Topic: Is it true that 80% of the world's wealth in the hands of 20%? (Read 1111 times)

I do not see this issue as temporal, if just talking about the data is not clear whether verifiable or unverified, it is not enough to assess the overall impact.
I have a small thought about the old times when the economy was controlled by the royal family and it worked well in the early stages and then the crisis hit and created an economy again. new royal control. Today also balance may be what many people want, but in reality it has not happened, if the control and operation is good, I see no problem at all, but if the opposite is the case, the change will happen again.

Even if we don't real data, the visibility of their companies, businesses, and other stuff publicly is already enough to say that they've been controlling the world's wealth. I'm into conspiracy theories but it seems that a few of those stuff are likely for real like that Rothschild and Rockefeller thing.

That's a lot if your country has a huge mass. A total of 5% of it will make someone control over all of those resources and will make them oligarchs.

If only 5% is controlled, I think that is a very small number because there is still another 95% that must be known and managed properly by the state or the authorities in order to be able to prosper the people who live there. And by the way I want to know which country you are in that so little resource is being managed by a party that you don't name yourself. And what needs to be clarified here is what resources manage that 5% in your country? Is it natural resources or are there human resources there?

The issue of wealth being controlled by only a few percent of the world's population, of course, still needs proof and real data, but if you look at the conditions that exist in my country and have done research, a surprising fact was found, namely that the country's resources are controlled by 5%.

It is sad indeed if we look at this and this has caused concern because of its potential social and political implications. High levels of wealth inequality can lead to social unrest, economic instability, and hinder sustainable development.

Responding to this problem, the government and policy makers have a big duty to overcome this inequality and make it fairer, for example in terms of progressive taxation, inclusive economic policies and regulating financial markets and accumulation of wealth, meaning that the government can implement regulations and policies to prevent excessive accumulation of wealth and curb predatory and monopolistic practices.

I am sure, that wherever the steps taken by the government, all related components must submit and comply, otherwise there will be no consequences. The government always wins when it comes to exact regulation.

Not really. Let me tell you of a personal insight I was able to gather from starting as a poor kid, to a middle class, and to an upper class (I guess) person.

First off, the mindset when you're poor isn't how to make money to make more money, it's to make money in order to make ends meet. Which is why people that employ lower classes could get away with paying them stupendously low fees. They are at the mercy of these people considering that the slightest sign of rebellion is going to leave their families' stomachs empty.

When you become a middle class person, you've basically risen above the fear of losing finance for your basic needs, so now what you're looking for is to make more money in order to meet other needs. Adventure, luxury, other stuff that doesn't necessarily equate to being important but is definitely something that shines bright for a middle class individual. This is also the reason why they oftentimes find themselves losing their status, cause from all those spending, they didn't bother looking if whether they can save some of it in times of need, or to keep a consistent profit stream for when times get rough. They basically live in the "now"

Finally, the rich. The rich doesn't bother over stuff that the poor and the middle class would normally wrack their brains over, they can do it anytime they want anyway, so they focus on the main thing that would enable them to do this things: Money. Rich people will be seen working for money, and making money work for them, they seldom go to adventures and trips, and makes sure that their main investment, the body and the mind, is in tip-top shape. This is why you'd see rich people ripped and eloquent and smart, they got there for a reason, and they are staying in their lane because they have the capabilities.

Instant cash is something that both the poor and the middle class know is impossible, that's why they don't push for it. The rich knows it's improbable, so they make ways and do things that would allow them to do it.

Well, I think that those statistics may be partially correct, but I think that there is quite a wide world population that has more money; maybe you, we, the media, or the government did not just know them all because they just chose to stay anonymous. Why I said the statistics may be partially correct is that, normally, we have a lot of poor people and middle-class people because there are a lot of lazy people who usually give up for principal that can earn them a lot of money, which is why some people too end up working for a company or the government all the days of their lives and receiving less than $300 per month. So, the number of rich people is supposed to be less than the middle class and the poor because there are only a few (lot) of them who are breaking the principal to make wealth, but they are more than 20% based on your topic. There are quite a lot of richer people worldwide, not just Elon Musk, Bill Gates, the CEO of Apple, the Facebook CEO, and their likes. What of the Hollywood super starts, Bollywood super starts, Nollywood supper starts, all the supper starts musicians, and some supper starts comedians? What about those bitcoiners with thousands of bitcoins in their wallets, what about the drug cartels... There are many rich people worldwide; just that, some are in disguise  for some possible reasons best known to them.

Hmm, the government will never solve the inequality that distinguishes between rich and poor because it is the rulers who play this stupidity on their own playing field. The power that they control over the people and see in us as a diversion flickers in their eyes, a tool that enables them to make more money. So there will be nothing to change; the whole life will continue, and the loser is still the people, no matter how big the fortune is. It will never be the game of these rulers.

I think it's a whole lot of countries. The gap between the rich and the poor is too wide. In fact, it's even worst in developing countries. I believe the gap is a little bit low in the US when compared to developing countries. Maybe it's the many opportunities in the US. In some developing countries, the middle class is none existent. It's either you are rich or you're poor, there are no in-betweens.

Are you saying the government has no role to play in reducing poverty in the country? If that is what you're saying then you are wrong. In fact, Government has the biggest role to play in this.
I'm not saying people shouldn't find their own way, but they would be short of options if the government don't try to help in the fight against poverty.

What you say is true, but it is not entirely true. The government is also partly responsible and responsible when it comes to inequality and disparity between rich and poor in society. But if you think the government has no role or effort in driving the economy and the country forward, you are wrong. They will create opportunities and jobs, but who grabs and takes advantage is up to each person, you can't expect them to come and give you a high paying job, you don't have to put in the effort to find. No government can do that. In addition, many people stay poor and get poorer because they are lazy, don't try to get ahead, and can't blame the government for this case. Just like in a family where there will be rich and poor, you cannot blame your parents when you are poor, your brothers and sisters are wealthy.

It is not, we have talked about this before and many other people talked about it as well, 1% of the people own 90%+ of the wealth in the world, that's true and the reality we live in. The discussions about socialism and liberalism meets a crossroads here, if you build a nation with free market liberalism, then some people get rich based on their talents, or more like their business ideas, and they get rich to a point where they own it all, but if you build a socialist or communist nation then the people at power start to do that, why do you think in 1991 as soon as USSR disbanded there were rich people?

So all in all, whatever method you use, doesn't matter the ideology, there are rich people who own most of the wealth, that's just how human nature is, we are incapable of stopping that. There is literally no known method that can stop this.

I also see something that is very reasonable in cases like this because it already talks about a person's ability to do so in order to maintain his throne of wealth and power through several channels, including through the economy. So it's only natural that there will always be competition in high-class society so that the losers and the winners will always be seen and some of them will never give up to stay rich and be number one globally.

If examined in depth, actually this kind of thing is not included in the government's duties even though it occurs within a country. Because the task of the government is to supervise, guide and also build what is needed by the community so that the rich and poor are only colors in society because it occurs based on the benchmark of the number of valuable assets owned by everyone. So it will be difficult for the government to intervene in such a problem because there really won't be a common ground to resolve.

I think that it is human nature to be competitive because everybody wants to be at the top, to control others. So the issue of class has always been there. Those at the top will do anything, even it it's evil to remain there, because they control the wealth of their society, they will make sure that it is not evenly distributed. This top or high class individuals will go as far as putting their loyalists at the head of government, just to protect their wealth.

Government can not do much to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, especially in capitalist countries, where the industrialists and the super rich controls the economy. They will always have the upper hand in wealth distribution.

Indeed, we are just seeing small percentage of it but we cannot deny how the gap between rich and poor is significantly higher and we can actually observe this in most countries especially those in developing. We can see through the years that rich were continuously getting rich while poor people stays like that. It may be because of the wise decisions of the wealthy people and what they have is actually the opportunity to make it more since they have the resources to do so. Therefore those who are really poor who do not have that kind of resources doesn't have the opportunity to help. I think it is indeed that government cannot do something regarding this gap, but I think they can help lessen the poverty line if they just do good governance that offers really more opportunities for poor and focuses on them on helping them but that it is too good to be true since most of people in government are corrupt, what a sad reality it is.

Government can't take from the rich to give to the poor or middleclass so i don't think they can do anything, the rich will continue to get richer because all the finest opportunities of life is at their feet.
The poor and middleclass people can only do much, if you get lucky with so much hard work you can find yourself in the top. But in most cases they can't exceed certain level. However, not everyone has the capability and capacity to climb to that level. I think the majority of middleclass are just content with their status, as long as they don't belong to the poor majority they are okay. 

It is true that wealth distribution can be unequal, with a small percentage of individuals holding a significant portion of the world's wealth. Economic disparities exist in many societies, and the concentration of wealth can impact social and economic dynamics.

While government policies and initiatives can play a role in creating opportunities and promoting economic growth, individual efforts and choices also contribute to wealth accumulation. Factors such as education, skills, entrepreneurship, hard work, networking, and access to resources can influence an individual's ability to generate wealth.

If we think of the most richest person in the world we would think of people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates. But they are just famous, most of the rich people in the world doesn't even want to be exposed to the public they would pay the government or people to hide their identities to the public maybe it might be for their safety since they are rich. In short we still don't know some of the richest person in the world that might contribute more to the country to eliminate the issues but since that's not their responsibility they remain silent, so this statement could be true.

Economically people should try to improve their fortunes the government has no role to play in speeding up and taking the country forward socio economically. Due to the social and political unrest in the world, economic activities are being hampered. People are falling behind in this the prerequisite for development is political stability economic development is not possible without political stability. The poor are getting poorer and personal income inequality is increasing, the gap between the richest and the poorest has widened. If not, public outrage against such discrimination will continue to grow discrimination there will be a big stir in the political field.

80/20 is more lopsided in USA I think and probably a few different places, we should find a chart that compares inequality but its not rare because some will save and invest and some will just spend on the basis that they need things now.  For alot of people, their family is their investment literally the kids will look after their parents in old age and this is their pension of sorts in lots of countries the reliance on paper money isnt there they farm and turn over value in live stock, plantations etc.
   That makes sense and doesn't make them poor exactly but on paper it doesn't compare well to the global reserve system all based around paper debt from mostly just an elite set of countries; it ain't fair basically.

Equal distribution of wealth won't happen forever. Maybe if we were practicing the bartender method of transaction, it might've been followed. This is not just on greed, one have put the effort and multiplied his earning and someone without any efforts expecting his earnings to be shared isn't a fair thing.

80% of wealth into the hands of 20% is the truth, and this can be understood with the net worth of the leading people against the sum of cumulative value of each country's budget. Also Governments can never get into one's money and force to distribute equally when the person have paid tax for what he have earned.