn't the rich. The problem is the lethargy of the working man. If you want change then switch off your PC, mute your televisions and begin to appreciate your fellow man. You'd be surprised how many people think the same way but wouldn't know where to begin. We need a shepherd to guide us. Be that shepherd.

The problem is getting worse also, the super rich are getting better and better at killing the middle class.  I reckon best thing to do is boycott the system as much as possible.  Trying to address the problem within the system hasnt worked.

Trillions, maybe?
Bill Gates alone own 80 billion dollars.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

Datas are correct i saw them elsewhere few days ago.

Effectively, your numbers seems to be a bit odd

"80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion)"
^^^
$3.5 Billion combined for the richest 80 people, seriously?
Don't you want to check that one before posting it?

This is a very big problem indeed, but bitcoin won't resolve it at all.

Do you have their bit coin valet address?

When you are surrounded by people that lives like you you become accustomed and you want more. I feel bored and poor compared to Cristiano Ronaldo for example.

these 50% live entirely in the third world and can be ignored for that reason, its the widening disparity between richest and poorest within our own civilised countries we should be more concerned about. if it weren't for a few jew billionaires hoarding wealth and using it to exploit the rest of us we could be working a 20 hour week.

Well just to put this into another context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nSjPdT788

I think a significant number of bitcoins will be lost, when people die unexpectedly. Planning to transfer digital assets is not high on the priority list of many people.

This will be the first time in human history that family can leave wealth behind to progeny that can't be confiscated. New family bonds can form around protecting the future for generations to come.

Almost everyone on this forum is in the top 5%. It's easy to look up and say, "It's not fair". Nobody looks down and says the same. The world can't support 7 billion people with a TV and air-conditioning. Before you expect the top 1% (only about 1.5 million dollars by the way) to give some up, how about you give your wealth to somebody in Africa?

Crashes like this are good for Bitcoin, so rich bastards lose their money on panic sells and new poor people can start adquiring Bitcoin and reasonable prices for a longer period before price goes too high.
Yes, its unfair as life itself but at least with Bitcoin there are no rothchilds printing magic money.

I knew he was from an above normal family but I am pretty sure his wealth is incomparable compared to what his families had. Also there are many billionaires in IT industry like Piere Omidyar, ebay founder or....
But anyway thanks for info

This has historically been a temporary short-term problem that finds permanent solutions, at least for the unlucky few. Hopefully, Bitcoin will reverse the trend.

Bingo.  Too many many of these 'kids' weren't even around before Bill Gates became 'Bill Gates,' so they have no idea what happened during his rise to fame.  

The rich will continue to get richer...and that certainly holds 100% true for the richest in the world.  Generational money never leaves, especially when they typically hold virtual monopolies in their respective industries.


Zuckerberg?  I'll give you a hint...Jewish.  


expert4knowledge, I'm sorry man, but you don't have any clue as to what you speak on regarding this subject.  Inflation has zero bearing on the wealth divide and how the richest live.  

Bill Gates came from a generational banking family and he was busted driving a Porsche without a license at age 21.  How many 21 year olds do you know have a porsche at their age?  If Bill Gates didn't found Microsoft I'm sure he would had gone on some gap year, attempted university again and then ended up as a Bank President somewhere.  


If you're going to single out the exceptions then at least research their backgrounds.  Bill Gates even as a teenager was already a member of the 1% and was guaranteed to be a success, unless he developed a mental illness or something, due to family connections.

As well these threads are total bait for selection bias.  Typical college dropout isn't a billionaire, the 1 college dropout who becomes a billionaire there is probably 1 million dropouts who never amounted to anything and died broke.

But if you look at the current richest people you see that they were entrepreneurs who became rich in recent decades or years, people such as mark zuckerberg, Bil Gates and even the first bitcoin developers. The problem are bankers and people who have usually much money and some financial companies in us.

This is not news. Inequality is something we all hate to see, but no one has a solution. Repeating that again and again is not going to help. Don't compare you self to the wealthiest, just do your best and enjoy what you have (rich or poor).

The distribution of wealth has little to do with inflation, if any.  The top wealthiest individuals on this planet all come from old family money which has been kept and transferred from generation to generation.  Generally in the form of businesses, resources (oil/diamonds/etc), entertainment (recording industry/film/television/etc), or simply royalty.  All inflation does is allow the bankers to help the irresponsible politicians keep their frivelous spending habits without having to take out loans.   The wealth distribution and divide between rich and poor would remain the same with or without inflation.  So not sure what the OP's point is.  

inb4 Winklevoss

Welcome to the elite my friend! The elite in practical knowledge that is. It's a shame few realize what you've said. Getting rich is for poor people, making money is for the rich.

From the article:

It takes two to tango.  If merely having wealth is a concern vis-à-vis corruption then surely simply having power is equally problematic.  When you say that the poor are voiceless aren't you really just admitting that a person's vote is practically worthless and that worldwide "power inequality" is already far more extreme than wealth inequality?  It sounds as if you're suggesting that political systems worldwide are already so heavily broken that we must rely on corruption to afford some level of fairness and therefore need to aim for a more even distribution of wealth so as to emulate democracy with money in place of votes.


You're just appealing to the reader's envy.  Your behaviour is appauling and you ought to be ashamed.

This is not to say that there are no political or economic problems in the world today, far from it.  I simply claim that increasing wealth inequality is a symptom, not a problem in itself, and that we could do with more noble attempts to help others (such as the Bitcoin experiment, part of an ambitious attempt to diffuse central bank power) and fewer people trying to "raise awareness" by baffling people with emotionally charged bullshit.  If a result of your conduct leads to an increase in political power anywhere to force a different wealth distribution then you'll have done the equivalent of painting a rash with skin-coloured paint.

i think a fair number of top 100 btc wallets are satoshi and exchanges

Most of the value held by rich people is not in the form of money, but in the form of assets (mainly capital, that is production, assets, such as companies).

The distribution of wealth has not much to do with the monetary policy.  In fact, only relatively poor people have a large part of their holdings in money.  Everything which devaluates money is in fact punishing more the lower economic classes which have less means to protect their stores of value.

You know, Baudrillard's hyperreality quote bears a resemblance to the metaphysical arguments/explanations of the Vedas and the Jain scriptures.
I'm considering getting his Symbolic Exchange and Death to read over the weekend, but no Kindle version -we'll see.

Comedy gold.

Past a certain point every one of life's needs and wants are fulfilled.  That's when people start going silly buying their fifth Ferrari, competing with friends on who can get the biggest diamond, and how many villas they have that never get used.

The one thing they can't buy is more life.  Not even Steve Jobs, with billions of dollars to spend on the finest doctors and medicines on the planet, could live to a ripe old age of 60.

Yeah, it's a screwed up world we live in.  I've heard a few people ask the question, "how much money does anybody really need?"  When you think about it you realize just how obscene some fortunes are.  Way more than several generations could ever need and yet people accumulate scarce resources that others simply can't afford.  This is what actually causes poverty and disruptive ripples in various economies. 

"DAVOS (The Borowitz Report)—A new Oxfam report indicating that the wealthiest one per cent possesses about half of the world’s wealth has left the richest people in the world “reeling with disappointment,” a leading billionaire said on Tuesday."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/richest-one-per-cent-disappointed-possess-half-worlds-wealth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28144%29&CNDID=32291837&spMailingID=7435981&spUserID=ODc4NDk0NTczMDAS1&spJobID=602473034&spReportId=NjAyNDczMDM0S0

If the medicine advances so much in the future as to prolong the life expectancy to like more than 200 years than it's worth collecting huge amounts of money. Right now it's just getting golden toilets, Bentleys and chocolate desserts with golden toppings for $100k. Thanks but no thanks.

1% of peaple on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 99%

  The game is one not of our choosing, played to rules not of our design, and played in an alien venue. And we lose everytime.

   Technology, I believe, is fast approaching being able to formulate new games. Games whose rules are rational and arrived at via consensus. We will choose to play because the advantages to all who participate will be obvious - and to not participate would be to render oneself ill suited to the new world and its new democratic and participatory paradigm. Technology will, so to speak, transcend certain academic debates by putting practical solutions into the hands of people - and the answers that were always illusive, will instead,in practice, be made manifest.





Define wealth. Strikes me that wealth is amorphous. From where does wealth originate ? Where do we locate value ? Bitcoin will never, in spite of deflation, have a monoploy on value (or wealth). So it can only ever be seen as a part of the solution - obviously.

Indeed, there is no guarantee but since the supply is limited and not rigged, the Bitcoins will tend to get spread around. Look at the price, all those people selling are scared as hell early investors that are giving their cheap people to new people that missed the -200 boat.

Tribe is a genesis of a money and its state; therefore, a money will tend to tribe.

So in your mind, spending equals wealth distribution; rejecting that notion means denying the existence of economies. Got it. Enjoy your free everything.

Congratulations. You just disproved the existence of economies. I can now get everything for free.

The problem with RBE is the transition. Bitcoin is bloodlessly disruptive of the status quo.

I hope you're not going to hijack this thread trying to prove an obviously flawed notion.
Spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.
Payment for asset or service represents transfer of value, tangible or otherwise.
Ergo, the spender can theoretically recoup said expenditure by trading in the value of his purchase at a later date.
An obvious exception here is consumables, but the cyclical nature of value transfer within the BTC ecosystem on a macro scale will even things out.
So, to reiterate, spending Bitcoin != wealth distribution.


Indeed. It is beyond tragic.
Thank for the Zeitgeist rec. Will read later, at the very least.

It's simply disgusting, if you're interested in making a change, investigate the Zeitgeist movement, they offer real solutions, yet I don't see any changes without violence. Mark Twain once said, the earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and the people responsibe have names and adresses.....

The difference is that fiat has been in existence for as long as creation of our current banking system. Bitcoin is only around for 5 years plus. So essentially you can't compare directly between both.

Bitcoin is on a diminishing inflation curve called the block reward. Spending bitcoins is irrevocable distribution.

Speaking as a Bitcoiner,
1. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency.
2. There is no guarantee it "will eventually be irrevocably distributed."

The difference with Bitcoin is that inflation will decrease and the wealth will eventually be irrevocably distributed.

With fiat, the ruling wealthy can continuously inflate the currency and still maintain their wealth without redistribution.

Make of this what you will.

• By 2016, the top 1% of the world’s population will have more wealth than the other 99%
• 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion)
• The poorest 80% own just 5.5% of the world's wealth
• The richest 80 doubled their worth in cash terms between 2009 and 2014
• More than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches
• Britain’s 100 richest had the same wealth as 30% of UK households
• The financial sector contributed $571 million to various campaigns during 2012 U.S. presidential elections
• In 2013, financial and insurance lobbies gave $550 million to policymakers in Washington and Brussels

ps: Before anyone blindly starts proselytizing about Bitoin, keep in mind the same pattern has/is emerging in crypto as well.
Less it be forgotten, the top 100 addresses own 20% (2,875,298 BTCs) of all BTCs mined thus far (13,736,250, as of block #339,450).