Doing the math, does that mean that 47% of the world's population owns the remaining 9% of the wealth?
The distribution of wealth tends to regulate itself over time -- albeit, relatively long periods of time... The pendulum swings back and forth. At one extreme, if 1 per cent owned 90% of the wealth, the other 99% would not have enough wealth to buy anything. The *stuff* that the 1% had, which defined their wealth, would be worthless, if thre was no prospect of selling it or converting it into a freely exchangeable form (such as money). Not to mention the *outrage of the masses* factor. And the *system*, as such, would collapse. How would the collapse manifest itself? The Russian Revolution and the French Revolution, before it, are prime examples... And the Fall of Rome, come to think about it... :-)
no subject
The distribution of wealth tends to regulate itself over time -- albeit, relatively long periods of time... The pendulum swings back and forth. At one extreme, if 1 per cent owned 90% of the wealth, the other 99% would not have enough wealth to buy anything. The *stuff* that the 1% had, which defined their wealth, would be worthless, if thre was no prospect of selling it or converting it into a freely exchangeable form (such as money). Not to mention the *outrage of the masses* factor. And the *system*, as such, would collapse. How would the collapse manifest itself? The Russian Revolution and the French Revolution, before it, are prime examples... And the Fall of Rome, come to think about it... :-)