sonofgloin ">>The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income,<<"

yes maybe so

what % of the tax-take comes from that 1%?

What % of the world is reliant on that 1% for

gainful employment?

How did that 1% become that 1%?

and what do I have to do to join?

Meaningless statistics of wealth and income distribution, when used to beat the achievers is an exercise in total pointless envy and small mindedness

Mind you, it is the sort of waste of public funds which one would expect from UN

As to collectivism, the basic alternative to capitalism (and known by so many different names, usually because of the failure of the previous attempt that it gets renamed repeatedly by fools believing that renaming a "pig" makes it anything other than a "pig")-

Winston Churchill was heard to comment

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

and to the thought behind the most common theory of collectivism

Thomas Sowell wrote

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men (Marx & Engles) who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers"

A pair of ner'do-wells, no doubt

I think we will be better off saving the money spent by the UN on puerile statistics not on another "revolution by the proletariat"

but on a big orgy instead.

Maybe employ a few (otherwise) impoverished waiters and other flunkies to hand around the nibbles....

Paul Walter,

I was interested in your response, so looked your blog up.

So what does this mean. "It has baffled me for some time that Australians would prefer a delinquent Abbott to a dull but more effective Rudd Labor government" and Labor needs a second chance "to rethink its attitudes and approach to policy and issues they have obviously not come to terms with, particulalry environment and a decent rather than sado social policy.

You might want to look at facts before sharing your wisdom.

2009-10, env spending down under Rudd when compared to last years of Howard govt.

And $1.12 billion of that amount went on the insulation program".

Stern:>> Meaningless statistics of wealth and income distribution, when used to beat the achievers is an exercise in total pointless envy and small mindedness<<


Stern my personal view on wealth and subsequently other levels of liquidity through flow on is simply this "If the boss is not driving a Mercedes, then you are not driving a Holden".

I assure you I am no socialist, but the figures I presented are factual. Because they do not fit your argument there is no reason to then equate them as markers to personality flaws of the messenger, 82% of sheeple know that, baa baa.

Chris Lewis, you ascribe to me the quality the very Athenians are said to have bestowed upon Socrates; wisdom, and am touched by this simple gesture motivated surely only from the stand point of good will and solicitude. But following Socrates without being able to emulate him,the only certain thing I can say, that "all I know is that I knoweth not".
My "cup runneth over" however, figuratively speaking, when you ascribe to me some sort of ownership in some sense, of "a blog".
I am a free agent with a suite of current affairs blogs I enjoy visiting from time to time, for my own better education and edification.
Sorry, Chris..
It's obvious I subscribe to Peter Gilbarco's view, have read your reply to his essay and reluctantly find your position to be the less convincing of the two, if only from my stand point.
Labor is neoliberal, but at least hasn't valorised it.
The strident voices of the new Conservatism, however, are amnesiac to the disasters and wastage of this last decade through ideological neoconservatism and neoliberalism.
The despicable wars throughout the Middle East which are now claimed to have cost $trillions and the GFM of a couple of years ago, cost far, far, more. But the likes of Cameron in Britain and Abbott here, want to embark on severe deflationary policies, not because these quack remedies and nostrums are efficacious, but because of an ideological abstraction that beleives these policies should be introduce for their punitive and disciplinary consequences for their subjects.
Although there is the practical side, too.
You have to have an excuse or alibi to offer, if you have the gall to rob the masses to pay for your casino games and their consequences to further feed your avarice.
BP, Goldman Sachs and all the rest have such a wonderful sense of mutual obligation, duty of care and sense of community interest, don'cha think?

Paul Walter

Believe me, i am no fan of the status quo. As you indicate, there are some severe shortcomings in who is getting favoured.

Nevertheless, I am a bit more optimistic about the efforts of the major parties, although they do both need to lift their game. Perhaps we all do if we are to offer ideas that can make a difference to enhance debate.

Sonofgloin “I assure you I am no socialist, but the figures I presented are factual. Because they do not fit your argument there is no reason to then equate them as markers to personality flaws of the messenger, 82% of sheeple know that, baa baa.”

Who said they do not fit my argument?

I did not contest them or their accuracy

I did in fact, assume their accuracy

But made comment to their meaningful relevance to anything

Although, I should, in hindsight, have addressed my comment to mhaze

Paul Walter “The strident voices of the new Conservatism, however, are amnesiac to the disasters and wastage of this last decade through ideological neoconservatism and neoliberalism.”

Ah grand words...

Is yours the strident voice of the new collectivism – what is going to be your new name?

Lets face it, all the old names are so bent and debauched through abuse and the hate they engender from the millions of surviving victims who suffered under their previous application that

being a “Neo-socialist” or “neo-communist” will more likely get you stoned to death than supported.

Regarding “these policies should be introduce for their punitive and disciplinary consequences for their subjects.”

Wrong

“Punitive and disciplinary consequences” are the stock-in-trade of collectivists, that is why they had to have the gulags and killing fields

and before you contest that "this time" there will be no massmurders

- that line has been used time and time before

but it is where the "collectivists" always end up....

bankrupt economies, bankrupt societies and mass-murder

It is like Andrew Sandlin said “For socialists, not just the wealth but the guilt must be redistributed”