You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
Study finds global wealth uneven
2006-12-06
A U.N. study said the richest 2 percent of the world population owns more than half the world's assets while those in the bottom half owned about 1 percent. The wealthiest people were concentrated in North America, Western Europe and the richer Asian countries. The poorest were concentrated in Africa and India.
I guess life's tough there on the bottom of the economic heap, but making no effort to change your situation doesn't tug at my heartstrings. I have the best of wishes for the Indians, who're working diligently to improve the lot of their nation. I've ceased thinking about Africa, home of Mugabe, Taylor, and dozens of similar subgeniuses. I think I was still in my teens when it occurred to me that socialism's weak spot is that you can't divide the wealth if there's no wealth. It's an economic system designed for milking cash cows, not for raising them.
The study was done by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University in Helsinki. Researchers estimated total global wealth at $125 trillion or an average of $26,000 per person when adjusted for differences in purchasing power between countries. But per capita wealth was about $144,000 per person in the United States in 2000 and $181,000 in Japan, while it was $1,100 in India and $1,400 in Indonesia.
I'm guessing that 20 years ago, in the heyday of the Congress Party, the figure for India was even lower.
Assets of $2,200 per adult placed a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution in 2000. To be among the richest 10 percent of adults required $61,000, while $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1 percent. About 37 million people worldwide are in the top 1 percent and collectively own 41 percent of the world's assets.
Posted by:Fred

#15  frozen al, that comment reminds me of one I read in the book Baghdad without a Map. In the section on Sudan he mentioned how the Egyptians considered the Sudanese lazy, which was a mind-blowing thing when he considered the fact the average Egyptian worked like four hours a week.

I bet with a proper profit motive things would slowly change.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-12-06 15:41  

#14  IF you tracked government interference in the economy you'd probably get a same picture as the wealth but reversed.

I would love to see an African nation establish a free-trade city identical to Hong Kong in laws and attitude and see what happened. My guess is you'd have a very wealthy city.

I would love to seen a free-trade city in India, or Latin America for that matter.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-12-06 15:39  

#13  All your wealth are belong to us!
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-12-06 13:15  

#12  No, Al, just another example of The Man with his boot on the neck of oppressed peepuls everywhere.

Or something like that...
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-12-06 12:00  

#11  One of the interesting statements comes from a US Contractor in Iraq. He says a 2 hr job in the States will take all week when performed by Iraqis.

When you take into account that Iraqis are more diligent than most Arabs, you realize the productivity gap between our societies.

Do you think that might have something to do with wealth distribution?

Al
Posted by: frozen al   2006-12-06 11:47  

#10  Proc, the perfect description of the UN was coined by a blog, the Diplomad (no longer exists but sorely missed) during the Tsunami where the UN swept in (after a month - had to have 24Hr catering and a 5-star hotel) and took all the credit:


Vampire Vulture Elite


They sweep in and suck the blood out of their victims.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-12-06 10:10  

#9  When Bill Richardson [now governor and wannabe presidential candidate] was appointed ambassador to the UN, one of the things he did was to sit and talk with the maintenance personnel in the UN cafeteria just to get to know the people. The employees were shocked, shocked because no one of ‘importanceÂ’ had ever done such a thing. Yep, for all their talk about the ‘poorÂ’ and working class, the UN bureaucrats were and are the classical model of limousine socialists. Socialism for them is simply the modern religious citation of holy chants to rationalize and justify their position of power and rule over the vast minions. For them the concept of Â’consent of the governÂ’ is as alien as the landscape of the moon Titan. These apparatchiks are only concerned about the issue as a hitter is in selecting the club to beat the ball [the opposition to their power] into submission.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2006-12-06 09:52  

#8  Beat me to it, Blondie. I wonder how much money went from the UN budget to fund this "research" - did they even think to use it to help the "bottom half"? Didn't think so.
Posted by: Spot   2006-12-06 08:48  

#7  If you want to get rich, you can work hard to earn it, or marry it, like I did. Otherwise, you're stuck in Iraq....just joking *loopy grin*
Posted by: John Fn Kerry   2006-12-06 07:53  

#6  Socialisms method of raising the per capita wealth was to kill off people until the remainder were convinced to be happy with what little they had.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2006-12-06 07:23  

#5  And I bet the wealth distribution is the most uneven in the poorest countries. And the most 'socialistic' countries. But I repeat myself.
Posted by: Glenmore   2006-12-06 07:08  

#4  Good thing we have the UN to tell us that wealth is unevenly distributed worldwide. I breathlessly await their next report...."Water: It's Wet".
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-12-06 06:19  

#3  Graphic needs coffee alert warning.

(cleaning monitor, mopping desk)

Outstanding!
Posted by: Quana   2006-12-06 06:09  

#2  As various loggers remind us > WELFARISM = re-distribution, re-alignment, and substitution of wealth + revenue-generating sectors, where in simple terms Producers unilater or as [Govt-led]public policy take care of non-Producers. AID invols littel or none of above. WOT > WAR FOR THE WORLD > ANTI-US LEFTS = Producers $$$ taking care of Non-Producers WHILE NON-PRODUCERS CONTROL + MAKE THE RULES FOR EVERYONE. WEAK CONTROL THE STRONG WHILE THE WEAK DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE=REFORM ANYTHING, i.e GLOBAL SLAVE STATE = GLOBAL ANARCHY/MAFIA STATE. * FOX > NORTH KOREA = belabeled as a CRIMINAL STATE???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-12-06 01:06  

#1  IOW, DEMOCAPITALISM + FREE ENTERPRISE/MARKETS + FREEDOMS WORK, COMMUNISM-SOCIALISM even its most benevolent form(s) STILL FAILS = IS FAR FAR FAR BEHIND. Once again, a reason for 9-11 and Global Anti-Americanism.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-12-06 00:54  

00:00