I wrote the other day about Oxfam's careful arithmetic in its showcasing of how so much wealth is owned by so few. 8 billionaires, says Oxfam, own more [ $426bn ] than half the world's population [ $409bn ]. Not so, says the Economist, it's actually 7 as the $409bn should really be $384bn, and so one M. Bloomberg need not be counted. A "magnificent seven", then. But all this is to invest a lot of value into some shakey data, and to accept Oxfam's accountancy in the first place. To make it all work, they had to add in the negative $357bn that is owned (owed, that is), by some 21m Americans.
The Economist also says that if the sums had been done at 'purchasing-power-parity' rather than at market exchange rates (which is valid because $$$s go farther in poor countries), then the bottom half of the world's population would have 10.6% of the wealth and not Oxfam's 0.15%.
It's still not a lot, but why does Oxfam open itself up to needless criticism when its message is already strong?
Respond