Here's kind of a follow up question to the normal 'Rich vs. Poor' debate. I haven't come to satisfactory answer yet for myself. If those poorest 3 billion, had adequate food, shelter, access to education and self-actuation, would we still have a problem with the fact that those 85 people had so much?
yes their political power distorts markets, culture and democracy.
I agree with JakobVirgil. In fact we already have evidence that we would still care since the entire Occupy movement was ignited as a result of inequality in a country with a negligible percent of the "bottom 3 billion".
You didn't say health care, so no way. Also, that lack of money = lack of political representation and self determination (as JacobVirgil mentioned), so no. To expand though, I think that civilizations and societies decide collectively, together, though culture what a "satisfactory life" is. You don't get to opt out of that debate, -it happens and a smeared grey consensus is reached that people are aware of, whether they like it or not. That ideal will always be defined collectively by us relative to each other, with the end result being that no matter what the status of the many on the bottom is, sickeningly massive resource disparity will always feel wrong. More than feel wrong, I believe it is wrong. There is literally nothing that those 85 people in the top (mentioned in the article) have done that justifies their wealth disparity. Not in any conceivable universe, not with any philosophy of ownership or property, etc. No amount of raw ability, intelligence, or honest hard work justifies it (I'm assuming the most generous interpretations of their accruement of resources). When 85 folks have the resources of 3 billion, our systems, as civilized creatures, have failed us. Hard.
And we never will be, because "adequate" is temporally relative. The poorest 3 billion live like kings from the Middle Ages in terms of disease, sanitation, et cetera. Tomorrow we might discover how to double life expectancy…for the wealthy. And then how to upload our consciousness to pseudo-immortal machines…for the wealthy. I don't care that the hyperrich have gold plated hummers. Gold plated hummers don't improve quality of life, not really. But they have access to things that do improve quality of life, and always will.If those poorest 3 billion, had adequate
we are nowhere near such a scenario
You're making Special Pleading; I was speaking statistically. Those slums represent extreme poverty, which affects approximately 1 billion people. The average "poorest 3 billion" don't live in extreme poverty. I'm not dismissing extreme poverty. I was simply making the case that extreme wealth is not acceptable because quality of life is relative.
This seems like an important corrective to the numbers in that attention-grabbing headline: Stop adding up the wealth of the poor In brief, this is the man at the bottom of those Three Billion Poor; he probably wears, or wore, a Rolex. So the numbers are mostly an artifact; I don't mean to say anything to diminish the poignancy of the plight of the world's poor.
SadKerviel.jpg
Yes, inequality is a complicated enough issue without attention grabbing headlines that detract from the real numbers. Anyone who has a good middle class job, but who happens to be underwater on their mortgage may contribute a negative number to the "wealth of the poorest" people. That doesn't mean that person is worse off than the single mother who makes $15,000/year, but who doesn't have any serious debt liabilities.