There is much talk about the one percent and how they control the world. This could not be further from the truth. The error comes with statistics like this one:
Despite pure wealth, governance is the key to the notion of the 1%. The fact is that even the top 0.1% don’t have anything to say about governance, and neither do the top 0.01%, nor the top 0.001%. As it happens, if you are a billionaire, you are part of the 0.00003%; and those aren’t even the important billionaires, just your standard run-of-the-mill billionaires.
There are about 2000 billionaires in the world. The population of the world is 7.3 billion (or 7 300 000 000.) That comes out to about 0.00003%. If we only consider the top 100 billionaires (the Bilderbergers of the world,) that figure goes to 0.0000015%. These are the real ‘one percent.’
Bill Gates (being the richest human) would have the unique distinction of being the only part of the 0.00000001%.
This gives the term ‘society of entitlement’ a whole new meaning. This phrase is usually reserved for those who make so little money that they have to rely on government assistance. It might be a mis-nomer. It should probably refer to those who have so much money that they can tell the government what to do.
Raising the minimum wage has been suggested as a means to close the wealth gap, and it has also been argued that the economics behind this argument is flawed. Perhaps then, it is time we start talking about a maximum wage.
One wonders who the world’s first trillionaire will be. One way or another, it won’t be long before we find out:
“If you added up the net worth of the 51 richest Americans last year, the trillionaire mark would be reached. This year, that number is down to 37 individuals. … Existing wealth has a greater capacity to accumulate wealth. … If we are now at 37 individuals to reach a trillion, will we be down to five people in 2039, with $200 billion each, and 65 years from now, turn those five into one?”
(Click on above graph for a larger view.)
Final thought – If we were to get rid of 90% of the world’s population, nothing would change. If we, on the other hand, were to get rid of 0.01% of the world’s population, everything would. Which would be the more humane solution?
[Disclaimer: The above thought is NOT a call to action, rather, it is a thought experiment which harkens back to the eugenics movement/de-population agenda and those amongst the elite who, even now, would support such things.]