- “Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest decile hold 87% of the world’s wealth, and the top percentile alone account for 48.2% of global assets,” said the annual report, now in its fifth year.
The report, which calculates that total global wealth has grown to a new record – $263tn, more than twice the $117tn calculated for 2000 – found that the UK was the only country in the G7 to have recorded rising inequality in the 21st century.
It's interesting in that this has been happening in democratic nations as well as totalitarian ones. It seems that the architecture that controls the flow of global wealth is somewhat independent of regional politics. Of course it can be argued that standards of living around the world are increasing overall, but is the capital that fuels this disparity captured? Could the increase in standard of living be significantly greater, and increase much faster?
The article says that "China now has more people in the top 10% of global wealth holders than any other country." That is fantastic news for China! Of course it can be argued that some people in the United States are worse off because of this development. I am convinced that the change is a net benefit. Those who oppose wealth diversity should agree, if they perceive a transfer of wealth from relatively rich to relatively poor. How else could the Chinese be getting richer, if not by making someone else poorer? The last time a flashy title so grossly distorted the important subject of poverty, we learned that this gentleman is the poorest man in the world:it can be argued that standards of living around the world are increasing overall
Must it be argued? Is it too juvenile and unserious to celebrate it?
No, but I would say that the issue is a complex one that includes philosophical matters that are not easily settled. That said, by the most widely-used measures of standard of living, I believe that they are increasing overall. However, consider this as a complexity: My wife recently met with an old friend in Dalian China at a bar. She had to take a picture of the menu after having a long discussion with the bartender. I will have to ask her for the specific numbers, but I recall that he made something like 2400 ($384) yuan every month working 7 days a week. Yet that was his base pay. Some of his wages were usually garnished as his boss often fined him for infractions such as allowing too many cigarette butts to accumulate in the ash tray. He pointed to a table and said: "Those three people have already drank $1000." That drink on the menu listed for 6880 CNY is $1100. He couldn't find better work. In fact, people would line up for his job. There is something uniquely dispiriting about being a servant of wealthy humans that seem fundamentally equivalent, and seeing no out. This is one anecdote, but the situation is shared for many Chinese. I believe that socioeconomic arguments must consider these measures when determining a standard of living. Humans are complex social creatures. We can have all the wealth in the world and live in torment. We need to be clear about what our goals are. No doubt, the standard of living has increased globally by many measures. What I wonder, is could it be increased in a more humane way? And, dare I ask: Could it be increased more quickly in a more humane way?Must it be argued? Is it too juvenile and unserious to celebrate it?
There exist wealthy people, who are protecting their interests, both in democratic nations and in totalitarian regimes.
The rich get richer, unless/until the poor get fed up with it. Rising standards of living tend to dampen that "fed up" factor, I suspect.
That is not the usual formulation, of course. But neither is this: The Rich Get Richer, And So Do The ChineseThe rich get richer, unless/until the poor get fed up with it.
In Asia, not counting Japan, Allianz estimates that 220 million people are upper-middle class and more than half of them are in China.
I just got to the chapter in Piketty where he finally shows us graphs in emerging countries as opposed to France, England, US -- and they're nearly the same. Definitely the exact trend, just slightly different magnitudes. If I had my book with me I'd be more specific.It seems that the architecture that controls the flow of global wealth is somewhat independent of regional politics.
Those are very good questions. Some which I think get addressed in one of my latest posts by John Perkins who's a self confessed economic hit man. He explains the inner workings of the machine that underpins the perpetuation of this disparity.