Sam Walton died. Notice the last name on 4 of the top 14?

http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2014-01-17/cya

Any idea how they managed to get on that list as 4 of the wealthiest 14 people on Earth? Did they study hard, were they geniuses, did they work diligently, were they supernatural talents? Nope. There aren't a whole lot of middle class people from the Rockefeller or Kennedy lineage these days either. The notion that 'it all goes back into the pot' is true when you are talking about millions... it loses its veracity when you are talking about tens of billions. :2 cents:

As previously shown in this thread, it's the financial equivalent of them being roughly 31,000 Miles Tall. We aren't talking about someone who is tall. We aren't talking about NBA tall. We aren't talking about Andre The Giant tall... we are talking 31,000 MILES tall.... EACH. The moon is 238,900 miles away. 85 of these people standing on each other's shoulders would be 2,635,000 Miles tall.

I find it far more interesting that you and many others are completely ignoring the FACT that the U.S. Govt. DWARFS all 85 of those people in wealth.

It wasn't that many decades ago (the 1970's) that Howard Hughes was able to get nuclear testing STOPPED in the desert out here by writing Richard Nixon a letter threatening to cut off his money from funding projects for the U.S.

Now? The govt. spends more in one day than Hughes' total wealth over his lifetime.

Nope, I admire the people who have been fast and smart enough to actually accumulate wealth in this day and age.

But if you add them all together they aren't as big as the U.S. Govt.

And THAT my friend, is a bad thing.

The govt. was meant to be a servant to the people. Now it's more powerful and wealthy than ANYBODY.
I think Thomas Jefferson would be more in agreement with me than with your position. And I'm happy for that.

Too bad that those numbers are including ALL the people on Earth.
That would include tribes in Africa. It would include every baby, infant, pre-teen, and teenager on Earth. It would include every retired senior citizen on Earth.

This whole discussion is ridiculous.

Those numbers include millions of people in Syria and other nations that are in the throes of civil war.
It includes the millions of people around the world who are in mental homes and even more who are in prison.

Those numbers are SKEWED big time.

I think it would be a bit different if you took numbers from civilized nations and ONLY made the comparison with employed people in the work force.

And again... If these "rich" people are 31,000 miles tall, then the U.S. Govt. is 310,000,0000 miles tall.
Why doesn't the U.S. govt. do SOMETHING instead of continuing to build a giant military in case the "Soviet Union" attacks us in 1957?

Am not one of 85 for sure:)

even if the top 85 gave away all their wealth equally to everybody it would not amount to much considering there's 7+billion people alive...would amount to 1000$ per person...

That would change thousands of poor peoples lives. Please do it ASAP.

so you are saying you have nothing? I am far from being a rich man myself and would never consider thinking something like that.

that would only water down any currency they use so not sure anyone is suggesting that here either...

for a few weeks...then its back to square 1...

1) It's not about fairness - life is not fair. That's never been a problem.
2) It's not about jealousy - it's about power and influence.

Arguing that life isn't fair or that people are just jealous is missing the point entirely.

The issue is concentration of power and influence. How few people do you want to have how much power? Would it be a bad thing if one person had a trillion dollars? Would that person be able to exert too much control over the lives of others (including your own)? What if it was 2 people with 500B each? How much influence and power does 1B buy you?

Try and focus on the actual issue. ;)

There's nothing to focus on, it's a bullshit issue that you are making up, as I keep pointing out. Concentration of power amongst people spread out across the globe who don't/can't/won't come together is a false issue.

You already said it's a what-if scenario.

People like them have never come together. not once.

Actually..... concentrated wealth is the final outcome of most economic systems that have been in play since the very begining of the use of money. People tend to hoard stuff. Think of what has happened in every society once the wealth is too concentrated. Revolution!!!!

Yes, revolution is stealing stuff from the people who stole it. en' mass!!! (Even if the laws in place made the stealing possible. Raping the environment etc.....)

The problem is..... Revolution however difficult has always been possible. ('till now) With technolgy and modern propaganda, weapons, spy technology, money systems, and the weak minded people of today revolution becomes difficult. Revolution is a cycle of human exsistance.

Also, if anti-trust laws were not used against the barrons of the early 20th century, the hand full of uber rich that ran the world would still be running it. Unfortunately we no longer have leaders in society who care to make changes in the system, they are all in the pockets of the corporations. We do need change in the laws and fast!!!

The end result of capitolism is Imperialism. (I like capitolism, with working rules of play that prevent this)

If I sound like a socialist to you, then you are part of the problem. I think that the laws have been manipulated to allow the crushing of the everyman and need to be changed so the playing field is level once again. I believe in constitutional democracy. No two party system, corporations are not legally people etc....

Also, social programs funded by taxes are in place all over the US. Roads, Police Depts, Fire Depts, etc.... are all socially funded. AKA. Social programs. So none of the wealty made their money in a vacuum. We are all somewhat socialist in this regard. We use social programs.... like roads and bridges.

The rich upon dieing legally are supposed to pay the death tax and half of their wealth is supposed to go back into society. They have found ways around this.... legal and otherwise. So now the priviledged children are in charge of the money and power.

Also, look up how much tax these corporate giants pay per year. They pay next to zero!!!! If you and I pay 33% or whatever then the rich corporations shouls be paying the same. There is a very unfair playing field in place. If the big corps paid their fair share of taxes, there would be no deficit in the US.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. I have no problem with rich people being rich, I have no problem with working hard or smart and making a ton of money and living life large. (I'm trying to be more rich.) I do have a problem with the laws and law makers who have sold out and allow the laws to be twisted in favor of the uber rich at the expense of the everyman.


:2 cents:.

If by 'come together' you mean know each other and interact, of course they do. If by 'come together' you mean agree on a cause of action, that is changing rapidly. So far the best two examples are positive initiatives like http://givingpledge.org and http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org.

The ability to come together for less positive goals is exactly the same as the ability to come together for positive ones.... Take a look at some of the 'fundraising emails' the Koch's sent out last election season http://images2.americanprogressactio...ochmeeting.pdf and this event http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...onaires-caucus. The 'liberal oligarchs' are doing the same sorts of things... this is not a red shirt or blue shirt issue. It's a concentration of power issue and it is very real.

Wait, so your example of how this "concentration of power" is a problem is to link to a positive example and claim if they can get together for good, they can get together for evil?

:Oh crap

Link me to this story.

On this point I agree with you, and why I am for a flat tax and/or a national sales tax on everything that would replace current tax codes and all the loopholes associated with them.

Make a billion dollars in profit, pay 250 million of it into the community pot as the price of doing business and living in a civilized country.

But the vast majority of the poor aren't poor because 85 people have the wealth of 50% of the world's population or the hundreds of thousands of millionaires.

This is the other part of all of this that doesn't make sense. Far fewer than 1/2 of the 85 on that list are Americans, yet you keeping making it about american politics and even suggesting legislation re: American tax codes, term limits, etc, at al.

It seems to me you are arguing the wrong things, Robbie's comments re: the U.S. government are more in line with where you are coming from. Not 85 international billionaires.

My belief is that concentration of power is a very dangerous thing. You stated you do not believe there really is any because these people can't 'come together.' I showed you very clear examples of them coming together in the hope that you would understand that, yes, they can and in fact already do come together often.

The founders of this nation all knew each other. They all sat in a room together and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They knew who the leaders of the country were going to be, and actually knew all the leaders for the foreseeable future would come from a tiny group of aristocrats who all knew each other well. Given those facts they put more time into DIVIDING POWER than any other aspect of establishing a set of laws to govern society. Branches of government, checks and balances, constraints on military action... not because they didn't trust their friends who were running the country at the start but because they did not trust future generations of people who would be running it eventually.

We have a very long history of case law designed to break up monopolies in the private sector, to restrict mergers and regulate the way elections are held - specifically to prevent concentration of power.

The fact you like or trust these 85 particular people is not a reason to feel secure. It's not about these particular people. It's about their heirs, associates and a rapidly developing international ruling class with a level of power that is far greater than anything seen in modern history.

The United States could have gotten 'a lot more done' early on if they just named George Washington King of America. By all accounts he was as trustworthy a person as we ever could have had in that role... why did they choose not to? Because in and of itself, concentration of power is a very dangerous thing.

By the way... so is apathy. :2 cents:

those are not clear examples proving your contention that those 85 are working together at all. :1orglaugh

TheGiving Pledge: The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.

That's not any proof at all about some sort of concentrated power coming together, it's simply a list of wealthy people who have made a commitment to philanthropy.
Example Letters from the website:

http://givingpledge.org/images/pledg...o-Letter-1.jpg

http://givingpledge.org/images/pledg...o-Letter-1.jpg

Clinton's global Initiative? There is nothing on that site that names 1 single person from the list you have an issue with. IN fact, it doesn't mention any members.

It seems like you would be good at numbers -- but when you count up the number of people on the planet, there's no difference between 2 or 85 in comparison to billions of other people.

They saved 9B+ in taxes by borrowing 17B. I have no problem with what Apple did, the current rules allow it. Just as the NY Yankees can go out and buy championships under the MLB rules... until things like luxury taxes were implemented. As long as its allowed, good for them, I'd do it too... but should it be allowed? No, probably not.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...debt-deal.html

I agree completely. Most of the poor would be poor no matter who had accumulated wealth. This is NOT a financial issue, its an influence and power issue. Should the way the world works be dictated by thousands and thousands of people, or 85 people? Should it be allowed to be dictated by a dozen people? Probably not. :2 cents:

Dyna Mo,

You contention is that 85 people is dispersed enough that they wont come together and collude in ways that damage the interests of others, and yourself. Is that correct? If that is your point, how few would be a small enough group to scare you? 10? 20? Would 1 guy with 10 trillion dollars worry you at all, or are you fine with that idea?

And you just described the Federal Govt. of the United States.
Headed by a group of lifetime/career bureaucrats with more money and far more power than all those 85 guys combined.

And they even control the media enough to keep us from discussing them and instead turning the conversation into one of class warfare.

Robbie,

Two main problems with your argument.

1) The Federal Government is thousands and thousands of people. The Moon Landing conspiracy nuts lose sight of the fact that a cover up of a hoax would have needed ten thousand people and all their descendants to be in on it. Even if you just go with the elected officials in Congress you are still looking at 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. More than 6X as many people as the 85.

2) The 535 people in Congress, the person in the white house, the people on the Supreme Court, the NSA, and all the rest are now very heavily influenced by external money. Citizens United makes buying elections legal. The two party system makes buying elections affordable. The 85 people on that list can call up their Senator, their Congressman, or any of the other dozens in their pocket.... or call up the heads of agencies intended to regulate their own industries... any time they want.

no, my contention is there will always be the 85 richest people in the world. No matter what USA legilstation you want to pass re: term limits, this that or the other. Wipe these 85 off the globe and guess what? there's still 85 richest people on the planet. So your pointing at them as the problem is misguided.

the first trillionaire is already born.

Yep, and they keep following the same agenda no matter who is in there

In the end it's the career/lifetime senior guys in the Senate and House who run the committees. A handful of guys.

FAR more powerful and rich than all 85 billionaires put together. Hell, to them a "billion" is a joke.

There is no problem with my argument. You are talking about 85 guys with differing goals who earned their money.

I'm showing you ONE entity that has more money and definitely more power than all of them combined. And it has basically unlimited funds. It just prints more money whenever it wants to and deficit spends.

No one person can do that.

And yet you and others are all caught up in stupid class warfare that doesn't do anything helpful.
The govt. is the one holding all the cards, and they are the ones in charge.

Look at the mess we are in. Look at the world. The GOVT is the one responsible.

"War On Poverty" Over 15 TRILLION dollars spent to end poverty over the last 50 years.
Result: More people in poverty than when it started.

Hell, we could have just written out "paychecks" every week to people in poverty with that 15 TRILLION dollars and ended it.
Bet 2/3's of that money went down rabbit holes and into greedy fuckers pockets.

But let's blame Bill Gates for being rich instead. :(

There will always be a top 85, obviously. The concentration of wealth is the issue. The wealthiest 85 people a hundred years ago didn't control as much money as the bottom 50%. The wealthiest 2 people a hundred years from now should not control as much money as the bottom 95%.

Who do you think is picking them? Why do you think they all have the same agenda? Political parties provide a set of vetted candidates, backed by the same money from both 'sides' and let the public choose Republican Candidate A or Democrat Candidate A... there is no Candidate B. In local elections it's even cheaper, and even worse. That problem becomes more serious as less and less people are involved.

The idea that money = free speech is so outrageous. Citizens United has to be overturned. To allow a single person, or 85, to give unlimited amounts of money to any politician for any reason is just not right. Life is not fair, but political contributions damn well should be.

That's the thing....

I'm not raising the issue as a form of class warfare.

If you told me a guy earned 10 trillion dollars and spends it all on hookers and blow, I'm fine with that. He earned it and can do what he wants with it. The problem is that in our civilization, money = influence and many don't spend it on hookers or blow... they spend it on elections, creating tax loopholes, gutting environmental regulations, religious zealotry, creating hereditary wealth and all the rest.

Find a way to keep money from creating influence and I don't care if 1 guy has 99% of it. That isn't the world we live in... if 1 guy did have 99% of the money in our world, we would all be his de facto slaves. :2 cents:

You don't know that. In fact, I'd wager that at certain points in time, fewer people than 85 controlled >50% of the total wealth.

Absolutely true. Egyptian Pharaohs likely controlled much more than 50% of wealth at one point. We created a constitutional democracy to get away from those sorts of things, and put in separation of powers specifically to prevent concentration of influence. Now we are allowing money and a very tiny group of oligarchs to circumvent those safeguards.

Are you saying you do not believe the income of the top .00001% is growing at a frantic pace compared to the other 99.9999%?

Not at all, I'm saying it seems to me that what Robbie is trying to tell you is more in line with your views than what you are saying about the 85 richies.

Uh...brother, I understand your compassion and all. But the constitution was NEVER put in place to stop people from acquiring wealth.

This country was born because of oppressive govt. and over-taxation.

Separation of powers had nothing to do with "influence". It has everything to do with keeping each part of govt. in check so that the Pres. couldn't be a "king" .

And again...as you keep ignoring...it's the GOVT that is the all-powerful entity.

The picture you are painting is that the "EVIL" "rich" people are forcing the poor innocent govt. to bow down to them.

Well, that ain't how it works.

The GOVT is for sale. Not the other way around. The Govt. has the power, and it doles out bits and pieces for companies that line the pockets of the individual Senators and Congressmen.

You can't buy what's not for sale.

And the Govt. has more money and power than all of them combined. Do you not agree with that?

How can the banks or oil companies "own" an entity that could not only buy and sell them several times over...but has the power to forcibly shut them down and/or take them over and nationalize them.

No my friend. It takes two to tango. And this dance is orchestrated by the U.S. govt.

You have stated that 100 years ago there was no way that only 85 people could have so much of a percentage of the wealth.

Well, how about the U.S. Govt.?
100 years ago, in 1913 the entire federal budget was 714 MILLION dollars
In 1961 when I was born it was 94.4 BILLION dollars

In 2013 the govt. spent 3.8 TRILLION dollars.

A trillion is a thousand billion.

The numbers are mind numbing.

And we are in debt for over 17 TRILLION dollars.

I think it's time we stopped attacking each other as citizens...and started going after the REAL crooks in Washington D.C.

We completely agree on that. It was put in place in many ways to prevent wealth from having too much influence, and to prevent any insular group from amassing too much control. Again, if wealth did not give influence there would be no problem. If you can think of a way to prevent massive wealth from having massive influence that's great. Let me know. The whole point of elections, two chambers of Congress, three branches of government, an independent judiciary etc... is to make government too large for it to be controlled by a handful of people or a king. The same is true of private industry regulations.

When a tiny handful of people can circumvent those safeguards by funding the only two candidates for each seat in Congress, funding the Presidential campaign, buying local elections, hiring former officials as lobbyists etc it creates a very serious problem. The number of people needed to do that continues to shrink.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Oh.. but we do know that money leads to corruption in politics. Time and time again.

Just yesterday alone: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...wife-indicted/

It's like straight out of Family Guy when Lois was bribed with nice quasi-legal gifts in return for favors. This is from someone with really no money too. Some guy wanting favors for his business.

My point is...you can't buy what is not for sale.

I think it's not that companies buy "influence", but that Senators and Congressman are BLACKMAILING businesses.

You want to be able to do business? Then you're going to pay.

Basically...businesses CAN'T succeed without "contributing" to Senators, Congressmen, State, and Local govt. officials.

That's why I place "blame" on the heads of the ones with the real power: Govt.

There isn't one of us here who wouldn't put our money into paying off govt. if it meant we could be successful.

The only way to even GET on the "level playing field" is to pay off the ruling class of govt.

In reality, a TINY number of exceptionally wealthy corporations and oligarchs choose who will be a candidate for office. That same tiny group decides if the elected official will remain in office. They decide many of the key policy decisions the official will make while they are in office. That is the face of the problem.

The ass of the problem is that the people who get elected this way can go on to blackmail small businesses and create problems for barely rich people if it benefits them to do so. As long as they don't bite the few hands that feed them, they are free to fuck with everyone else, specifically because they are reliant on so few people to actually get them elected or reelected.

When the system works correctly the politician needs the public to get elected and is reliant on the public to get reelected. So they work for us. When the system is broken they don't need the public so they don't work for the public. The number of people they work for is continuing to shrink rapidly. It is a global problem not an American one.

You are looking at the ass of the problem rather than the face of the problem :2 cents:

Without getting too involved, seems to me that like most things, there's elements of both sides. Like you can't wash one hand without washing the other - this applies to both 'good' and 'bad' scenarios, including this one where you have few people with huge wealth, which in itself isn't a bad thing, but as you point out, it does lead to things that aren't really what you could call 'good'.

Anyway, very interesting and thought-provoking thread, carry on everyone :)