Global inequality is actually declining, by the way, so can't modern capitalism get some credit for that?
http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...
All this fact says is that a bunch of assets minus a bunch of debts adds up to small numbers.
(Also note that I said "about half the world" - I don't claim to know the exact cutoff.)
Most people are not in debt, as illustrated by the fact that you require USD 3,650 to have more wealth than 50% of people. If most people were in debt then USD 1 would be more than required.
Your figure of USD 150 is ludicrously inaccurate. That's nowhere near half the world. That's my point.
I never claimed this. I merely said the specific statistic used to argue this is a poor one.
Again, let me tweak my counterexample to precisely debunk your claim, since you seem to believe $3650 is a magic number while $100k (what I used) is not: [-3650, -3650, 3650, 3650, 3651]. This is a population with median wealth of $3650. The net wealth of the bottom 4/5 is $0 < $1 < $150.
Thus, you have not debunked my claim. Median(x) > $150 does not imply cumsum(x) > $150.
No, you claimed, "All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt."
It does not say any such thing. The fact you can choose a contrived set of figures to match the median wealth figures doesn't mean that those figures are representative in any way of the actual distribution of wealth in the world. They certainly are not.
Your claim that the value of the median is mostly due to debt is flat out wrong. Your claim that possession of $150 puts your wealth above 50% of the planet is flat out wrong.
Your claim that Median(x) > $150 does not imply cumsum(x) > $150 is correct, assuming you don't know the distribution. One out of three ain't bad, I guess.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-ric...
Edit: clearer argument