"Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half’"

"The world's eight richest individuals have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam."

Yes, it is far worse than we can imagine.

<ed>If it isn't trickling down now, what makes you think it ever will?

But! But! But! The spending cuts were never enacted!?!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

"Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half’"

"The world's eight richest individuals have as much wealth as the 3.6bn people who make up the poorest half of the world, according to Oxfam."

Ex,

The list that that article on BBC used is a bit... dated (March 2016). But...

The world's eight richest billionaires

1. Bill Gates (US): co-founder of Microsoft (net worth $75bn)

2. Amancio Ortega (Spain): founder of Zara owner Inditex (net worth $67bn)

3. Warren Buffett (US): largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8bn)

4. Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico): owner of Grupo Carso (net worth $50bn)

5. Jeff Bezos (US): founder and chief executive of Amazon (net worth $45.2bn)

6. Mark Zuckerberg (US): co-founder and chief executive of Facebook (net worth $44.6bn)

7. Larry Ellison (US): co-founder and chief executive of Oracle (net worth $43.6bn)

8. Michael Bloomberg (US): owner of Bloomberg LP (net worth $40bn)

Source: Forbes billionaires' list, March 2016 

1. Bill Gates. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.
2. Amancio Ortega, Self-made wealth.
3. Warren Buffett. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.
4. Carlos Slim Helu. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.
5. Jeff Bezos. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.
6. Mark Zuckerberg. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.
7. Larry Ellison. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.
8. Michael Bloomberg. Self-made wealth. Philanthropist.

You seeing a pattern?

None of them started with 'old money', at best they started 'middle class'. They ALL built their businesses up from essentially nothing. ALL have donated large sums of money to charitable purposes. (Several of the ones from the USA are even Democrats).

How much of their 'wealth' was created BY their business activity? Quite a lot. It didn't exist prior to them creating it.

(The next 2 points are also directed at Gary, due to his 'trickle-down' comments in his reply to your post).
How many people directly work for these 8, and owe their livelihoods to these 8?

How many other people owe their jobs and livelihoods to those that work directly for these 8?

(Yes, Gary, it DOES 'trickle-down'.)

Oxfam (and others that believe similarly) had best be very d*mn careful that they don't kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Major Putin is not listed, he dwarfs Gates

---

(Yes, Gary, it DOES 'trickle-down'.)

Major, BS, diminishing marginal utility precludes that. Retake econ 102, basic micro economics.

---

Major Putin is not listed, he dwarfs Gates

The ones who do not have their wealth in public traded stocks are much harder to pin down. Just how many dachas does Putin own? Just how much are his quasi-legal business dealings worth? How much stuff of his is in the names of cronies? How much is in numbered foreign bank accounts?

BUT, I note it wasn't that long ago Oxfam had about 80 people having the wealth of the bottom 1/2. I don't think the measured wealth of the top end went up that much, however it looks like the measured wealth of the bottom 1/2 fell that much. I'm guessing a better measure of how much debt the bottom half owes.

Also of note they give a figure of a 1%'er that is around 3/4 of a million $. The advice given by financial planners is you need about 1 million $ set aside to retire. Chew on that for a while. Only a 1%'er can retire.

Now as to trickle down, something is wrong by a factor of about 1000. If these top end people we actually spending their money they would not have in the tens of Billions of dollars, they would have in the tens of Millions of dollars or a factor of 1000. Trickle down is a joke. The boom in the economy under Reagan came after he signed the largest tax increase in history. Not before when he signed the tax cut, no, after the biggest tax increase.

Why? If you spend money in a business if comes off the top line on the tax return. Dollar for dollar cut in taxes. Raise taxes and it is a strong incentive to spend that money so you don't have to pay taxes on it. Cut tax rates and you can hoard money and still pay less taxes. And that is if you even bother to list those numbered accounts.

---

"Routine media access to the White House could be a thing of the past under Donald Trump's presidency..."

Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," Pence said the move is intended to reflect the Trump administration's "commitment to transparency, to free and independent press."

This administration is getting *really* good at saying one thing while doing another. I suspect there will be no shortage of this duality over the next four years.

---

#resist

How much of their 'wealth' was created BY their business activity? Quite a lot. It didn't exist prior to them creating it.

(The next 2 points are also directed at Gary, due to his 'trickle-down' comments in his reply to your post).
How many people directly work for these 8, and owe their livelihoods to these 8?
How many other people owe their jobs and livelihoods to those that work directly for these 8?

I would like you to count them.
Are there millions of them?
And how is the 'trickle-down' effect from them?

Facebook's data centers serving Europe in Luleå, Sweden, currently has around 150 employees.

"When it rains manna from heaven the poor have no spoon."

Today is the feast of Martin Luther King, a saint in the Church of England, a hero in America. So why have we strayed away from him during the Obama presidency?

"Many have cited as a reason the president-elect's recent attack on civil rights icon and fellow congressman John Lewis."

---

#resist

How much of their 'wealth' was created BY their business activity? Quite a lot. It didn't exist prior to them creating it.

(The next 2 points are also directed at Gary, due to his 'trickle-down' comments in his reply to your post).
How many people directly work for these 8, and owe their livelihoods to these 8?
How many other people owe their jobs and livelihoods to those that work directly for these 8?

I would like you to count them.
Are there millions of them?
And how is the 'trickle-down' effect from them?

Facebook's data centers serving Europe in Luleå, Sweden, currently has around 150 employees.

"When it rains manna from heaven the poor have no spoon."

I don't know the exact figure, but #4 (Carlos Slim Helu @ Grupo Carso) has about 200,000 employees, worldwide.

Gates @ Microsoft has about 118,000 employees worldwide.

#2 (Ortega @ Inditex/Zara) has about 150,000 employees worldwide.

Bezos @ Amazon has about 268,900 employees worldwide.

Zuckerberg @ Facebook is a small one... Only about 15,724 employees worldwide.

Ellison @ Oracle has about 136,263 employees worldwide.

Bloomberg has about 19,000 employees at Bloomberg LP.

Buffet @ Berkshire Hathaway has about 331,000 employees worldwide.

So, this totals to about (rounding to 3 significant digits) 1,040,000 employees worldwide. So, that is over 1 million employees right there. And that million is just those that work DIRECTLY for those 8 at just their primary businesses. This does not count the employees that work directly for these 8 at *other* businesses they own, nor does it count the employees of suppliers or business customers that owe their jobs to these 8. Also, it does not count the people that owe their jobs to these employees spending their salaries/wages in the economy.

This (and a few other related things) IS the 'trickle-down' effect.
(@Gary: Sorry, it DOES exist. Assertions to the contrary are lies told by politicians and others of a more... socialist persuasion.)

Economic growth helps everyone. It is NOT a 'zero-sum game'.

@ betreger: diminishing marginal utility does not apply to most all of this.

As you said, D.M.U. is in the realm of microeconomics (the study of individual persons, individual firms, and individual markets). However, 'trickle-down' is definitely not totally (or even mostly) in the realm of microeconomics. It is concerned with the flow of wealth through the economy, between individual persons, between individual firms, and between individual markets. Therefore, it is most properly in the realm of macroeconomics (the study of large-scale or general factors in the economy), and D.M.U. does NOT apply.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

@ betreger: diminishing marginal utility does not apply to most all of this.

As you said, D.M.U. is in the realm of microeconomics (the study of individual persons, individual firms, and individual markets). However, 'trickle-down' is definitely not totally (or even mostly) in the realm of microeconomics. It is concerned with the flow of wealth through the economy, between individual persons, between individual firms, and between individual markets. Therefore, it is most properly in the realm of macroeconomics (the study of large-scale or general factors in the economy), and D.M.U. does NOT apply

Major, I disagree how an individual behaves with his wealth is most definitely a micro economics problem. How an individual company behaves is also part of micro. Systemic behavior is a concern of macro, such as the effect of trickle down which has been shown to have a much lower multiplier effect than other forms of stimulus due to the diminishing marginal utility of money.

---

...

So, this totals to about (rounding to 3 significant digits) 1,040,000 employees worldwide. So, that is over 1 million employees right there. And that million is just those that work DIRECTLY for those 8 at just their primary businesses.

So, these guys hold the wealth of over 3 billion people, and only directly employ approx 1 million. I'd say they are not putting their money to enough use...

There's your fiduciary duty in all it's glory.

---

#resist

@ betreger: diminishing marginal utility does not apply to most all of this.

As you said, D.M.U. is in the realm of microeconomics (the study of individual persons, individual firms, and individual markets). However, 'trickle-down' is definitely not totally (or even mostly) in the realm of microeconomics. It is concerned with the flow of wealth through the economy, between individual persons, between individual firms, and between individual markets. Therefore, it is most properly in the realm of macroeconomics (the study of large-scale or general factors in the economy), and D.M.U. does NOT apply

Major, I disagree how an individual behaves with his wealth is most definitely a micro economics problem.

But, 'trickle-down' does NOT apply to specific individuals, but to the entire population/economy. It is the way the economy works. It is Macro.

There is no guarantee of individual success, even among high-wealth capitalists and most certainly not among low-wage workers.

Per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, AND the US Small Business Administration, 1/3rd of new businesses will fail in the first 2 years, about half will fail in the first 5 years, and 2/3rds will fail in the first 10 years.

Per a Harvard University study by Shikhar Ghosh, about 75% of startup businesses that receive funding by venture capitalists will end up failing.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/2012/09/most-startups-fail-says-harvard.html

Business has risk. When one fails, it's investors are out their investment, AND its employees are out of their jobs (until they can find a new one).

I repeat, there are NO individual guarantees.

But, on the whole, when a business does NOT fail, and succeeds, it produces new wealth and new economic growth. Everyone will end up benefiting. The new wealth DOES 'trickle-down' through the economy.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

...

So, this totals to about (rounding to 3 significant digits) 1,040,000 employees worldwide. So, that is over 1 million employees right there. And that million is just those that work DIRECTLY for those 8 at just their primary businesses.

So, these guys hold the wealth of over 3 billion people, and only directly employ approx 1 million. I'd say they are not putting their money to enough use...

There's your fiduciary duty in all it's glory.

It is, as you say, THEIR money. You socialists always complain about the greed of capitalists. I submit that the greed problem is the greed of socialists... wanting to control and dictate the use of money that is not theirs.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I see MK has a problem seeing capital markets for what they are.

Let's look at Elon Musk and Warren Buffet.

Mr. Musk when he gets a pile of money pulls another idea out of his head and starts a company to make it. Something out of nothing.

Mr. Buffet when he gets a pile of money he buys a going concern and milks it. Collect rent on an existing property, no new jobs.

Mr. Musk is out there creating jobs. Mr. Buffet is not.

MK, if all the wealthy were like Mr. Musk, trickle down might work. Unfortunately Mr. Musk is the exception, the rest are universally Mr. Buffet types.

When, you or I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple, that money does not go to making jobs. It goes into the pocket of some other sob who is convinced the stock price is going down.

We aren't even playing the vulture capital game. There at least the money goes into a company which may or may not create long term jobs.

Mr. Buffet is actually a bit worse than many. Because he buys whole companies, one of the things he looks for is companies like his stable of insurance companies, where he can combine the back office operations and fire people to get him a cost savings.

MK, you need a lesson in the Fiduciary Duty, because you don't seem to have a clue how sick, twisted and perverted it really is.

Trickle down doesn't work as the only time jobs are created with Mr. Buffet types is when his wife insists the house needs a remodel, and there they are acting like an ordinary consumer.

---

I see MK has a problem seeing capital markets for what they are.

Let's look at Elon Musk and Warren Buffet.

Mr. Musk when he gets a pile of money pulls another idea out of his head and starts a company to make it. Something out of nothing.

Mr. Buffet when he gets a pile of money he buys a going concern and milks it. Collect rent on an existing property, no new jobs.

Mr. Musk is out there creating jobs. Mr. Buffet is not.

MK, if all the wealthy were like Mr. Musk, trickle down might work. Unfortunately Mr. Musk is the exception, the rest are universally Mr. Buffet types.

When, you or I go out and buy 1000 shares of Apple, that money does not go to making jobs. It goes into the pocket of some other sob who is convinced the stock price is going down.

We aren't even playing the vulture capital game. There at least the money goes into a company which may or may not create long term jobs.

Mr. Buffet is actually a bit worse than many. Because he buys whole companies, one of the things he looks for is companies like his stable of insurance companies, where he can combine the back office operations and fire people to get him a cost savings.

MK, you need a lesson in the Fiduciary Duty, because you don't seem to have a clue how sick, twisted and perverted it really is.

Trickle down doesn't work as the only time jobs are created with Mr. Buffet types is when his wife insists the house needs a remodel, and there they are acting like an ordinary consumer.

Spot on. ;-)

Cheers.

Should a good idea, that leads to (for example) a good product, be worth something? YES!
Now, how MUCH more should it be worth than what is paid to those that GREATLY HELP in seeing that product come to fruition and distribution?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Should the term of a patent or a copyright be forever?

Is a slumlord a useful thing in society?

---