The most important trend, however, is the global wealth distribution. According to the report, the world’s millionaires represent 0.9% of the world’s population but control 39% of the world’s wealth, up from 37% in 2009. Their wealth now totals $47.4 trillion in investible wealth, up from $41.8 trillion in 2009.
Those higher up the wealth ladder also gained. Those with $5 million or more, who represent 0.1% of the population, controlled 22% of the world’s wealth, up from 20 percent in 2009.
Why does less than 1% of the world's population own 40% of the world's wealth? For that matter, why does .1% of the world's population own 22% of the world's wealth?
To break things down, that means 47.4 trillion dollars is being hoarded by 63 million people, an average of $3.8 million dollars per capita. Meanwhile, the remaining wealth of the world, which would be 74 trillion dollars, has to suffice for the remaining 7 billion - 63 million people on Earth = 6.973 billion people, which amounts to $10,612 per capita. Or, in other words, a rich person owns as much on average as 358 peons of the 99% and down class.
When one person owns as much as 358 others, there are two possible explanations. A) The wealthy person is genuinely worth more than 358 peons. B) The wealthy person is somehow stealing additional wealth for himself at the expense of 358 peons who are too stupid or weak to do anything about it, and therefore still deserve to be worthless peons.
These are your only two options. There is no excuse for the 358 poor people to not use their overwhelming numbers to either militarily or democratically seize the wealth of the 1 wealthy person in their midst, if the wealthy person is unfairly stealing the money from them in the first place. If the wealthy person really is worth more than 358 regular people on Earth, however, there is no excuse for regular people being that worthless as people. They are just taking up space, and should clearly be replaced by more scions of the wealthy, who are 358 times as valuable as their genetic stock could ever be.
Imagine if you could hire just one person to run your business, or 358 people. The two groups ask for the same pay, but in one case the Earth only has to provide enough water, air, oil, food, space, etc for one person, while in the other case you have to provide for 358 people. A rich person's and a poor person's stomach both require the same number of calories, so there's no way on Earth a rich person consumes as much as the 358 peons. All of the excess consumption by these 358 people can't be forgiven, because they provided nothing more than just the 1 working rich man. Furthermore, all of the children of the 358 workers are just as worthless compared to just 1 child from the rich person's family. Therefore, it's useless to claim that the 358 people are producing the 'next generation' or something. Rich people could do that on their own too, and would produce much more valuable stock, who are all bound to earn much more in the future than peon children ever could.
Environmentalism, then, means that all poor people should be replaced with equivalently productive rich people. We could cut the population of the world to 1/359 in a flash. If 63 million rich people are 40% of the world's wealth, then all we need to do is multiply that number by 2.5 and they could hold 100% of the world's wealth: So the ideal population of the world is really 157.5 million. With 157.5 of these 'golden children' we could maintain the world's GDP while being a far lesser burden on Mother Earth.
But that's just the half of it. Governments keep talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. There aren't enough jobs to go around. But what if we only needed enough jobs to employ 1/359 of the workforce? IE, what if instead of needing jobs for 7 billion people, we only needed to find jobs for 157.5 million people, who are just as productive as all 7 billion people combined? I bet all of these workers could find a useful job. This is because jobs must have some relation to the finite natural resources of the world -- all jobs eventually amount to extracting natural resources from the earth, changing them into something humans might want to consume, or pleasing the people who have extracted or changed said natural resources in order to be compensated in extracted/changed natural resources. IE, the entire economy can always be divided into natural resource extraction, manufacturing, and services. In each of these divisions, there is a bottleneck. For natural resources, it's the amount on Earth. When 157.5 million people are extracting resources, there's a lot more to go around, because the Earth's size is finite. This in turn means a greater fraction of people can be employed in resource extraction for the Earth's new population than the past population of 7 billion, almost none of whom could be employed extracting resources, because the world isn't large enough to employ more than a handful of people who are capable of extracting everything there is already.
But there's another bottleneck. For poor people, the bottleneck is not having enough money to pay for goods or services they might like. This restricts job creation, because there's no point making products for people who can't afford them. Rich people also have a bottleneck -- after a certain point all possible goods and services have already been provided for them and they lack for nothing. So the point is, in no case are there ever infinite jobs available, because all jobs suffer from bottlenecks. But in a world of 157.5 million people, the # of jobs needed to be filled is far lower. Therefore before the bottlenecks of the rich were ever met, everyone in the world will have found employment. But with 7 billion people, there are never enough jobs, because we reach the bottleneck of the poor (too poor to afford any new jobs that could be done for their sake) well before full employment. It's the fault of overpopulation that we have unemployment. Or rather, if there's a single unemployed person on Earth, that's proof the world is still overpopulated and the size of the population must be reduced yet further.
There's another reason to consider the world overpopulated, which is just how pathetic the 358 peons are. They lower the average worth of life, by being as pathetic as they are. Imagine you had 1 healthy lion that displayed all the correct attributes of lion-hood, and he was surrounded by 358 sickly lions that couldn't act like lions and just made a mockery of lion-hood by their very presence. Wouldn't the one lion be sickened by their very existence? Furthermore, wouldn't removing these sickly lions continuously improve the average worth of lions, until the last sick one was removed, which would double the worth of lions instantaneously? However you look at it, the sick, weak, ugly lions aren't doing anything for lion-kind, they just drag lion reputation down and make lions less valuable in the eyes of God.
The concept is simple: If a being is strictly superior to another, the strictly inferior being is absolutely superfluous. In fact, it only has negative value, because it diminishes the global average worth of life. A strictly superior being has everything the inferior being has but more -- More intelligence, better looking, more beloved, wealthier, healthier, and so on. It has everything the other person doesn't. So what do we say about peons who have nothing compared to the top 1% of the world? Why even exist? What is the value of their existence? What do they have that the top 1% doesn't have more of already? Since the remaining 99% of the population is worthless, as shown by economics, they are also worthless from a theoretical viewpoint and are just disturbing the net worth of mankind. Mankind could be, on average, or if God were to just look down on mankind from afar, a glowing race of millionaire's who drive around in ferraris and swim in private pools next to giant mansions. Instead we're a bunch of dirty diseased slum dwellers packed cheek by jowl swatting at flies and scrabbling through trash for our next meal. You see how the extra people don't help? That the entire worth of mankind was contained in just those few wealthy happy people from the very start? If you don't have money, you're just human sewage that should be swept away by God's next flood. Then only the pristine, pretty parts of human existence would remain and all the dirty painful parts could disappear.
Anyone without vast riches is just overpopulating the Earth, due to their inferiority to those with vast riches. They bring nothing to the table. Instead, like a child's doodle scrawled on top of a Michelangelo painting, they only spoil and interfere with God's view of man's true beauty and value. If only we could get rid of the human graffiti, 99% of mankind, we would be left with all the human works of art, the top 1% that clearly have their acts together, so much so that they've accumulated nearly half the wealth of the world. God would be much more likely to 'look upon us and be pleased that it was good,' like in Genesis, if we only had these millionaires to present to his view.
Anyone ugly enough to tarnish God's view of mankind is a tally in the overpopulation category.
As you can see, most of the world has no economic purpose, since it takes 358 peons to match one real person's productivity, it's a threat to the Earth, since they still consume 358 times as much as a rich person (or thereabouts, they certainly consume more), they hog precious jobs and leave too many people unemployed, since jobs are finite and the number of unemployed people are an exact measurement of overpopulation beyond that finite number, and they lower the net worth of mankind by uglifying what should be a pretty picture for God's enjoyment, while adding nothing of worth for God to enjoy seeing. What are those 358 people doing that the top 1% aren't doing better?
The world's population could painlessly be reduced to 157 million. Everyone else should just crawl into whatever gutters they came out of and die, leaving the world free for the 'meretricious few' who have shown clearly how much more they're worth than the rest of us. If they don't have the guts to do the right thing and die immediately, they could at least stop having kids and thus spare the world from any further generations of peon-people. Naturally, if they aren't moral enough to get rid of overpopulation themselves, the top 1% is morally situated to do the task for them, by either massacring the 99% of the world which is clearly just overpopulation, or stemming their birth rates down to 0 so that the problem resolves itself over time. If a result is moral, the means to reach it are immaterial. It should be done one way or another, regardless of who does it and how it's done.
I don't see any flaw in my logic.
What bothers me the most is I don't think these rich people actually deserve this much money compared to the rest of us. But how can I argue with reality? The reality is the peons accept their fate, happily, even though they have the right to bear arms and the right to vote, they go ahead and willingly allow 40% of the world's wealth to accumulate into the hands of the tiny few. If the public has submitted to this state, that means they also sanction it, and for some reason, approve of the way the world is structured. All power rests in the hands of the 99%, but all wealth is in the hands of the 1%. This means the 99% want the 1% to have all the money, and wouldn't have it any other way. So who am I to argue with the 99%? The only problem is, if you think the top 1% should have all the money on Earth, then why wouldn't you go further and say you want the top 1% to be all life on Earth too? After all, why even have poor people? Why live? Let the rich people live in our place, just like we've let them hoard all the money on Earth in our place. If they deserve all money on Earth, they also deserve all existence on Earth, because money is a measure of worth -- productivity, value, merit, whatever you want to call it. If we value them that highly, why not just go the distance and give them the whole world? The rich should just have everything for themselves. Then all humans born, subsequently, could be only rich meretricious people who deserve to live, who live in virtual paradises with rivers of wine and honey and milk and freshwater, instead of the teeming masses we have today who are born in filth, live in filth, and die in filth all their days?
The problem is the peons themselves have decided that they are worthless. And if someone says they are worthless, they Are worthless, because there's nothing valuable about someone who won't stand up for himself. He's either too depressed to be worth anything, or too cowardly, or just right in his assessment and thus worthless just like he said. There's no way around negative self-assessments. The entire world's population assesses itself negatively, by allowing the top 1% to hold 40% of the world's wealth. It's saying the rest of the world really isn't worth shit compared to the top 1%, and doesn't deserve shit. This is a self-assessment. I must accept it as true, because whether it's true or not, the simple act of Making that assessment makes you shit that doesn't deserve shit in Truth. If a slave says he deserves to be a slave, I have no interest in promoting his status to that of a free man. Someone like that should just stay a slave. And if someone says they don't deserve any money or any worth because they didn't have enough merit to deserve said money, then to me that's saying they're a bunch of redundancies who have condemned themselves, out of their own mouths, as overpopulation.
My point? If you're a poor person who says we should redistribute wealth from the wealthy because A) poor are worth more than the money they have, or B) rich people don't deserve what they have, then you might be a worthwhile human being and not overpopulation. But if you think the situation is merited, then you've confessed to your crime of being overpopulation and should be wiped off the face of the Earth immediately, and all your future generations with you. You're just overpopulation and we could all use the extra space.
Where are the socialists and what are they doing? In the past, these kinds of wealth disparities caused revolutions and redistributions. Now they get written about in the Wall Street Journal and the country gives a collective shrug, with 'well, they earned it,' not understanding that the full import and meaning of those words is 'well, everyone but the top 1% Is overpopulation deserving only of instant death.'
Look at these comments:
Aside from certain mineral rights, there is no such thing as “global” or “national” wealth. Wealth belongs to the individual property owner because, with few exceptions, they created it, and were it not for them, it would not exist. That less than 1% of the population has created ~40% of the wealth is not surprising because some people are just far more productive than others.
If some people are truly worth that much more than others, than why should anyone else even exist? Why not people the whole Earth with this race of supermen who can create so much wealth all on their own? What are the rest of us here for? What purpose do we serve? These individuals created all that wealth on their own, we had nothing to do with it, don't you see?
Distribute all that wealth among world’s population and after one decade the same millionaires would reappear. Stupid do not become rich…unless they inherit from others.
If the rest of the world's population is too stupid to hold on to their money for ten years, why should they even live? Aren't they also too stupid to live? Why do stupid people exist? Because it's too much of a bother for the rich to kill them as of yet? Is that their sole saving grace?
What an asinine headline. Does one expect dead beats to hold wealth. By the time the article is printed the face value has gone down thanks to Helicopter Ben’s printing presses being run at supersonic speed on Mr.Change’s executive fiat who incidentally never earned a penny the old fashioned way.
If 99% of the world is just dead beats, why shouldn't they be dead plain and simple instead?
No doubt this is another data point for the socialists to claim that why they should tax the rich (even more).
The simple fact is: US is a fairly equal-opportunity country. The fact that you are not a millionaire is more likely a function of yourselves, e.g. laziness, stupidity, don’t care about money, overspending, making bad life decisions, or the fact that you are still young to start up.
There is really no systematic obstalce or discrimination against anyone or any group of people to become a millionaire. If you can avoid all the problems cited above, you are almost certainly can have a few hundred thousands, if not a million, by the time you retire.
If 99% of the population is lazy, stupid, overspending, or making bad life decisions, and thus deserve the fate of poverty, why don't they deserve the much cleaner fate of straight out death? Are lazy stupid bad people valuable in the eyes of God? Shouldn't they all just be put down like any sick animal for their own good?
Who should control it, those who earned it or the deadbeats that would like all the control with none of the work?
This person also thinks the 99% of the population had no hand in creating the 1% of the population's vast wealth, and that 99% of the population consists solely of 'deadbeats.' Since the word dead is already prevalent in their analysis, shouldn't their solution also be 'death to them all?'
Death to deadbeats! Could be the cry of the top 1% as they cleanse the world of its 99% overpopulation.
Or the 99% could say, "A Citizen's Dividend to match the worth of every citizen!", and the world wouldn't be so overpopulated after all. But it's one or the other. Everything else is intellectually hypocritical and lazy. You either believe people are worth more than they're being paid and forceful measures must be taken to redress the imbalance or you believe they're worth exactly what they're being paid -- which is nothing, which means 99% of the world are a bunch of nothings and should be returned to nothing, to non-existence. Everything else is cowardly two-faced bullshit.