Eight white men own as much as half the world

[notme]

Eight men own as much wealth as the lower 50% of the world. Billionaires using their wealth to do good is good, but it should never have reached this point. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening and opportunities to climb out of poverty are decreasing. Even under feudalism there was less disparity.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world

Who are these eight elites? 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/who-are-8-richest-people-all-men-mostly-americans-n707421?client=ms-android-verizon

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by notme
Typing with wiggly toddler climbing on me

[guest050817]

Uncontrolled capitalism. 

[Quiet one]

 

They probably worked hard for it.....so God increased their wealth

[notme]

35 minutes ago, Quiet one said:

They probably worked hard for it.....so God increased their wealth

Sarcasm?

[saas]

Zuckerberg $44,600,000,000 and this guy just started yesterday. Sorry had to spell out the 0's to wrap my head around it.

"He and his wife have pledged to sell 99 percent of their holdings in Facebook — over 400 million shares, worth about $50 billion — to support philanthropic causes. "

Sometimes it's not the business which embodies the character of Man but the power of external stimulus. Zuckerberg may just be the definition of the compassionate self.

[saas]

BTW Carlos Helu is brown :P 

[notme]

Bill Gates gives a lot to charity too.  I'm not complaining about the men; I'm complaining about the system.  Unlimited capitalism will always ultimately lead to feudalism, in which a few wealthy "lords" control the lives of the poor masses.  They might be benevolent "lords", giving to their serfs to help them in their suffering, but they are still "the elite".  The next group might not be so benevolent.

 

[notme]

1 minute ago, saas said:

BTW Carlos Helu is brown :P 

Alright, I concede that.  Seven white men and one brown man control more of the world's wealth than 50% of the population.

I'm never sure what counts as brown and what counts as black and what counts as white and what counts as yellow or red or blue or green.  I just assume if they're rich they must be white, and the rest is arbitrary. "Race" isn't a real thing, it's just a social construct.

Edited January 17, 2017 by notme

[Sumerian]

Why does it matter that they're white? Richest man ever was black and Muslim 

Anyway why is this a big deal? Some people are rich and some are poor, as long as they pay their obligations such as khums and zakat (which I don't think they do cause they're not Muslim) then having this wealth is halal.

Edited January 17, 2017 by E.L King

[Sumerian]

1 hour ago, uponthesunnah said:

Uncontrolled capitalism. 

Too much regulation is bad. In an Islamic country the only thing these guys will have to pay is khums and maybe zakat. They'd still be this rich.

Those regulations that will really hurt them are man made.

[Reza]

2 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Too much regulation is bad. In an Islamic country the only thing these guys will have to pay is khums and maybe zakat. They'd still be this rich.

Those regulations that will really hurt them are man made.

There's no taxes? 

[Sumerian]

1 minute ago, magma said:

There's no taxes? 

No. The tax is the khums and zakat. This is the ideal.

Edited January 17, 2017 by E.L King

[Al Hadi]

6 minutes ago, E.L King said:

No. The tax is the khums.

Islamic economics I think is a bit more complicated yes there would be rich people but there are many reasons why the gap would not be so wide between poor and rich. Firstly interest is not allowed which I'm sure was one of the ways the above men had to have somehow made their money and also it keeps the poor poorer because the money they accumulate in the economy becomes less making the system of the must work even harder tomorrow to earn what they did yesterday due to inflation. There are other things to consider I'm sure but I don't think those men would be as wealthy in an Islamic government.

Plus can you imagine what a 5th of that money would do + 2.5%(zakat) that in total that = 22.5% and a 2.5 directly goes to the poor the other 20 well go to things that will surely help the people through the government. In an Islamic government If those guys were that rich still which I doubt the people would also benefit WAAAY more than they do here in the west now.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Al Hadi

[Reza]

7 minutes ago, E.L King said:

No. The tax is the khums and zakat. This is the ideal.

That simple huh? 

Wrong. 

[saas]

41 minutes ago, notme said:

Bill Gates gives a lot to charity too.  I'm not complaining about the men; I'm complaining about the system.  Unlimited capitalism will always ultimately lead to feudalism, in which a few wealthy "lords" control the lives of the poor masses.  They might be benevolent "lords", giving to their serfs to help them in their suffering, but they are still "the elite".  The next group might not be so benevolent.

 

I agree. I personally believe we are beyond resolving this problem. If change is inevitable it's going to come at a price. Lawless disorder or anarchy may just fit the bill. 

Nationalism, self serving habitual politics and lack of awareness was always going to be the downfall. How do you even solve a problem when the problem itself is the mindset, like a minor state of hypnosis, stuck in a matrix. Well we all know what happened in the Matrix - 'a worthy saviour'. Maybe i'm just being pessimistic but seriously I can't see change for the better. Pockets of change could purchase a happy meal for a day but for a full nutritional healthy meal the kitchens gonna get real hot.

[notme]

@E.L King I'm not saying wealth is bad. I'm saying huge disparity between a few wealthy people and everyone else is bad. It's putting too much power into the hands of a few very fallible people. I don't trust people and I don't trust money and I don't trust power, which is what people get from having a very large amount of money.

 

The fact that they're white (or not?) is irrelevant, sort of.  Race is a social construct meant to divide society into "us and them". I've said a million times, no matter how you want to divide us, there is no "us and them". Dividing according to wealth is no more natural than dividing according to pigmentation. 

 

[Sumerian]

1 minute ago, Al Hadi said:

Islamic economics I think is a bit more complicated yes there would be rich people but there are many reasons why the gap would not be so wide between poor and rich. Firstly interest is not allowed which I'm sure was one of the ways the above men had to have somehow made their money and also it keeps the poor poorer because the money they accumulate in the economy becomes less making the system of the must work even harder tomorrow to earn what they did yesterday due to inflation. There are other things to consider I'm sure but I don't think those men would be as wealthy in an Islamic government.

Plus can you imagine what a 5th of that money would do + 2.5%(zakat) that in total that = 22.5% and a 2.5 directly goes to the poor the other 20 well go to things that will surely help the people through the government. In an Islamic government If those guys were that rich still which I doubt the people would also benefit WAAAY more than they do here in the west now.

22.5% isn't even that high bro compared to many Western governments. Interest is a factor but it is not a game changer, we had extremely rich people like these people back in the days of the Islamic Empires.

Yes the money would benefit the people more, no problem there.

[Sumerian]

4 minutes ago, magma said:

That simple huh? 

Wrong. 

Yes that simple. The ideal would be a tax haven - excluding zakat and khums.

Right.

[Sumerian]

1 minute ago, notme said:

@E.L King I'm not saying wealth is bad. I'm saying huge disparity between a few wealthy people and everyone else is bad. It's putting too much power into the hands of a few very fallible people. I don't trust people and I don't trust money and I don't trust power, which is what people get from having a very large amount of money.

 

The fact that they're white (or not?) is irrelevant, sort of.  Race is a social construct meant to divide society into "us and them". I've said a million times, no matter how you want to divide us, there is no "us and them". Dividing according to wealth is no more natural than dividing according to pigmentation. 

 

Well this money is going to be in someone's hand anyway, probably with the government (do you trust them?). The wealth disparity cannot be solved, it is something everyone has to live with... unless we advocate socialism or communism but this is a seperate issue to me because I am comparing this issue to the ideal Islamic system which is my ultimate model of perfectness.

[myouvial]

As long as human still believe in money (electronic or paper or gold or metal) as common denominator that can do anything then they are powerful. Otherwise, they just mere human who needs food, air, water, life etc.

[Reza]

9 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Yes that simple. The ideal would be a tax haven - excluding zakat and khums.

Right.

I didn't know ideal Islamic society was along Thatcherite/Reaganite lines. I learn something new everyday. 

[Sumerian]

5 minutes ago, magma said:

I didn't know ideal Islamic society was along Thatcherite/Reaganite lines. I learn something new everyday. 

Naa those two implemented too much tax.

Look to, say, some Islamic tax haven countries. I heard the Gulf States have very little tax, if any.

There are 7 Muslim tax free countries.

Edited January 17, 2017 by E.L King

[myouvial]

23 minutes ago, myouvial said:

As long as human still believe in money (electronic or paper or gold or metal) as common denominator that can do anything then they are powerful. Otherwise, they just mere human who needs food, air, water, life etc.

Actually, they are not powerful in the truth meaning.

Actually, they are the most poor/needy human on earth.

[King]

7 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Well this money is going to be in someone's hand anyway, probably with the government (do you trust them?). The wealth disparity cannot be solved, it is something everyone has to live with... unless we advocate socialism or communism but this is a seperate issue to me because I am comparing this issue to the ideal Islamic system which is my ultimate model of perfectness.

Yeah and it is better if it is in more hands.  Wealth disparity at such extreme levels isn't good for anyone, not even the rich.  Also, interest and worker exploitation are huge factors in wealth accumulation, so are massive public subsidies. Gulf countries have lower tax rates because they sit on oil, it really isn't a model anyone else can follow.

[Sumerian]

1 minute ago, King said:

Yeah and it is better if it is in more hands.  Wealth disparity at such extreme levels isn't good for anyone, not even the rich.  Also, interest and worker exploitation are huge factors in wealth accumulation, so are massive public subsidies. Gulf countries have lower tax rates because they sit on oil, it really isn't a model anyone else can follow.

I can't comment on the capitalism vs socialism battle because I am not an economist and this would be out of my league, I can however compare on the different positions and compare them to the Islamic utopia/ideal/whatever system. 

I also think we have enough wealth in the Muslim world to be able to sit on natural resources without obliging tax on civilians.

We Muslims have been blessed with natural resources, many are untapped (look at Iraq's potential) - we could make a lot use of it if we Muslims had some type of EU organisation with just Muslim States.

[Reza]

17 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Naa those two implemented too much tax.

So an Islamic economic system..should be more like Singapore, but with khums and zakat, and that's it. Or is that still not going far enough? 

3 minutes ago, E.L King said:

I can't comment on the capitalism vs socialism battle because I am not an economist and this would be out of my league,

LOL

Yes, you're right. You're not an economist. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by magma

[Al Hadi]

33 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Interest is a factor but it is not a game changer, we had extremely rich people like these people back in the days of the Islamic Empires..

You sure the reason why those people were rich in those days if your referring to the khalifahs for example is because they stole from the Muslims anyways. If your referring to anyone else give me an example by name cause I don't think there were any one as rich as these guys. Also I think in those Islamic empires they still had interest if I'm not mistaken cause none of them were real Islamic empires to begin with.

Lastly even if they were that rich I doubt the gap between the poor was as big as it is now in proportional comparison to them.

[Sumerian]

3 minutes ago, magma said:

So an Islamic economic system..should be more like Singapore, but with khums and zakat, and that's it. Or is that still not going far enough? 

Just look at say, the UAE and Kuwait... with khums and Zakat. That's it.

4 minutes ago, magma said:

LOL

Yes, you're right. You're not an economist. 

Yep. I am an Islamist.

 

LOL

[Sumerian]

1 minute ago, Al Hadi said:

You sure the reason why those people were rich in those days if your referring to the khalifahs for example is because they stole from the Muslims anyways. If your referring to anyone else give me an example by name cause I don't think there were any one as rich as these guys. Also I think in those Islamic empires they still had interest if I'm not mistaken cause none of them were real Islamic empires to begin with.

Lastly even if they were that rich I doubt the gap between the poor was as big as it is now in proportional comparison to them.

No their were rich Muslim families that paid their obligation but they were still very rich.

22.5% tax is nothing bro most Western countries have a higher tax than that.

[Al Hadi]

Just now, E.L King said:

No their were rich Muslim families that paid their obligation but they were still very rich.

22.5% tax is nothing bro most Western countries have a higher tax than that.

What about the gap I doubt it was as big as it is now in these countries between rich and poor.

[Reza]

33 minutes ago, E.L King said:

Yep. I am an Islamist.

 

LOL

So being an Islamist exonerates you from needing any economic knowledge? Is it useless kafir science? 

[notme]

Some of our Imams were rich. Some were poor. Complaining of the existence of rich and poor people isn't a legitimate complaint. 

Complaining that only a very few very rich people can control the modern world is. As long as they are (mostly) decent people, it's no problem. But the system is such that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Only a certain small group of people have the ability to join the very wealthy, regardless of hard work, intelligence, or even piety. If a person isn't born into that group, they'll never be one of the super-rich. If they are very lucky and work very hard, and money is a priority for them, maybe they can be "middle class". What do you think will happen when we have an even smaller group of very rich people - the number has been declining for many years - and these super rich people aren't decent? 

 

[Sumerian]

2 hours ago, magma said:

So being an Islamist exonerates you from needing any economic knowledge? Is it useless kafir science? 

Absolutely not, all knowledge is good whether it is from a kafir or a Mu'min. All I said was I'm not an economist, not sure how you thought of it in the way that you did. I like economists, I just believe in Islamic economic principles. Is that bad?

[Shiawarrior313]

Ofcourse these people are not decent. Its like saying the head of the mafia are decent people. We're talking about a system based on usury and gambling(stock market), firmly under the hand of zionist. Would any of the super rich reach those levels without being part of the system and not abiding by the rules set for them? 

The system itself is extremely corrupt, and has allow for shift of wealth upwards like never before. When in history has usury (war against god) been so systematic and ingrained into the economic system? Usury taints anyone who comes in contact with it and destroys their souls. If in the past it was a few dealing with usury, now its everyone who has to deal with it. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Shiawarrior313

[Sumerian]

1 hour ago, notme said:

Some of our Imams were rich. Some were poor. Complaining of the existence of rich and poor people isn't a legitimate complaint. 

Complaining that only a very few very rich people can control the modern world is. As long as they are (mostly) decent people, it's no problem. But the system is such that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Only a certain small group of people have the ability to join the very wealthy, regardless of hard work, intelligence, or even piety. If a person isn't born into that group, they'll never be one of the super-rich. If they are very lucky and work very hard, and money is a priority for them, maybe they can be "middle class". What do you think will happen when we have an even smaller group of very rich people - the number has been declining for many years - and these super rich people aren't decent? 

 

Well I have no argument against the fact that some of this money should be going to the poor and that the gap between the different classes shouldn't be this much, but I also believe it is wrong (not in a secular sense) to unreasonably regulate and tax the subjects.

I am not speaking about secular countries.

When you read Islamic laws related to economy, there is not much regulation. I am simply speaking in Islamic terms - I do not have anything against socialists and left-leaning economists (in a secular setting) except that I am also not a fan of too much government in many cases.