The 1% net worth is way above 2.8m each. More like 2.8bn each When I can be arsed I'll do some research.
So there as somewhere around 72. Million people in the world that each have a fortune of almost 3 billion . really?
The richest 1% of the world’s population now owns 50% of its total wealth, according to a report by Credit Suisse. Worldwide, there are 34 million people who have a U.S. dollar net worth of at least $1 million, or 0.7% of the global adult population, and they account for 45% of global wealth. If you extend the bracket to include those with less than $1 million, but still within the top 1%, then total wealth crosses the magic 50% line. Within the top 1% is there is a much more elite club: the 0.36 percenters. These are adults with a net worth of more than $50 million, and there’s just 123,800 of them in the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ealthy-half-world-population-combined?0p19G=c There you go , knock yourself out
Yes, only the US has ever done anything bad. Only the US have allied with anyone dodgy. Only the US have invaded or occupied anywhere. In your world anyway. Their military expenditure may be the highest but that is because they use high tech equipment, too high tech in many instances, and pay all their military personnel a relatively decent wages. Other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on their military and have conscription keep their spending down. Won't name any as it will have you in a state of high dudgeon again.
Take their pension pots into account and a lot of people working in the health service and other parts of the public sector qualify. Won't look at my consultant the same way again.
If I may intrude on everyone's cosy chat here, I'd like to know about people's experiences with solicitors. In particular, has anyone tried to hire a solicitor for a particular purpose, only to find the legal profession won't touch the case with a barge pole.I have a matter right now that puts not only a Local Authority in a very bad light, but also the Registrar at a County Court. But try as I might, no solicitor I have approached is willing to take the case on. My impression is they fear being ostracized. I thought the UK was supposed to have an independent judiciary and universal access to justice. Perhaps I need to revise my ideas a bit.
Do you actually need a solicitor? I've found that they just have their own game they play, and have had more success acting without them. Most of us make the mistake of assuming that the game is about justice, it isn't. I was in dispute with a firm of solicitors and no others would touch it on my behalf, but according to the one in question, they have a reciprocal agreement where they will act on behalf of fellow professionals. Ultimately I resolved it in my favour without one. It would have been an interesting court case though.
I think the question there is, "who are they?" This is where most of the related conspiracy theories fall over. It implies a collection of hollwood movie style power brokers, sat god like and dictating and manipulating every move. In my view, the reality is different. The finance industry was initiated centuries ago, and has become more refined, and independent over time, to such a degree that it's an entity in it's own right, and growing organically. The wealthy and powerful are reacting in the same way we do, only they have a better hand to play with and can tweak the strategy so dictating the play. The players change, but the game remains the same. If nobody creates an alternative game, we're stuck as we are blaming the shadows.
Someone being worse, doesn't make a bad guy good. Why not build a specific argument for what you think, instead of rewriting and reinterpreting other peoples points in order to knock them down?
The reason I'd hire a solicitor is because I live overseas, and to bring it to completion requires a judge's decision. It would be convenient to have a legal professional do the necessary leg-work bringing it to court, and I could just jump on a plane to smile at the judge. But otherwise I don't need a solicitor. The case involves the law as it stood fifty yeas ago, not as it is today, and in the meantime the law has been changed drastically. I doubt young solicitors would know anything about it other than historically. But you have a point. Some years ago I was involved at the High Court where the claimant represented himself. The judge was very helpful to him, explaining along the way how things work; and surprisingly, the man won his case. Ronastone Ltd and Wensley Grosvenor Haydon Baillie against Indigo International Holdings Ltd and Urbane Ltd. Baillie hadn't any faith in the legal profession, which is surprising given his background ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wensley_Haydon-Baillie
You're the most tedious **** on this board. Have you ever in your life tried refuting an argument before without resorting to fallacy?
If the Americans are so clever why don't they fit imobilsers to their humvies and tanks? Its a conspiracy that's why.
