Map of the Billionairs – 1,826
from David Ruccio
According to a new study, The Geography of the Global Super-Rich, by Richard Florida, Charlotta Mellander, and Isabel Ritchie, the United States is home to the world’s largest number of billionaires, with 541, 30 percent of the total. China is second with 223 or 12 percent. Next in line are India and Russia, with 82 billionaires (4.5 percent) each. Germany is fifth with 78 billionaires (4.3 percent). The United Kingdom is sixth with 71 (3.9 percent). Switzerland has 58 (4.3 percent), Brazil 50 (2.7 percent), France 39 (2.1 percent), and Italy 35 (1.9 percent).
Just to put things in perspective, the world’s 1,826 billionaires make up just 0.00003 percent of the global population.
Leave a comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Lost opportunities?
- The problem with electric vehicles
- There ain’t no libertarians, just politicians who want to give all the money to the rich
- Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- Weekend read - A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- With a modest financial transactions tax, Jim Simons would not have been superrich
- Comments on RWER issue no. 69
- Distribution and redistribution of wealth in USA
- Econometrics and the art of putting the rabbit in the hat
- Weekend read: What caused the stagflation of the 1970s? Answer: Monetarism
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- sackergeoff on With a modest financial transactions tax, Jim Simons would not have been superrich
- CBASILOVECCHIO on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- pfeffertag on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- CBASILOVECCHIO on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- Arbo on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- spamletblog on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- bckcdb on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- David Harold Chester on Real-world economists take note!
- Patrick Newman on Real-world economists take note!
- deshoebox on Real-world economists take note!
- felipefrs on The non-existence of economic laws
- Seeker on The non-existence of economic laws
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
As well as their percentage of population, just what percentage the wealth do they own?
This topic has not escaped wider concern, even in the musical theater. The song “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men” from the musical “1776” is sung by the character John Dickinson, and several other “conservatives” who supposedly opposed the Declaration of Independence and separation from the UK because they believed it would ruin the colonies financially, thus the rich men of the colonies, of which they were part. When they were out voted in the Independence Convention they left. Dickinson was ruined both financially and socially by this action, or so some histories say. The song is course a vast over-simplification an in many way historically inaccurate. Dickinson, if not the others was more likely motivated by his admiration for Quaker values of moderation and respect. But there is no denying that protection of property and those men who held it was high among the Quaker values and for Dickinson. That these might be sacrificed to hot-headed rebels was something he opposed.
It’s telling I think that when the musical debuted in 1972 and was presented to President Nixon that Nixon requested and won deletion of this song from the movie version. Obviously a sore area in the fight for independence, even in 1972. Even today.
Oh, say
Do you see what I see
Congress sitting here in sweet serenity
I could cheer
The reason’s clear
For the first time in a year
Adams isn’t here
And look
The sun is in the sky
A breeze is blowing by
And there’s not a single fly
I sing Hosanna, Hosanna
(Hosanna, Hosanna)
And it’s cool
Come ye cool, cool conservative men
Our like may never ever been seen again
We have land, cash in hand
Self command, future planned
Fortune thrives, society survives
In neatly ordered lives
With well-endowered wives
Come sing
Hosanna, Hosanna
In our breeding and our manner
We are cool
Come ye cool, cool considerate set
We’ll dance together to the same minuet
To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
Let our creed
Be never to exceed
Regulated speed
No matter what the need
Come sing
Hosanna, Hosanna
Emblazoned on our banner
Is “keep cool”
What we do
We do rationally
We never, ever go off half-cocked
Not we
Why begin
Till we know that we can win
And if we cannot win
Why bother to begin?
Edward Rutledge:
We say this game’s not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?
Conservatives:
We cool, cool men
John Dickinson:
(Mr. Hancock, you’re a man of property. One of us. Why don’t you join us in our minuet? Why do you persist on dancing with Mr. Adams? Good Lord, sir. You don’t even like him.)
John Hancock:
That is true
He annoys me quite a lot
But still, I’d rather trot
To Mr. Adams’ new gavotte
John Dickinson:
(But why, sir? For personal glory? For a place in history? Be careful, sir. History will brand Mr. Adams and his followers as traitors.)
John Hancock:
(Traitors, Mr. Dickinson? To what? The British crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy.)
John Dickinson:
(Well, perhaps not. But don’t forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us)
To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
Where there’s gold
A market that will hold
Tradition that is old
Reluctant to be bold
I sing Hosanna, Hosanna
In a sane and lucid manner
We are cool
We’re the cool, cool considerate men
Whose like may never, ever bee seen again
With our land, cash in hand
Self command, future planned
And we’ll hold to our gold
Tradition that is old
Reluctant to be bold
We say this game’s not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?
We cool (cool)
Cool (cool)
Cool (cool)
Cool (cool)
Cool (cool)
Cool (cool)
Cool
Cool
Men!
How interesting. 1776! As a Brit It hadn’t occurred to me before that The American Declaration of Independence and the publication of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations both occurred in 1776. So this is the Landed Gentry opposing Free Trade? Good for them, at least insofar as they remembered they can’t take their wealth with them when they die, and shared it among those in need rather than the already deserving.
Kindly message to the billionaires in today’s reading?
Jesus said to his disciples: “There is no need to be afraid, little flock, for it has pleased the Father to give you the Kingdom. Sell your possessions and give alms. Get yourselves purses that do not wear out – treasure that will not fail you – in heaven, where no thief can reach it and no moth destroy it. For where your treasure is [with those you have helped?], there will your heart be also”.
And poetry saved the world…may be.
A rich thought, Louis.
And nuclear rearmament saved the world … maybe. If we comprehend it. Any possibility of change may be for better or for worse, so only change what needs mending?
Wilfred Owen put a fair few off war with his poetry:
“If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
if you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et ecorum est
Pro patria mori.”
The historical Jesus, “so disfigured he looked barely human”, acted out Psalm 22 raised on a tree where all could see him:
“I am a worm, not a man,
Scorn of mankind, contempt of the people;
All who see me jeer at me,
They sneer and they wag their heads.
‘He trusted himself to Yahweh, let Yahweh set him free!
Let him deliver him, as he took such delight in him”.
But Jesus’s dying made possible his resurrection, giving some point to Psalm 49:
“For he will see the wise also die
No less than the fool and the brute,
And leave their wealth behind for others. …
Do not get overawed when someone gets rich
and lives in ever greater splendour;
When he dies he will take nothing with him,
His wealth will not go down with him. …
In prosperity people lose their good sense.
They become no better than dumb animals”
If the resurrection is truly “Maybe”, this is certain. It seems the difference between wisdom and foolishness is making friends rather than enemies by giving one’s wealth away before one dies. Would that the Jews had learned that one in Palestine.