How do you feel about the Forbes top 100 Billionaires list in regards to poverty?

[DEAD7]

@ this thread.

Spoiler

Cant wait till solutions* begin flowing

 

[DEAD7]

There's only around $250 trillion in total wealth in the world and less than $10 trillion in gold. Where are you people getting these numbers from?

You keep the facts to yourself.

Let these boys cook

 

[JahFocus CS]

Let's cool it down with the math and facts.

 

[Kritic]

Only a piece of shyt would have $1 billion . How can you not spend money on infrastructure for the poor with that kinda money. Smh truly sick people rack up money like that. I'd keep a few mil for my self and all the rest going to truly helping the poor.

a rich person's attitude is

i didn't cause your problems... there's govt programs to help you. i'm a billionaire today but it could all vanish tomorrow so ...

 

[observe]

There's only around $250 trillion in total wealth in the world and less than $10 trillion in gold. Where are you people getting these numbers from?

When you control finance you can be worth as much as you want..

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

When you control finance you can be worth as much as you want..

I bet that sounds clever to stupid people.

 

[Joe American]

When you control finance you can be worth as much as you want..

Isn't it funny on Forbes wealthiest people on Earth list - there are no Rothchilds, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers (ok one at $2B), Fords, Hearts, Morgans, Gettys, Duponts, Astors and so on and so on!!!! Just new money - Gates, Walton, Buffet, dude in Mexico (Telecommunications magnet) - trump and oprah? Really? really.

 

[Truth200]

There's only around $250 trillion in total wealth in the world and less than $10 trillion in gold.

Even so, that's still alot of money....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/five-...ivative-exposure-morgan-stanley-sitting-fx-de

How accurate that $250 trillion number is.....idk

 

[JahFocus CS]

You can definitely say that there's a disconnect between finance and the real economy. Just consider how banks work - if everyone went to request their money at once, the system would collapse. Because the numbers are just that: numbers. It is all a house of cards.

That being said, once you start talking out of your ass about $750 trillion and quadrillions of dollars, you undermine whatever legitimate points you may be able to raise.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Even so, that's still alot of money....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/five-...ivative-exposure-morgan-stanley-sitting-fx-de

How accurate that $250 trillion number is.....idk

Derivatives market is much bigger than that I think but the total market size is based on notional amount of the underlying asset. Also, most of the trades cancel each other out. The money changing hands and the net exposure ends up being much, much smaller.

Still, the size of the derivative market is ridiculous.

 

[Kritic]

Thomas Piketty’s False Depiction of Wealth in America

In his book,Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty portrays the rich as heirs with privileged access to high rates of return, stating “it is almost inevitable that inherited wealth will dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime’s labor.” He points to the Forbes wealth rankings for support.

In fact, the Forbes 400—an annual ranking of the richest Americans—indicates wealth is much more fleeting than Piketty suggests and is characterized more by entrepreneurship than by inheritance.

Key Findings

• Of the Forbes 400 from 1987, 327 people have dropped off the list. Of the remaining 73 people, those with the highest annual rates of return are generally self-made entrepreneurs and investors—not heirs—with an average annual real rate of return of 5.6 percent over the last 26 years.
• The rate of return for the Forbes 400 as a whole, 2.4 percent, is roughly equal to Piketty’s estimated returns for the entire population.
• Wealth today is largely generated by entrepreneurial skill, with the number of entrepreneurs on the Forbes 400 list rising from 40 percent in 1982 to 69 percent in 2011.
• The role of inheritance has diminished over the last generation; the share of the Forbes 400 that grew up wealthy has fallen from 60 percent in 1982 to 32 percent today.
• As with individuals, the wealth of corporations has been highly dynamic over the last 30 years; turnover in the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased in recent decades, with only one corporation (General Electric) remaining on the Dow Jones for more than 100 years.

Introduction

This year’s most popular economics book, Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has a message made for a popular audience. It spells out people’s worst fears about capitalism: that it causes economic inequality that if left to run its course could lead to a tiny ruling elite controlling virtually all wealth and power. This is compelling, bad news, but do we have any evidence that it is real? Have two or three hundred years of capitalism resulted in a permanent plutocracy?

Piketty’s answer is that the two World Wars and Great Depression destroyed so much capital that it set the owners of capital back a few decades; however, wealth concentration is once again reaching levels that existed in the Belle Époque prior to World War I. Piketty believes that the best way to stop this process is through a progressive income tax of 80 percent and an internationally-enforced progressive wealth tax of 10 percent.


Piketty’s Analysis of Wealth Inequality in America
...
Forbes data, saying “economists as a general rule do not have much respect” for it.[7] He claims that the Forbes data is biased due to the relative ease of tracking entrepreneurial fortunes versus inheritances

http://taxfoundation.org/article/thomas-piketty-s-false-depiction-wealth-america

Saudi Prince vs. Forbes in billionaire brawl
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/05/news/companies/alwaleed-forbes-billionaire/

Isn't it funny on Forbes wealthiest people on Earth list - there are no Rothchilds, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers (ok one at $2B), Fords, Hearts, Morgans, Gettys, Duponts, Astors and so on and so on!!!! Just new money - Gates, Walton, Buffet, dude in Mexico (Telecommunications magnet) - trump and oprah? Really? really.

 

[observe]

Isn't it funny on Forbes wealthiest people on Earth list - there are no Rothchilds, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers (ok one at $2B), Fords, Hearts, Morgans, Gettys, Duponts, Astors and so on and so on!!!! Just new money - Gates, Walton, Buffet, dude in Mexico (Telecommunications magnet) - trump and oprah? Really? really.

yeah its def new money..the forbes list is new entreprenuers...theyre not gonna tell you the real powers who have had their hand in all the world's pol itics for 100s of years..its just a smoke screen to fool the population .forbes is basic media like other news magazines or tv sitcoms built to take away from the real truth..real ballers dont broadcast their networth ..

 

[blackzeus]

That's a total non-sequitur, but...

Lets say we take that 86 billion dollars and divide it evenly amongst everyone in Mexico. Explain to me what will happen next.

It would go back into the hands of another Carlos Slim type hustlin' nikka in less than 20 years. Them Mexicans got ejidos (free land to be passed from generation to generation) and nationalized mineral wealth (oil was nationalized and most of the social programs are sponsored/paid for by Pemex, the state oil company) and they're STILL broke, poor gon' poor brehs

 

[blackzeus]

Only a piece of shyt would have $1 billion . How can you not spend money on infrastructure for the poor with that kinda money. Smh truly sick people rack up money like that. I'd keep a few mil for my self and all the rest going to truly helping the poor.

 

[blackzeus]

yeah its def new money..the forbes list is new entreprenuers...theyre not gonna tell you the real powers who have had their hand in all the world's pol itics for 100s of years..its just a smoke screen to fool the population .forbes is basic media like other news magazines or tv sitcoms built to take away from the real truth..real ballers dont broadcast their networth ..

Exactly, if the guys who are financing the wars broadcasted their sh*t in the open it would be French Revolution part deux