Are we the 99%? Or the 1%?

[Loz]

An interesting website...

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

?26K looks like the cutoff.

[reggie]

Looks like most of Dulwich are gonna be up against the wall.

[Mick Mac]

?109,000 gets you tied for the richest person on earth. Tied for 107,565th place with 107,565 other people.

Apart from the fact that there must be more people than that, on that salary, in London alone I suspect.

[ Edithed to say, ?109,000 is the highest number the calculation seems to acknowledge (not my salary) ::o ]

[Undisputedtruth]

I want to know where I am on the East Dulwich Forum's rich list. I suspect Loz is at number one as he's so obssessed with money and taxes.

[Loz]

I wish...

[Huguenot]

I suspect that those at the top of the tree never worry about money and taxes at all...

[Loz]

Anyway, slight chutzpah for UDT to describe anybody else as 'obsessed'.

[Jeremy]

Clearly the distribution is inaccurate at the higher end of the scale, but the median seems to be around the ?500 mark, which I think is about right.

[Mick Mac]

Rich should be relative to how far your money will go not just a number compared to other parts of the world. Noone living in London on an average London salary could be seen as rich in my opinion, even if that put them in the top 1% in the world.

[Loz]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rich should be relative to how far your money will go not just a number compared to other parts of

> the world. Noone living in London on an average London salary could be seen as rich in my opinion,

> even if that put them in the top 1% in the world.

No, but it would put them in the top 5% to 10% of the world, even taking cost of living into account.

[StraferJack]

Isn't this part of the idea behind the protest

If, say, 20 years ago you were in the top 5-10% of world earnings then your standard of livin, even in London would be sweet

But as more money becomes concentrated at the very very top, then the drop off from the top 1% to those in the next 9% becomes much bigger

[Loz]

I really don't know the answer to that, SJ. Is what was 'sweet' 20 years ago considered 'unsweet' today? For instance, 20 years ago people didn't feel they needed to fork out a week's salary for a iPhone to keep up with the Joneses.

I would like to see a study looking at, say, standards of living for incomes at the 25, 50, 75 and 99/100 percentile levels of UK salaries now and, say, 1991 (20 years ago) and 1976 (35 years ago). It would be interesting to see if all had risen, some had risen and some has dropped or (unlikely) all had dropped. What %age of income then and now was spent on staples like rent, food, etc.

[Huguenot]

Because I'm a twisted bastard, I took the average jobseeker in Peterborough with his various subsidies and benefits for sitting on his fat arse with electricity, running water and sewage, flatscreen TV, playstation, and cider and investigated where that put him.

Top 5% in the world.

Now, don't get me wrong, but I think that's a pretty good reason to riot. Maybe break the jaw of a teenage Malaysian and steal the contents of his rucksack whilst pretending to be help him?

These guys are very hard done by.

[Jeremy]

I don't like the idea of people exploiting the system either, but how do we differentiate between the genuine unemployed and the pure lazy?

[StraferJack]

"I don't like the idea of people exploiting the system either, but how do we differentiate between the genuine unemployed and the pure lazy?"

cost of some idle spngers exploiting the system = small beer compared to the big fish expoiting the system surely? Resources better spend chasing billions rather than a few million

[Earl Aelfheah]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Isn't this part of the idea behind the protest

>

> If, say, 20 years ago you were in the top 5-10% of

> world earnings then your standard of livin, even

> in London would be sweet

>

> But as more money becomes concentrated at the very

> very top, then the drop off from the top 1% to

> those in the next 9% becomes much bigger

Some economists may describe this as the outcome of a positional arms race ? a concept which goes someway to explaining why increases in wealth do not always increase well-being by as much as you may think. Professor Robert Frank recently presented a really good lecturer to an audience at the LSE which touches on this. He claims that Darwin could be considered a greater economist than Adam Smith

At this particular moment in history we probably have the best opportunity we ever will to push for changes to the system and have something happen. Anger at what has happened as a result of unregulated market corporatism, means that strong politicians may be capable of implementing real change, across borders, whilst bringing people along with them.

After all, what is the point in growing GDP in isolation, if it leads to greater inequality, a more divisive society and greater insecurity / poorer mental health? We need to focus on the a strong, sustainable economy, the rewards of which lead to better outcomes for everyone.

[????]

But on a wider scale litterally millions and million globally have been pulled out of poverty as a result of global capitalism especially and increased internationalism in trade, especially in the past 10-15 years. The globe is actually moving in the direction of becoming more equitable (don't get me wrong there is still tremendous poverty and ineqaulity) ....we in the west are now facing the problems associated with having a very spoilt, priveliged and cozy position largely through our prominenece in the advance of technology and industrialisation* now diminishing, we had it lucky for years the rest of the world wants a share and that's not comfortable for our pampered, spoilt lifestyles. Why can't it just be like before? we squeal. Party's over for us and our credit is too. Compete or, well, Darwin knows.

* sorry should also add not being burdened (or had forced upon us) with that guaranteer of no/minimal growth, everyone poor except elite bureacrats, communism/Socialism

[????]

...of course, if western consumers were more choosey about what's mined and how much, how much the miners were paid and how to go into their I-phones for instance, we might get developing world wages/benefits/conditions a bit nearer ours and so at least starting to get some more equality and genuine competitive global salaries but no, we want cheap nice things for ever and then moan about there being no jobs over 'here'. Shit 98% of us still bank with the big horrible banks that have apparently taken us to this precipice despite the endless bleating about how terrible they are. Ethichal consumption is a joke. We get exactly what we deserve and it's gonna be tough. So, we need to man up and start being competitive, ethical in all our consumption and ditch some of our cozy lifestyles and things (which, includes pay rates/pensions/job security/massive states) etc that we've been priveliged to have up to now. Party's over.

:)-D

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But on a wider scale litterally millions and

> million globally have been pulled out of poverty

> as a result of global capitalism especially and

> increased internationalism in trade, especially in

> the past 10-15 years.

How well markets are designed determines how efficient they are at incentivising value adding activities - the types of activities that help pull people out of poverty in the way you describe. The problem at the moment is that many activities of unregulated, unrestrained capitalism actually destroy value and impoverish society.

It's not an question of capitalism vs anticapitalism (whatever that may mean). But of unregulated (too often inefficient and unproductive) forms of captialism vs minimally regulated / structured markets that incentivice value adding activities.

[????]

Yes but my belief is that if relatively rich western consumers generally used the enormous power that their consumption gave them in say an an actual truly ethichal way (and that is potentially where the internet can be empowering to overcome corporate Comms/hiding etc) and that's where the real power to make changwe is. People are at fault here, by their apathetic consumption choices and apathy apart from a few obvious 'choices'/brands and switching the lights off once a year etc. As I said, just look at bank accounts in the UK as an glaringly obvious example - the CO-OP should have about 80% of accounts if you catually believed what people say in papers, phone-ins on here!. I don't think we are miles apart on this but if we over regulate our markets we will lose out as we will go and buy elsewhere where it's cheaper and relatively impoverish ourselves to, though of course enrich non-western compnaies, countries and incraesingly their workers. Didn't Lenin say something about capitalists selling the rope for their own hanging something? Anyway, just thinking about this recently given that we in the west are in the West all running out of money and no-one wants to lend it to us to carry on as before is impossible, if we over tax we won't be competitive etc etc. Sorry I'll try and articulate this better at some point.

[????]

The problem at the moment is that many activities of unregulated, unrestrained capitalism actually destroy value and impoverish society.

Of course, it can be argued, in a pure sense that State intervention in propping up failed banks has compuunded the mess.........I personally think that it would have been a disater to let so many wesern banks fail but we'll never know and rather than acute short term chaos that we'd have got with that, we'll now have years of grind. But, unpopular as it is to say in the "I didn't cause this" mantra world of the Left, infact western state spending, governements, public spending and Public Sectors all benefitted enormously from the unregulated, boom and associated tax revenues. They are really moaning because that party is now over....and their pact with mammon too.

[mockney piers]

I can be briefly tempted out of self-imposed exile to basically say 'what quids said'.

I'll also do some terminlogogy quibbling as I'm not sure what unregulated capitalism is meant to be.

As capitalism covers the means of production then there's nothing that fits this description outside of counterfeit goods, the illegal drugs market and perhaps about a decade of oligarchic consolidation in the post communist collapse.

Unregulated markets? Again, drugs and failed states.

Global markets are thoroughly regulated, there a tons of laws protecting most aspects,from consumer protection to anti cartel practices, through copyright protection and the list goes on.

If we're talking specifically about banking then we're a billion miles away unregulated markets or practices.

What we did have was a period where regulators were leaned on by politicians happy at the swelling coffers to have a light touch and avoid rocking the boat/killing the golden goose/insert clich?d analogy here, which in practice meant turn a blind eye to practices went into dubious grey areas and some that almost certainly transgressed the regulations.

This wasn't some nefarious plot by cartoon caricature capitalists in stovepipes smoking evil cigars whilst crushing little people under their boots, but more like a massive exercise in self-delusion at every level, from the banking CEO's who encouraged risky business models, through the risk managers who tinkered with the figures due to the pressures to make certain deals, down through everyone who leveraged their house to use for loans, through the millions of people with one too many store/credit cards, knowing that they're screwed if they lose their job.

We're irrational actors, we're selfish, and that's why we get into these situations and perfect hindsight is causing far too many people for my taste to claim some superior moral stance.

The way forward? Accept that the world has changed and find our place in it, but the good times have indeed gone.

Ban certain financial practices and enforce better regulation on the industry as a whole, there is a global anger and will to do so. I don't like arguments whereby we won't because nobody else will, that's just an abnegation of our resposibilty to our children, the parallels with the environment are too depressingly familiar sadly.

If we don't like the rest of the world becoming wealthier at our expense then I suggest we invade the cheap producers of goods and places with raw materials and rule them with a good old fashioned iron fist and let our consciences be damned, because they're in pretty bad shape anyway ;)

Anyway, as you were people......

[????]

Thanks Mockney - much better put than my witterings too. I really don't think that by and large 'the west' has understood the fundamental changes happening globally now. Can't see western GDP marching back to previous levels anytime soon and given that our state spending is built on way too optimistic forecasts then somethings gotta shift. We've got to get more like the east in therms of competitivensessand hope their workers/citizens start getting a taste for our tyep of welfare state, public sector, retirement ages etc.

We (the west) are going to be worse off and large parts of the ROW better off - true believers in equality should be happy about this. Me, I'm gonna be extra nice to my kids and hope my brain stays active to carry on working 'til I drop.

[Magpie]

I am not sure we are going to be worse off - rather relatively worse off - ie the gap between the west and the rest of the world shrinks - even the most optimistic forecasts will not see an average chinese persons income approaching that of an average American's by the end of the century. All of this has been sped up by the decade long credit boom, and hence things feel uncomfortable - but lets be realistic, unemployment is no-where near the levels that were seen in the early 1980's or even the early 1990's. Also as the middle class expands in China, India, Brazil etc then demands for worker's rights, state healthcare, political freedom etc will also increase - so they have their own issues.

[Thomas Micklewright]

Compassionate consumers - certainly the way for things to change. Money shouts louder than any political message.