Can Ritchie count?

We get this image:

\"\"

Then we get told:

It’s not unfair to say 1 million people near enough control world wealth even if they don’t own it all.

Hmm. So, let us assume that the 29,000 over $100 million have a billion each (a large over estimate). That\’s $29 trillion.

The million have $100 million each (obviously an over estimate). That\’s $100 trillion.

The top 1 million thus have $129 trillion.

The 2 million each have $10 million, that\’s $20 trillion and the 25 million then have $5 million each.$125 trillion.

So, by his own figures the 27 million at the bottom of that pyramid own more wealth that the million at the top of it. This is the million controlling global wealth is it?

 

 

26 thoughts on “Can Ritchie count?”

  1. OK. What happens when you do the sums with disposable wealth, ie take out what is required for existence ?

  2. > The 2 million each have $10 million, that’s $20 trillion and the 25 million then have $5 million each.$125 trillion.

    Naughty naughty. Did you really think no-one would spot that?

    If you want to know that A is certainly greater than B, then you’re allowed to over-estimate B. But you’re not allowed to over-estimate A.

    You can’t estimate all these at the top end of their range, and then assert that “by his own figures the 27 million at the bottom of that pyramid own more wealth that the million at the top of it”. The obvious answer is that you can’t tell, from the figures given. I could just as plausibly estimate the lower 27m at $3m each, which changes your answer.

  3. The usual ‘I’m not at the top of the wealth pyramid so we need to strip the pyramid and rejig wealth’ people are out again. Not uncommon for Ritchie, his envy of wealth comes across.

  4. William M Connolly is right about how you should estimate in order to show that Murphy is, as usual, talking rubbish (see below), but you both ignore his bigger lie – that the “mass affluent”, such as you and I have NIL wealth because we are not millionaires. The “mass affluent” in the UK have, in aggregate, more wealth than the millionaires.
    Note – there are (using Wiki to save time as the error won’t matter) 1210 billionaires – say $10bn average gives $12 tn; 27.8k over $100m, average c$400m but you can set it at $1bn if you like giving $11.1 or $27.8th, 987k $10-$100m ave $40m gives $39tn or $99tn, total $62tn or $139tn. Next batch 1.97m with $5-10m ave $6.67m $14tn min $10tn, next batch 26.7m with $1-5m ave $2.3m $62.3 tn, min $26.7tn. Jointly $69tn. So on best estimate of the pyramid the lower slices have more wealth, in aggregate, than the top million but to prove it using extreme values you need to include some of the lower slices that Murphy carefully excludes.

  5. One expects a power-law (pareto) distribution for the upper tail of wealth.

    I fitted such a distribution piecewise (but the coefficients were not very different) to each band, and estimate the total wealth thus:

    – wealth above $100m: combined wealth $8t
    – wealth $10m-$100m: combined wealth $19t
    – wealth $5m-$10m: combined wealth $12t
    – wealth $1m-$5m: combined wealth $44t

    So whereas Tim’s methods are suspect, his instincts seem to be sound.

  6. it’s entirely fair to say that none of you understands any point at all that disagrees with your warped nonsense.

    a few people controlling a vast amount of cash are making the fucking rules you ignorant tossers.

    not creating jobs, not progressing society, not making the world a better place that worstall fantasises about when fiddling with his parts.

    all the biggest social progressions have happened from the understanding that tools like you lot are an abuse of nature.

  7. Tim quoted Dickie stating “It’s not unfair to say 1 million people near enough control world wealth even if they don’t own it all.”

    The pyramid chart doesn’t support that argument though not for the reason Tim has detailed. It is a chart of individual worth. Dickie’s claim is significantly more vague then mere individual worth and covers a greater population than those top 30 million people in the illustration.

  8. not creating jobs, not progressing society, not making the world a better place

    So, let me see.

    In Arnald-world, the Gates Foundation does no good at all. Nor has Microsoft created any jobs.

    The “Giving Pledge” is just a tool for the Illuminati to strengthen their control of society.

    eBay, Google, SpaceX and Tesla are just vampires on society.

    You are a professional ignoramus, aren’t you.

  9. No, they have proceeded from the established fact that tools like Arnald are an abuse of nature. All progress has come from individuals denouncing the failure of government bureaucrats.

  10. I know a few millionaires. Can’t offhand think of any of them who create less jobs than me. Likely will be spending more per week than me, so will therefore be creating/maintaining jobs from what they spend.
    I notice there’s a few large boats arrived in London recently owned by very rich people. The purchase of the boats created/maintained no jobs? The staffing of the boats, the supplies for the boats etc the same?
    Along with relevant taxes on purchases.

    Not to mention, as SE does, the companies too. A guy who’s built an engineering firm from his own apprenticeship to a company with a few million a year turnover, in Arnald’s world hasn’t created any jobs.
    Hey, can we compare Arnald to say JK Rowling? What has he done to create jobs compared to her? What has he done to progress society compared to her? Which of them has made the world a better place? I use her as an example as certain of her activities are in the public domain, so Arnald could easily compare himself to her.

  11. Arnald – at least we can count.

    Also how can one be an “abuse of nature”? Maybe English is not his first language.

  12. If you can just stop being a bunch of pilliocks for a tiny moment, then maybe you can see how you should be “hanged”, as worstall is so very keen on suggesting for others who are more intelligent than him,.

    I see the tired old trickle down being lauded by some idiot. Seriously, if trickle down really worked we should be living in a perfect Utopia.

    The argument against Murphy is that he proposes a Utopia. It’s simply untrue. But you are too stupid to understand any concept beyond your twisted absurdity.

    I love this “In Arnald-world, the Gates Foundation does no good at all. Nor has Microsoft created any jobs”

    WTFF? and Martin Davies? What? Rilly? Sirrsly? Argle-gargle? Worstmeister? A failed metal detector?

    As good as the Gates’ foundation does, it’s peanuts compared to what it should rightly do.

    Which is pay tax to help the US poor out of their hell.

    Do you know how a Foundation arrangement works?

    Oh, sorry, I apologise, I should curtsey to the rich for being so magnaminous in their social responsibilties.

    Shit. You’re all right. The real villains are the ones trying to do something.

    Your ideology should applaud the unemployed benefit scroungers. They survive on screwing the State.

    And worstall still swears more than me, so that’s another thing you bollockbrains don’t hang your balls up as high as you can.

    People would stare.

    And laugh.

  13. yeah, and the edit function. Worstall’s too ignorant (whilst being such a darling to some rich cocks and wannabe socialites) to introduce a preview.

    At least Murphy acknowledges his typo shortcomings.

    Most of you probably shrug in some dopamine induced epiphany.

    I actually do believe that I am more ideologically libertarian than most of you.

    Worstall hates everything except a series of ridiculed corporate funded shysters. Why aren’t you embarrassed?

    Next you’ll be denying the release of millions of years of carbon fixing has no impact on our environment and the Earth is as old as the beginnings of Adam.

    And Richard Murphy is a descendent of Eve’s apple gobbling.

    etc

  14. I think I understand now, our Arnald is really Tim in disguise trying to stir up controversy. I mean, no one can be such a total tool and twat and actually survive in the real world, can they ?

  15. Right, okay. The rich aren’t doing any good – whether that is philanthropic or commercial.

    Oh but they are. Okay, they aren’t doing enough good. Good being defined as giving more money to the government.

    Do you know how a Foundation arrangement works?

    Yes.

    WTFF? and Martin Davies? What? Rilly? Sirrsly? Argle-gargle?

    The only thing appalling in what Martin said is the unfortunately common abuse of “less” when he meant “fewer”.

    I actually do believe that I am more ideologically libertarian than most of you.

    But that’s okay – we already know you’re an idiot. We don’t need yet more proof.

  16. Arnald is clearly on the run from the men in white coats. His recent post on Murphy’s blog is a classic.

    Lawrence Aegerter aka Arnald, of the Guernsey Housing Association, please take a bow. Your bosses must be so proud to have such an articulate, well-rounded, sane employee in their midst. I’m intrigued though. Do you only work there on the days when you are allowed out of your padded cell?

  17. Shut up Phil. You’re useless at your job and you are laughed at behind your back.

    At least I know my faults.

  18. Yes Arnald we know your faults too – you tell us them in your postings.
    Including your responses to others.

  19. Arnald
    Seeing as I retired from working precisely 4 years and 2 months ago and don’t actually have a “job”, that doesn’t quite ring true. My wife complains about my poor quality hoovering but wouldn’t laugh behind my back!

  20. Yeah, but at least I don’t go about spreading personal information like some sort of toddler.

    But then you have to be a baby to help bastards dodge tax.

    And then wail when people diagree with them.

  21. You do rather invite everything that comes your way.

    Your last two sentences aren’t remotely relevant to me.

    Keep taking the tablets but I’d suggest you stop mixing them with whatever you are mixing them with at present.

  22. Hmm,

    From himself:

    Jersey deliberately and wilfully refuses to cooperate in full with the European Savings Tax Directive

    Perhaps because it isn’t part of the EU? It probably refuses, deliberately and wilfully, to comply with Tim’s beloved Directive 2001/113/EC as well (the jams and jellies one.)

  23. Not being part of the EU would certainly account for not following EU directives. Plenty of other places like that too.

  24. “…help the US poor out of their hell.”

    Ah, yes. so there must be several levels of hell after all.

  25. Really the most useful thing that Arnald could do at this juncture is pull his arsehole over his head and sell himself as a jug handle. He’s fuck-all use for anything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *