Post by jade on Jun 8, 2008 7:39:03 GMT -5
In 1906 in Italy, an economist Vilfredo Pareto devised a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country.
He observed that only 20% of the people in the country owned 80% of the wealth of the country.
Now, why is this? Because life isn’t fair!! Accept it, and move on.
This became known as the 80-20 rule, and implies that in anything, a few (20%) are vital, while many (80%) are trivial. 80% of the effects, no matter in what activity, come from 20% of the causes.
In business, nowadays, this rule has become a rule of thumb and is accepted, however flawed, worldwide.
If one thinks about your daily activities, 20% of what you do, produces 80% of the results.
In example, it could be explained as such, here in the Purplewildebeest, 80% of the contributions come from 20% of the members.
Then why is it that ‘the top 10 percent of American households own over 86 percent of (all) financial assets... while 90 percent of the American people have little or no net financial assets.’?
Surely this should send red warning lights flashing and sirens screaming? How is it that USA managed to overrule Pareto and tipped the scale in the wrong direction? I mean to say, 90-10 compared to 80-20!!
In “Democracy for the few”, Michael Parenti asks ‘Who owns America?’ by giving the following example:
‘Americans are taught that the economy consists of a wide array of independent producers. We refer to "farmers" as an interest apart from businesspeople… (yet) the larger agribusiness firms now control over half of all the farmland in the United States. Just one percent of all food corporations control 80 percent of all the industry's assets and close to 90 percent of the profits... Six multinational firms handle 90 percent of all the grain shipped in the world market’
Also,‘The single greatest source of individual wealth is inheritance’
I know that America is not the only participant in this economical tug-o-war, but I still would like to know, can it be the first horseman of the apocalypse, the righteous, victorious Conqueror?
He observed that only 20% of the people in the country owned 80% of the wealth of the country.
Now, why is this? Because life isn’t fair!! Accept it, and move on.
This became known as the 80-20 rule, and implies that in anything, a few (20%) are vital, while many (80%) are trivial. 80% of the effects, no matter in what activity, come from 20% of the causes.
In business, nowadays, this rule has become a rule of thumb and is accepted, however flawed, worldwide.
If one thinks about your daily activities, 20% of what you do, produces 80% of the results.
In example, it could be explained as such, here in the Purplewildebeest, 80% of the contributions come from 20% of the members.
Then why is it that ‘the top 10 percent of American households own over 86 percent of (all) financial assets... while 90 percent of the American people have little or no net financial assets.’?
Surely this should send red warning lights flashing and sirens screaming? How is it that USA managed to overrule Pareto and tipped the scale in the wrong direction? I mean to say, 90-10 compared to 80-20!!
In “Democracy for the few”, Michael Parenti asks ‘Who owns America?’ by giving the following example:
‘Americans are taught that the economy consists of a wide array of independent producers. We refer to "farmers" as an interest apart from businesspeople… (yet) the larger agribusiness firms now control over half of all the farmland in the United States. Just one percent of all food corporations control 80 percent of all the industry's assets and close to 90 percent of the profits... Six multinational firms handle 90 percent of all the grain shipped in the world market’
Also,‘The single greatest source of individual wealth is inheritance’
I know that America is not the only participant in this economical tug-o-war, but I still would like to know, can it be the first horseman of the apocalypse, the righteous, victorious Conqueror?