The Wealth of the Global Rich compared to the Rest of the World

Rushcourt71

"The richest billionaires in the world consisted of 30 adults out of 3 billion people in the 1980s, and their average wealth was US $ 3.4 billion in 1980.

Their accumulated assets grew each year by 6.8% to 2013, totalling US $ 32.3 billion. Billionaires numbered 150 adults out of 3 billion in the 1980s, and their average wealth grew at 6.4% per year between 1987 and 2013, from US $ 1.6 billion to US $ 14.0 billion.

In comparison, average world wealth per adult increased by only 2.1% annually from 1987 to 2013, and average income per person by just 1.4%.

Thus, the wealth of the global rich appears to be growing much faster than that of the average individual....

The top 1% today account for almost half of the all the wealth in the world, The richest 10% own 87% of all assets, and The lower half of the global population possess less than 1% of global wealth."

(Source: Shunsuke Managi; Pushpam Kumar. Inclusive Wealth Report 2018: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability (Kindle Locations 3329-3338). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.)

kaustubhkirti

Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the 21st century argues along the same lines that inherited wealth would grow faster than earned wealth. Thats why the disparity.

simran_bestest

The advent of globalisation and industrialisation ensured that a few people could hold all the means of production, and hence, most of the wealth. The rising inequality is not good either for the economies, nor for the people at large.

Rushcourt71

kaustubhkirti 2-11-2018 07:59 AM
Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the 21st century argues along the same lines that inherited we ...

I would disagree.

Inherited wealth is only one source.

Monopolisation and industrial/socio-political exploitation by a global minority has a greater effect long term.   

Rushcourt71

simran_bestest 2-11-2018 12:31 PM
The advent of globalisation and industrialisation ensured that a few people could hold all the means ...

Globalisation and industrialisation in theory are both good, but laissez faire in its current context is evil.

If we can have globalisation and industrialisation without laissez faire, progress is achievable, albeit slowly and a little painfully at first.  

kaustubhkirti

Rushcourt71 2-11-2018 04:04 PM
I would disagree.

Inherited wealth is only one source.

Well you have hit right at the point what Piketty wants to drive -

Inherited Wealth (example Mukesh Ambani) will lead to higher bargaining power vs other Reliance employee. Thus the return on capital employed for the owners would always be more because of this bargaining power -

1) Inherited wealth allows people to dictate terms
2) Monopolisation and definately social deprivation of the masses
3) Employees and the poor will never be able to invest anywhere because they live on subsistence

At the end of day invested capital would give you higher return than labour.

There is one disruption to this economic theory that is technology. Technology has created bigger billionairs in few seconds than any disrupter. Thus technology can break this inherited wealth cycle. for example Flipkart was sold at 20 billion $ for 80% stake while 1907 opened TATA Steel market cap is meagre 10 bil $.   

Rushcourt71

kaustubhkirti 2-11-2018 07:51 PM
Well you have hit right at the point what Piketty wants to drive -

Inherited Wealth (example Muke ...

Thanks for the reply.

I think I will read the book to understand the author a little better as well.