62 people control more wealth than half world's population

[Wombaticus Rex]

Adding up the successive net worths from that Mirror article -- which seemed to be a #1-62 rundown of the latest Forbes list? Perhaps not -- yielded the still-impressive sum of 1.6 trillion.

Per this PDF:

The wealth of the richest 62 people has risen by 44% in the five years
since 2010 – that's an increase of more than half a trillion dollars
($542bn), to $1.76 trillion.

So perhaps they include the "dictators and state leaders" that Forbes omits? Seen speculations re:Putin running from $10b to $70b.

[Burnt Hill]

Oxfam uses the Forbes list as their reference in the Methodology PDF accompanying the 1%'er article

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.o ... 116-en.pdf

Oxfam compared the wealth owned by each decile over time and how the share of wealth for each group changed. In 2014 our analysis of the wealth of the top 1 percent projected that the wealth of the 1 percent would exceed that of the rest of the world by 2016.10 Credit Suisse data revealed that this had happened a year earlier: the share of the wealth of the top 1 percent was 50.01 percent in 2015. We also compared this data with Forbes data on the wealth held by the very richest individuals: those listed on the Forbes billionaire rankings in March of every year. We first brought together these two data sources for Oxfam’s report in January 2014, which found that 85 of the world’s billionaires had the same net wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the global population.

[Burnt Hill]

Okay, so while Forbes itself figures Putin's net value at 70 billion, they don't include him due to their methodology

http://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-isnt-forbes-billionaires-list-310818

Why Putin Isn’t on ‘Forbes’ Billionaires List

Additionally, Forbes excludes members of royal families and “dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.” Although it details this caveat, the magazine offered limited insight into the exact reason Putin was left off.

[parel]

Okay, so while Forbes itself figures Putin's net value at 70 billion, they don't include him due to their methodology

http://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-isnt-forbes-billionaires-list-310818

Why Putin Isn’t on ‘Forbes’ Billionaires List

Additionally, Forbes excludes members of royal families and “dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.” Although it details this caveat, the magazine offered limited insight into the exact reason Putin was left off.

Does that adequately explain why the House of Rothschild is not on the list? How can a guy with 70b in wealth be the richest in the world?

[Burnt Hill]

Okay, so while Forbes itself figures Putin's net value at 70 billion, they don't include him due to their methodology

http://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-isnt-forbes-billionaires-list-310818

Why Putin Isn’t on ‘Forbes’ Billionaires List

Additionally, Forbes excludes members of royal families and “dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.” Although it details this caveat, the magazine offered limited insight into the exact reason Putin was left off.

Does that adequately explain why the House of Rothschild is not on the list? How can a guy with 70b in wealth be the richest in the world?

Well it doesn't fit in with the Methodology parel, so its obviously of no consequence!

Obviously the disparity is even worse than Oxfam presents it.

And where is El Chapo??

[parel]

I find myself wanting to 'like' posts here as a way of communicating without having to do a new post. Wonder if there's a study on how the "like" button stymies debate and retards activism. Once we "like" a post, even if we haven't ready anything other than the headline, do we feel we've contributed in some way to changing the situation. I notice the level of debate has dropped in the past two years on that platform. Not sure if it's, in part, because of that or because of Snowden's revelations. Perhaps people are self-censoring now. Or perhaps they are suffering from TMI-fatigue.

Either way, I'm off topic now. Sorry. And thanks Burnt Hill.

[Nordic]

I find myself wanting to 'like' posts here as a way of communicating without having to do a new post. Wonder if there's a study on how the "like" button stymies debate and retards activism. Once we "like" a post, even if we haven't ready anything other than the headline, do we feel we've contributed in some way to changing the situation. I notice the level of debate has dropped in the past two years on that platform. Not sure if it's, in part, because of that or because of Snowden's revelations. Perhaps people are self-censoring now. Or perhaps they are suffering from TMI-fatigue.

Either way, I'm off topic now. Sorry. And thanks Burnt Hill.

To stay off topic for a bit: I have noticed that too. But here is why I think that is:

When you "like" something it shows up to everyone who is your "friend" as something you liked. You might as well hit the share button. So people are now reluctant to hit "like" because they have to stop and think "is this something I want everyone to know that I've "liked?"" Same thing if you comment. So if you really get into a heavy conversation on a thread, everything you say might very well be seen by everyone of your "friends". So all conversation is potentially public, and on record.

This has done a hell of a lot to stifle meaningful conversation -- and I'm sure it's deliberate.

[KUAN]

sad



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDiili2Gs-0

[Freitag]

What kind of asshole keeps that much money? They're the worst hoarders on the planet.

Maybe the kind of asshole who created it in the first place? How many jobs do you think exist because of that guy? How many fortunes has he built for other people? Money is not a zero-sum game.

When I bought my Powerball tickets all I could fantasize about was how I'd give almost all the money away.

Yeah, not the same. His $69 billion dollar net worth is not liquid cash sitting in a bank account for him to give away. He owns companies (among other assets), which have value because they produce cash flow, because they provide value to their customers. Customers are where the money comes from. He's not turning poor people upside down and shaking the money out of their pockets while laughing maniacally. Just the opposite, in fact. He gives away a massive amount of money to worthy causes, including abolishing poverty in South America. I bet the recipients of his philanthropy think he's a blessing, instead of the curse you make him out to be.

In order to help people, one must be in a position of strength. For example I personally can't help anyone at the moment, I barely have my own shit together, financially speaking. Nor do I feel any sort of nobility for the aforementioned weakness. Whereas Carlos Slim has the ability to (and does in fact) help more people than I've ever dreamed of helping.

69 Billion dollars? WHY?

Why not? Maybe Definitely he's good at making money. Michael Jordan was good at playing basketball, do you fault him for trying to be the best? It's the same impulse, a human need to develop one's natural talents. After a certain level of wealth, I imagine it's just a matter of scorekeeping. Like Warren Buffet he lives a very modest lifestyle, so he's not driven by some maniacal lust for worldly goods. He's religious, frugal, and modest. He happens to be a very astute businessman - so what?

We should just fucking confiscate it, over his dead body if need be, to put that money to work for people who actually need it.

Fuck!

What makes you think his wealth isn't helping people right now? Who is it harming? What rights do you have to it? Was it stolen? Did he acquire it illegally/immorally?

Do you begrudge JK Rowling's $1 billion dollar net worth as well? She was a 30-year old single mother on welfare when she sold her first Harry Potter novel. It's sold 460 million copies worldwide. Her money came from happy customers - readers who loved her stories. She's not stealing money from hungry kids in Africa. It's not a zero-sum game. In the marketplace, people reward you with money for delivering products/services that help them. It's a win-win situation.

[Nordic]

So tell me how JK Rowling's money is tied up in factories and distribution centers and property?

It's not. With a HELL of a lot of people it's not. Most Wall Street scumbags, it's not. With the people socking away mountains of cash and gold in Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts it's not. For the assholes buying mega yachts it's not.

But thanks for the bullshit lesson in Republican Reaganomic rationalizations. Like we needed to hear that shit here.

[82_28]

Bear in mind that Michael Jordan is a billionaire and his father was killed over his gambling (it is thought). You can't find anything official at this distant moment, but I remember this:

There's a famous gambling story about Michael Jordan. Actually, there are many famous gambling stories about MJ, but this one is my favorite. Back before NBA teams had grasped the rejuvenating power of chartered airplanes, the Bulls were waiting for their luggage in Portland when Jordan slapped a hunny on the conveyor belt: I bet you my bags come out first. Jumping on the incredibly favorable odds, nine teammates happily accepted the wager. Sure enough, Jordan's bags led the rollout. He cackled with delight as he collected everyone's money.

What none of the suckers knew, and what MJ presumably never told them, was that he had bribed a baggage handler to help him out. He didn't pocket much (a few hundred bucks), and considering his net worth hovered around nine figures at the time, it's safe to say he didn't need the extra cash. But that didn't matter. There was a chance at an easy score, and he took it.

Yes, the most cutthroat athlete of his generation loves to gamble, and even more than that, he loves to win. Should you be surprised? The qualities that once made MJ transcendent on the court -- his legendary hypercompetitiveness, superhuman stamina, larger-than-life swagger and unwavering confidence -- make the gambling crossover an obvious choice.

Now, not all top-tier superstars have the bug. Word is that Larry Bird, a renowned cheapskate, wagered only on postpractice shooting contests (which he was predisposed to win because, after all, he was Larry Bird). But Jordan was fundamentally more reckless. He played high-stakes golf -- you may remember he once settled a seven-figure debt for $300,000 with a grateful hustler who felt compelled to write a book about it -- and made at least one ill-advised trek to Atlantic City between playoff games.

I'm the last person to think that MJ's hobby makes him as unsavory as a Bada Bing! customer. Too much has been made of his gambling "problem" over the years. Take Michael Leahy's mean-spirited book, in which he salaciously recounts a 2001 blackjack blowout at the Mohegan Sun that included Rip Hamilton and Antoine Walker. Leahy made the night seem nefarious, describing how MJ fell behind by half a million before turning things around in the wee hours by playing two hands at a time, jabbering loudly and confidently all the while, working the dealer as if he were Bryon Russell. I happened to be there as well, plugging away at a $15 table about 25 feet away. What I witnessed was just three friends letting off steam.

Everything's relative. Last summer, at my buddy Hopper's bachelor party, we played blackjack at Mandalay Bay until 8:45 a.m., one of those blurry marathons where you wake up the following afternoon, heave a sigh of relief when you see your wallet ("I didn't lose it!") then scream happily when you glimpse the wad of hundreds inside. Women had flirted with us, pit bosses had sauntered over to "cool" us down. We hadn't played for 25 G's a hand, but we had risked a higher percentage of our net worth than MJ did in his Mohegan cameo, that's for sure. It was my single best run in Vegas -- and I didn't have Leahy standing nearby jotting down unflattering notes.

We love to pick athletes apart, but what's the big deal about their gambling so much? Look what happened last month. First, John Daly says he lost $50-60 million at the slots, and it becomes a national story. Then, Charles Barkley defends Daly, before casually revealing that he's squandered $10 million in casinos over the years. Of course, the media blows up that revelation and excoriates him for being so irresponsible. What's irresponsible about losing millions when you have more money than you'll ever need? Playing with the house's money is a way of life for these guys.

Watch an episode of MTV Cribs: For many celebs, it's not just about making it; it's about embracing the excess of making it. It's about owning the biggest mansion and the most cars, being able to buy anything without someone saying, "Wait, you can't afford that." It's about walking into a Ferrari dealership and having the salesman keel over with glee. It's about buying a yacht even though you don't particularly like water. It's about wearing a different suit after every game. It's about playing Madden on a 100-inch plasma instead of a 40-inch flatscreen. High-stakes gambling is just another piece of the excess package.

Casinos actually hold an allure beyond the action. With their elite gaming areas and impeccable security, they are some of the few public places where athletes can unwind without being badgered by starstruck fans. Call it an amusement park for the privileged, a place to let loose and be rich, where competitive juices can get a victimless workout. For a big-stakes guy, every night starts with the same vow: "I'm gonna kick ass." If he gets down, he just knows he'll win it back. If he's up, he wants to be up more. If he didn't possess this drive at the tables, he'd be one of those Rudy Gay types on the court, a player who drifts during games and doesn't seem to care if his team wins or loses. Competitiveness isn't a switch you can turn on and off.

That's why these guys bring PlayStations on the road, why card games never end on charters, why who-can-make-the-first-halfcourt-shot contests break out at the end of every NBA practice. David Stern says he's dead set against moving a team to Vegas because he's afraid players will wager on NBA games. But if they want to, they can easily do that online. What he should be afraid of is that they'd be fodder for the high-roller hustlers in Vegas who make a killing in poker games and golf matches with overcompetitive multimillionaires.

History tells us there's no shortage of those: Isiah Thomas played in high-stakes craps games at Thomas Hearns' house; Jerry Stackhouse decked Christian Laettner during a poker game on the Pistons' charter; Phil Mickelson won tens of thousands on World Series and Super Bowl bets as part of a consortium; Charles Oakley publicly threatened Tyrone Hill for being slow to settle a dice debt. For every story that leaks out, dozens of others are almost surely buried.

But no one can convince me it's a bad thing. There has been a negative link between gambling and sports dating back 100 years, back when heavyweight title fights and the World Series were fixed. But that is a lot less likely to happen now: Professional athletes earn too much to be swayed by fixers. Still, fans are brainwashed to believe gambling is dangerous, that it's a potential gateway to self-destruction, that it can destroy your life if you aren't careful, that everyone is a few errant bets away from a lifetime of depressing Gamblers Anonymous meetings. Watch any TV show in which a character starts betting, and almost always, he loses control before the big "intervention" episode. Gambling is bad. Or so we're told.

And then you see the 400 different poker shows on cable, gambling spreads in every newspaper, March Madness pools in every office, websites and magazines that have made a killing on the fantasy boom, scratch cards and lottery machines in every convenience store ... Ummm, none of this is gambling? We refer to point spreads all the time -- the Steelers are favored by six -- and naïvely pretend they happen in some sort of vacuum, that there's no correlation between the numbers and actual wagering. Everyone participates in this hypocrisy. It's a more complicated version of the four college roomies who stand around a keg on a Friday night and slurringly argue about whether one of their other pals has a drinking problem.

Gambling is a part of sports; we may as well accept it. Maybe there are ways teams can actually use it to their advantage. For instance, Hopper once played blackjack in Vegas with Norv Turner, who spinelessly kept staying on 16 until my belligerent friend drove him from the table with a biting remark. After hearing that story, I thought Turner's coaching career made infinitely more sense. What football player would be inspired by a coach who stays on 16?

If I owned a team, I'd insist on playing poker or blackjack with any coach or manager I was thinking of hiring. During Jordan's Mohegan Sun all-nighter, I distinctly recall being impressed that Hamilton -- still a young player who hadn't done much -- looked totally comfortable in the high-stakes section with MJ. Good sign for his future, I remember thinking. That poise made him one of the crucial players on the world-champion Pistons. Coincidence? You tell me.

As for Jordan, if I owned the Bulls and found out my franchise guy -- the dude cashing my seven-figure checks every two weeks, the dude responsible for filling my stadium eight months per season, the dude who would make or break my dream of holding the Larry O'Brien Trophy -- was bribing baggage handlers just to win a few hundred bucks ... well, the news would warm my heart. That's what alpha dogs do: They compete, they dominate, they don't know when to quit. The surprise isn't that there are dozens of gambling stories about Michael Jordan. The surprise would be if there weren't any.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/060614

[Freitag]

So tell me how JK Rowling's money is tied up in factories and distribution centers and property?

Are those supposed to be bad things? Sounds to me like the infrastructure of commerce.

It's not. With a HELL of a lot of people it's not. Most Wall Street scumbags, it's not. With the people socking away mountains of cash and gold in Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts it's not. For the assholes buying mega yachts it's not.

I see. These are your Bad Guys.

But thanks for the bullshit lesson in Repunlican rationalizations. Like we needed to hear that shit here.

Is being a Republican supposed to be a bad thing? (I'm not, by the way.) I just get a little sick of the caricatures of wealthy people. I'm working as hard as I can to become one, after all. And I imagine how I'd feel if, someday, it pays off and I do come up a little bit in the world, god forbid, and then someone confused my success with, you know, being the personification of evil.

Anyway it's not personal, I just disagree with you. I respect you as a long-time poster here. I've met plenty of narcissistic, wealthy assholes to understand why the caricature does exist.

[Freitag]

Bear in mind that Michael Jordan is a billionaire and his father was killed over his gambling (it is thought). You can't find anything official at this distant moment, but I remember this:

[interesting stuff]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/060614

Yeah he's got that gambler mentality. Is that true about his father? I'd like to know more about that. Anyway I'm fascinated by the gambler type, I've known plenty of them. A great audio book I read last year was about Jay Sarno, who built Circus Circus. Made a ton of money, gambled away a ton of money, just lived life in that crazy way that gamblers do.

[divideandconquer]

Okay, so while Forbes itself figures Putin's net value at 70 billion, they don't include him due to their methodology

http://www.newsweek.com/why-putin-isnt-forbes-billionaires-list-310818

Why Putin Isn’t on ‘Forbes’ Billionaires List

Additionally, Forbes excludes members of royal families and “dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.” Although it details this caveat, the magazine offered limited insight into the exact reason Putin was left off.

Does that adequately explain why the House of Rothschild is not on the list? How can a guy with 70b in wealth be the richest in the world?

Well it doesn't fit in with the Methodology parel, so its obviously of no consequence!

Obviously the disparity is even worse than Oxfam presents it.

And where is El Chapo??

Yeah, there are individuals worth far more than the names topping official rich lists (new wealth). But I wonder how they define "members of royal families" and “dictators who derive their fortunes entirely as a result of their position of power.” Dictator? Does that include the ones behind the scenes who pull the dictator's strings? Royalty? Anyone with a drop of royal blood? And where are the trillionaires? Like the Rothschilds (supposedly worth anywhere from $100 to $500 trillion) and Rockefellers (supposedly worth trillions), names we all know who manage to stay off the Forbes list?

So, why are these people excluded? I imagine because they are the real people pulling the strings and they demand absolute secrecy without any media attention at all.

Imagine how it would change the picture if you added the invisible/hidden wealth...the non-disclosed fortunes that are virtually impossible to detect, undeclared income stashed away in offshore tax havens and Swiss bank accounts, secret Old World money, etc. Add in the Queen's wealth of what some claim adds up to unimaginable proportions and it might read, one person owns more wealth than half the world's population combined.

[82_28]

Bear in mind that Michael Jordan is a billionaire and his father was killed over his gambling (it is thought). You can't find anything official at this distant moment, but I remember this:

[interesting stuff]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/060614

Yeah he's got that gambler mentality. Is that true about his father? I'd like to know more about that. Anyway I'm fascinated by the gambler type, I've known plenty of them. A great audio book I read last year was about Jay Sarno, who built Circus Circus. Made a ton of money, gambled away a ton of money, just lived life in that crazy way that gamblers do.

Well, I think that it's that they were "getting to him" by just with a flip of a switch dad assassinated. And dare I say it, Ennis Cosby as well. I do not know but these circumstances exist. I don't know whether anything should be analysed from a "conspiratorial" standpoint about this, but it is clear there was a conspiracy to DO SOMETHING! People were murdered because of who they were and their relations to their powerful and famous next of kin. Otherwise, it would have never happened!