Richest 10% are 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%.

[Guest Stevie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan...-britain-report

 

The new findings show that the household wealth of the top 10% of the population stands at £853,000 and more – over 100 times higher than the wealth of the poorest 10%, which is £8,800 or below (a sum including cars and other possessions).

 

When the highest-paid workers, such as bankers and chief executives, are put into the equation, the division in wealth is even more stark, with individuals in the top 1% of the population each possessing total household wealth of £2.6m or more.

 

The report follows research published by Save the Children which revealed that 13% of the UK's children were now living in severe poverty, and that efforts to reduce child poverty had been stalling even before the recession began in 2008.

 

Compared with a white British Christian man with similar qualifications, age and occupation, Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim men and Black African Christian men have an income that is 13-21% lower. Nearly half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani households are in poverty.

 

Fucked tbh.

Luxury to living over there though surely.

 

I put that bit in just for you

Am I that predictable?

Nah mate, you're like a bad batch of fireworks.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

As this thread runs off the rails world wide, the opening post was about the poor in Britain.

 

There is poverty at the extremes but on the whole they make these "gaps" up and the everyday gaps in daily living are not that great.

 

Its not about poverty per se either though, its about inequality.

 

A nice index is the Hoover Index. This estimates the total proportion of wealth that needs to be re-distributed to achieve an equal distribution. If you have 5, I have 5 and Alex has 20, the Hoover index is in simple terms 33.3%, ie. alex gives us 5 each (10 from a total of 30) and then we all have 10 each.

 

Britain has a GDP, its national wealth, which is divided up between us through various mechanisms, the question is how fair are those mechanisms? These mechanisms are making it worse according to this report.

 

But in what way is it making it worse....Examples?

 

I live in an area where half a mile one way live millionaires, half a mile the other way live low paid, unemployed etc.

 

Quite often both sides shop at the same supermarket, kids go to the same school, drink in the same bars, go to the same hospitals, have the same xbox's, big tv's etc etc on a daily basis.

 

I think if the poor of 20 years ago saw the poor of today they would consider todays poor rich or at the least middle class.

 

The inequality indices show that Britain's distribution of income is more unequal now than it was under Thatcher. The thing is, how will things look in another 20 years now that the poor cant get the credit to buy the x-boxes anymore?

 

The credit will be back very soon. Forget the doom and gloom, as soon as the recovery kicks off targets will have to be met and revenue raised and that will lead to credit companies reducing criteria as they compete against each other.

 

Regardless of what Gordon may want it is still a free market and competition will prevail.

[Meenzer 14096]

In other words, we're doomed to repeat our mistakes. Triffick.

[Park Life 70]

The moving of wealth into smaller and smaller hands is the only constant thread that runs through capitalism. If you look at the big pic it's why Kraft are buying Cadbury, the increase in size of multinationals and their ability to build greater monopolies (efficencies of scale or summat) is something that is hard to legislate against. The pie from which govt re-distribute wealth gets smaller as money becomes more fluid around global economies. Value has been transferred from those who create it (all workers) to fiancial instruments and core assets (that wealth never comes back). George Soros reckons that the greatest emergency of world capitlalism is in the world we are living in now where mechanism of getting money to the periphery (emerging markets/the poor/ small business) is at its weakest. Capital that chases constant profit (sometimes double digit) year upon year cannot be regulated by some moral mechanism and infact legislation for the anti-dote must be agreed across borders for it to work...That might never happen.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

• While provision of basic education for all would require $6 billion, $8 billion is spent on cosmetics in the US;
  
• While water and sanitation for all would require $9 I billion, Europeans spend $11 billion on ice cream.
  
• While reproductive health for all women would cost $12 billion, Europeans and Americans spend $12 billion on perfumes.
  
• While basic health needs could be provided for $13 billion, people spend $17 billion on pet food in the US and Europe.
  

 

People (greed) are to blame?

 

I've fed a cat and eaten Ice Cream and i don't think I'm greedy.

 

The poorest people in britain live like kings compared to other places though. £8,800 per household is over £24 a day. I'm sure I read that the WHO classify povery as surviving on $1 a day or less.

 

Of course, our wealth and 'their' suffering is to a large extent built on our subjugation of 'them' historically. Unfortunately, I can't imagine anyone winning the next election running on a platform of debt relief for poor nations, especially in the current economic climate, no matter how much Bono tries to push it up the agenda.

 

It's in the news today that Afghanistan are getting $1.6Bn debt relief....but Haiti aren't, just another $100million loan to perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

 

It's only demons like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who'll give Haiti a chance...

 

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_conten...p;lang=eng_news

 

I've not seen it reported on the BBC yet like.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[Park Life 70]

• While provision of basic education for all would require $6 billion, $8 billion is spent on cosmetics in the US;
  
• While water and sanitation for all would require $9 I billion, Europeans spend $11 billion on ice cream.
  
• While reproductive health for all women would cost $12 billion, Europeans and Americans spend $12 billion on perfumes.
  
• While basic health needs could be provided for $13 billion, people spend $17 billion on pet food in the US and Europe.
  

 

People (greed) are to blame?

 

I've fed a cat and eaten Ice Cream and i don't think I'm greedy.

 

The poorest people in britain live like kings compared to other places though. £8,800 per household is over £24 a day. I'm sure I read that the WHO classify povery as surviving on $1 a day or less.

 

Of course, our wealth and 'their' suffering is to a large extent built on our subjugation of 'them' historically. I can't imagine anyone winning the next election running on a platform of debt relief for poor nations, especially in the current economic climate, no matter how much Bono tries to push it up the agenda.

 

It's in the news today that Afghanistan are getting $1.6Bn debt relief....but Haiti aren't, just another $100million loan to perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

 

It's only demons like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who'll give Haiti a chance...

 

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_conten...p;lang=eng_news

 

I've not seen it reported on the BBC yet like.

 

 

I don't think as it is this system will be able to correct itself and I don't really think that those who benefit the greatest want to. It will have to go down a couple of more notches before anything happens. But the revoulution is coming and it will happen in America. Obama is a holding position for those who understand this, if he fails it is going to go off big time.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

You and CT might enjoy 'Growth fetish' by Hamilton am currently reading 'The skeptical Economist' by John Aldred which was influenced by him.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_Fetish

 

You're tright Parky, growth targets in corporations require businesses to grow year on year, this is sustainable when demand for the products they sell is rising. When demand stops rising, the business can no longer deliver say a certain % growth. Since the corporation is owned by shareholders, the executive committees need to deliver above the market rate of interest on the shareholders investment. If the interest rate is 5%, then shareholders would get a better return if they put their money in the bank if the return on shares is less than 5%. Once the 'earnings per share' targets are not met, corporations need to merge to hoover up more demand sensitive areas of their market. Without regulation, the corporation has to get bigger because of their committments to shareholders. As the corporations get bigger, the distribution of income gets worse. See Tescos.

 

Hamilton sums up the problem thus; "People buy things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like".

Edited January 27, 2010 by ChezGiven

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think as it is this system will be able to correct itself and I don't really think that those who benefit the greatest want to. It will have to go down a couple of more notches before anything happens. But the revoulution is coming and it will happen in America. Obama is a holding position for those who understand this, if he fails it is going to go off big time.

 

Has to, they have the guns

[snakehips 0]

Profit margins.

 

Is this year's profit margin as good as last year's ? NO???? The Company is failing - lay some people off.

[ChezGiven 0]

• While provision of basic education for all would require $6 billion, $8 billion is spent on cosmetics in the US;
  
• While water and sanitation for all would require $9 I billion, Europeans spend $11 billion on ice cream.
  
• While reproductive health for all women would cost $12 billion, Europeans and Americans spend $12 billion on perfumes.
  
• While basic health needs could be provided for $13 billion, people spend $17 billion on pet food in the US and Europe.
  

 

People (greed) are to blame?

 

I've fed a cat and eaten Ice Cream and i don't think I'm greedy.

 

The poorest people in britain live like kings compared to other places though. £8,800 per household is over £24 a day. I'm sure I read that the WHO classify povery as surviving on $1 a day or less.

 

Of course, our wealth and 'their' suffering is to a large extent built on our subjugation of 'them' historically. Unfortunately, I can't imagine anyone winning the next election running on a platform of debt relief for poor nations, especially in the current economic climate, no matter how much Bono tries to push it up the agenda.

 

It's in the news today that Afghanistan are getting $1.6Bn debt relief....but Haiti aren't, just another $100million loan to perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

 

It's only demons like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who'll give Haiti a chance...

 

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_conten...p;lang=eng_news

 

I've not seen it reported on the BBC yet like.

 

The poorest in Britain live like Kings?

 

Also to suggest that the period of economic imperialism is to blame for global poverty is blatantly wrong. Old hat Marxist clap trap.

[Park Life 70]

You and CT might enjoy 'Growth fetish' by Hamilton am currently reading 'The skeptical Economist' by John Aldred which was influenced by him.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_Fetish

 

You're tright Parky, growth targets in corporations require businesses to grow year on year, this is sustainable when demand for the products they sell is rising. When demand stops rising, the business can no longer deliver say a certain % growth. Since the corporation is owned by shareholders, the executive committees need to deliver above the market rate of interest on the shareholders investment. If the interest rate is 5%, then shareholders would get a better return if they put their money in the bank if the return on shares is less than 5%. Once the 'earnings per share' targets are not met, corporations need to merge to hoover up more demand sensitive areas of their market. Without regulation, the corporation has to get bigger because of their committments to shareholders. As the corporations get bigger, the distribution of income gets worse. See Tescos.

 

Hamilton sums up the problem thus; "People buy things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like".

 

 

Very succinctly put mate.

 

1.The starting point of the new world must be an end to war. The West comibined are burning a billion a week in Afg and Iraq and this brings no benefit to the people only to multinationals who have a stake in the region.

 

2. Don't legislate against banks find ways to tax the transactions at source.

 

3. Rewrard small wealth generators (the kind of wealth that stays in the community).

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Profit margins.

 

Is this year's profit margin as good as last year's ? NO???? The Company is failing - lay some people off.

 

 

The weak fall and the strong survive

 

This is how it should be

[Park Life 70]

I don't think as it is this system will be able to correct itself and I don't really think that those who benefit the greatest want to. It will have to go down a couple of more notches before anything happens. But the revoulution is coming and it will happen in America. Obama is a holding position for those who understand this, if he fails it is going to go off big time.

 

Has to, they have the guns

 

As I've always said bro.

 

It will also happen in the States cause there is a fracture between the federal and the state Govt. I'm pretty sure in the future after the 2nd American revolution it will become two countries.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Park Life

[sniffer 0]

Perhaps these corporations need to make their employees fly coach instead of business on the A380 when they are attending meetings in New York that are probably a waste of time anyway.

[sniffer 0]

You mean Texas and the rest, Parky?

[snakehips 0]

I'd seriously like to live in a commune and get away from all this shit.

[ChezGiven 0]

Perhaps these corporations need to make their employees fly coach instead of business on the A380 when they are attending meetings in New York that are probably a waste of time anyway.

 

Oooh, you can almost taste the jealousy. See, this is how inequality affects people. Thanks for illustrating my point.

[Park Life 70]

You mean Texas and the rest, Parky?

 

 

Yes. You know it's my pet subject.

[Happy Face 29]

• While provision of basic education for all would require $6 billion, $8 billion is spent on cosmetics in the US;
  
• While water and sanitation for all would require $9 I billion, Europeans spend $11 billion on ice cream.
  
• While reproductive health for all women would cost $12 billion, Europeans and Americans spend $12 billion on perfumes.
  
• While basic health needs could be provided for $13 billion, people spend $17 billion on pet food in the US and Europe.
  

 

People (greed) are to blame?

 

I've fed a cat and eaten Ice Cream and i don't think I'm greedy.

 

The poorest people in britain live like kings compared to other places though. £8,800 per household is over £24 a day. I'm sure I read that the WHO classify povery as surviving on $1 a day or less.

 

Of course, our wealth and 'their' suffering is to a large extent built on our subjugation of 'them' historically. Unfortunately, I can't imagine anyone winning the next election running on a platform of debt relief for poor nations, especially in the current economic climate, no matter how much Bono tries to push it up the agenda.

 

It's in the news today that Afghanistan are getting $1.6Bn debt relief....but Haiti aren't, just another $100million loan to perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

 

It's only demons like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who'll give Haiti a chance...

 

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_conten...p;lang=eng_news

 

I've not seen it reported on the BBC yet like.

 

The poorest in Britain live like Kings?

 

Also to suggest that the period of economic imperialism is to blame for global poverty is blatantly wrong. Old hat Marxist clap trap.

 

"compared to other places". £24 a day (£6 a day for a house of 4) is better than $1 a day.

 

"to a large extent". Stealing the resources of a poorer, weaker country doesn't help it prosper.

[Park Life 70]

I'd seriously like to live in a commune and get away from all this shit.

 

Nearly everyday I look at those beaches in Kerela where I can live for a pound a day.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'd seriously like to live in a commune and get away from all this shit.

 

Nearly everyday I look at those beaches in Kerela where I can live for a pound a day.

 

In abject poverty apparently though....

[Park Life 70]

I'd seriously like to live in a commune and get away from all this shit.

 

Nearly everyday I look at those beaches in Kerela where I can live for a pound a day.

 

In abject poverty apparently though....

 

Beachhouse about 10k

Good local fresh food (especially fish).

Good weather.

English widely spoken

Cheap beer

Chripy locals.

[sniffer 0]

Not really my little french friend. I do the same thing myself so I know how much its a waste of money most of the time.

[ChezGiven 0]

Not really my little french friend. I do the same thing myself so I know how much its a waste of money most of the time.

It supports the airline industry, which in turn employs many americans in skilled jobs, which in turn creates income, which in turn is spent on goods, which distributes aforementioned plane ticket cost into the wider economy. Seems fine to me at this level. Depends on the renumerative and cost management policies of Boeing at the end of the day... which brings us back on topic.

 

Just cos you go to shit meetings doesnt mean we all do

[Park Life 70]

You see all the anti-terrorism laws have been put in place not to protect us from Islam and whatnot but to protect our Govt and the intellectual elite from us. You can see in the States how Homeland security is being rolled out, it ain't nowt to do with Arabs it's to be used against Americans. FACT.