World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by mruts on Monday January 21, 2019 @04:47AM (#18959099)

Wealth inquality (up to a point, of course) is, in general, actually a good thing. The more concentrated wealth is, the more easily and more cheaply it can leveraged to affect change. A good example might be the Gates Foundation. Through Bill Gates’ concentration of wealth, he can allocate money to help the world with very little friction and overhead

Other examples include VC or hedge funds. While they don’t own the money themselves (they merely aggregate and invest it on the behalf of others), the reason this happens is because it’s much more profitable and efficient to invest one large pot of cash vs many small pots of cash.

PS: If someone wants to bring up that index funds are better, it’s still the same principle at work. The expense ratio of a S&P 500 index fund are much smaller than what most individuals could manage themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by UweSchmidt on Monday January 21, 2019 @04:55AM (#18959147)

It's the wealth inequality that creates the problems for so many people in the first place. Superrich people are basically royalty at this point. Affecting change as they see fit, mostly busy with themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by casual_slacker on Monday January 21, 2019 @05:01AM (#18959174)

It's an interesting point seldom discussed: governments use money in boring safe ways, eccentric rich people "waste" money in unique and unpredictable ways. Both seem essential to the equation of production, just maybe not in the current proportions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by crc32 on Monday January 21, 2019 @06:26AM (#18959585)

> governments use money in boring safe ways, eccentric rich people "waste" money in unique and unpredictable ways.

I think many would dispute this point, at least in a general sense; although personally I might agree that current governments seem a bit paralysed in the face of some of global society's larger problems.

It does seem like we are living in an almost Victorian era age of high profile philanthropy/industrial barons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by nikanj on Monday January 21, 2019 @05:06AM (#18959197)

With the current wealth distribution, it makes more sense to take something great and market it to a few ultra rich at $$$$, instead of letting the general public enjoy it for $.

Examples of this range from vacation spots to high-end restaurants. Making things /more/ exclusive and accessible to an ever smaller number of people seems to be the trend for most nice things in life.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by piahoo on Monday January 21, 2019 @04:54AM (#18959140)

tldr; wealth inquality is good, because it is easier to distribute wealth (fight with wealth inquality)

disease is good, because it easier to fight with disease when you are ill

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, say... by username90 on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:02AM (#18960781)

I think it is better that Gates has billions to distribute to poor people rather than each American millionaire having a couple of thousand dollars extra to spend on their vacations.

[ Parent | on HN ]