Thedistribution of wealthis a comparison of thewealthof various members or groups in asociety. It differs from the distribution of income in that it looks at the distribution of ownership of the assets in a society, rather than the current income of members of that society.Contents[hide] 1Definition of wealth 2Statistical distributions 3Redistribution of wealth and public policy 4Charity 5Wealth surveys 621st century 6.1Real estate 7In the United States 8Data, charts, and graphs 8.1World distribution of wealth 8.1.1Table 9World distribution of financial wealth 10See also 11References 12External linksDefinition of wealth[edit]Main article:WealthWealth in the context of this article is defined as a person's net worth, expressed as:wealth=assetsliabilitiesThe word "wealth" is often confused with "income". These two terms describe different but related things. Wealth consists of those items of economic value that an individual owns, while income is aninflowof items of economic value. (SeeStock and flow.) The relation between wealth, income, and expenses is:change of wealth = income expense.A common mistake made by people embarking on a research project to determine the distribution of wealth is to use statistical data of income to describe the distribution of wealth. The distribution of income is substantially different from the distribution of wealth. According to the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, "the world distribution of wealth is much more unequal than that of income."[1]If an individual has a large income but also large expenses, her or his wealth could be small or even negative.TheUnited Nationsdefinition ofinclusive wealthis a monetary measure which includes the sum of natural, human and physical assets.[2][3]Statistical distributions[edit]There are many ways in which the distribution of wealth can be analyzed. One example is to compare the wealth of the richest one percent with the wealth of the median (or 50th) percentile. In many societies, the richest ten percent control more than half of the total wealth.Pareto Distributionhas often been used to mathematically quantify the distribution of wealth, since it models a random distribution.Wealth Over People (WOP) Curvesare a visually compelling way to show the distribution of wealth in a nation. WOP curves are modified Distribution of Wealth curves. The vertical and horizontal scales each show percentages from zero to one hundred. We imagine all the households in a nation being sorted from richest to poorest. They are then shrunk down and lined up (richest at the left) along the horizontal scale. For any particular household, its point on the curve represents how their wealth compares (as a%) to the average wealth of the richest percentile. For any nation, the average wealth of the richest 1/100 of households is the topmost point on the curve (People = 1%, Wealth = 100%) or (p=1, w=100) or (1,100). In the real world two points on the WOP curve are always known before any statistics are gathered. These are the topmost point (1,100) by definition, and the rightmost point (poorest people, lowest wealth) or (p=100,w=0) or (100,0). This unfortunate rightmost point is given because there are always at least one percent of households (incarcerated, long term illness, etc.) with no wealth at all. Given that the topmost and rightmost points are fixed ... our interest lies in the form of the WOP curve between them. There are two extreme possible forms of the curve. The first is the "Perfect Communist" WOP. It is a straight line from the leftmost (maximum wealth) point horizontally across the people scale to p=99. Then it drops vertically to wealth = 0 at (p=100,w=0).The other extreme is the "Perfect Tyranny" form. It starts on the left at the Tyrant's maximum wealth of 100%. It then immediately drops to zero at p=2, and continues at zero horizontally across the rest of the people. That is, the tyrant and his friends (the top percentile) own all the nation's wealth. All other citizens are serfs or slaves. An obvious intermediate form is a straight line connecting the left/top point to the right/bottom point. In such a "Diagonal" society a household in the richest percentile would have just twice the wealth of a family in the median (50th) percentile. Such a society is compelling to many (especially the poor). In fact it is a comparison to a diagonal society that is the basis for the "Gini Values" used as a measure of the "Disequity" in a particular economy. These Gini values (40.8 in 2007) show the United States to be the third most dis-equitable economy of all the developed nations (behind Denmark and Switzerland). The US WOP Curve is shown below. As you will see it approaches the "Tyrant's Curve".A curve that is visually appealing is the "Quarter Circle Curve" or the "Wagon Wheel WOP". Some reformers feel that any nation's tax system should be set up so that its WOP never gets sucked in beyond the Wagon Wheel form.More sophisticated models have also been proposed.[4]Redistribution of wealth and public policy[edit]See also:Redistribution of wealth

Number of high net worth individuals in the world, 2011.[5]In many societies, attempts have been made, throughproperty redistribution,taxation, orregulation, to redistribute wealth, sometimes in support of the upper class, and sometimes to diminish extremeinequality.Examples of this practice go back at least to theRoman republicin the third century B.C.,[6]when laws were passed limiting the amount of wealth or land that could be owned by any one family. Motivations for such limitations on wealth include the desire for equality of opportunity, a fear that great wealth leads to political corruption, to the belief that limiting wealth will gain the political favor of avoting bloc, or fear that extreme concentration of wealth results in rebellion.[7]Various forms ofsocialismattempt to diminish the unequal distribution of wealth and thus the conflicts and social problems (see image below) arising from it.[8]During theAge of Reason,Francis Baconwrote "Above all things good policy is to be used so that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands... Money is like fertilizer, not good except it be spread."[9]Communismarose as a reaction to a distribution of wealth in which a few lived in luxury while the masses lived in extreme poverty. InThe Communist ManifestoMarxandEngelswrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."[10]While the ideas of Marx have nominally been embraced by various states (Russia, Cuba, Vietnam and China in the 20th century), Marxist utopia remains elusive.[11]On the other hand, the combination oflabor movements,technology, andsocial liberalismhas diminished extreme poverty in thedeveloped worldtoday, though extremes of wealth and poverty continue in theThird World.[12]In the Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014 from theWorld Economic Forumthe widening income disparities come second as a worldwide risk.[13][14]Charity[edit]In addition to government efforts to redistribute wealth, the tradition of individual charity is a voluntary means of wealth transference. There are also many voluntarycharitable organizationsmaking concerted efforts to aid those in need.Wealth surveys[edit]Many countries have national wealth surveys, for example: The BritishWealth and Assets Survey The ItalianSurvey on Household Income and Wealth The USSurvey of Consumer Finances CanadaSurvey of Financial Security Please add more examples21st century[edit]At the end of the 20th century, wealth was concentrated among theG8and Westernindustrialized nations, along with severalAsianandOPECnations. AnEnergy Information Administrationreport stated that OPEC member nations were projected to earn $1.251 trillion in 2008, from their oil exports, due to the record crude prices.[15]A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth.[16]Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global householdassets.[17]Real estate[edit]While sizeable numbers of households own no land, few have no income. For example, 10% of land owners (all corporations) inBaltimore, Marylandown 58% of the taxable land value. The bottom 10% of those who own any land own less than 1% of the total land value.[18]This form ofGini coefficientanalysis has been used to supportLand value taxation.In the United States[edit]See also:Wealth inequality in the United States,Income inequality in the United StatesandWealth in the United States

The distribution of net wealth in the United States, 2007. The chart is divided into the top 20% (blue), upper middle 20% (orange), middle 20% (red), and bottom 40% (green). (The net wealth of many people in the lowest 20% is negative because of debt.)[19]According to theCongressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became lessprogressive.Political factors that led to top tax rate cuts such as those by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980's in the United States and the United Kingdom - where accompanied by other legislative changes, such as deregulation, which may have caused top incomes to rise, not least on account of the impetus they gave to the growth of the financial services...and legal services sector.[20]From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[21]In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[22][23][24]In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[25]Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[26]However, after theGreat Recessionwhich started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap betweenthe 1%andthe 99%.[19][25][26]During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4% from 2009 to 2012. Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery.[27]Dan Arielyand Michael Norton show in a study (2011) that US citizens across the political spectrum significantly underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, raising questions about ideological disputes over issues like taxation and welfare.[28]YearBottom 99%Top 1%

192263.3%36.7%

192955.8%44.2%

193366.7%33.3%

193963.6%36.4%

194570.2%29.8%

194972.9%27.1%

195368.8%31.2%

196268.2%31.8%

196565.6%34.4%

196968.9%31.1%

197270.9%29.1%

197680.1%19.9%

197979.5%20.5%

198175.2%24.8%

198369.1%30.9%

198668.1%31.9%

198964.3%35.7%

199262.8%37.2%

199561.5%38.5%

199861.9%38.1%

200166.6%33.4%

200465.7%34.3%

200765.4%34.6%

201064.6%35.4%

Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996), 1992-2010 data from Wolff (2012)[25]

Data, charts, and graphs[edit] Wealth, Income, and Powerby G. William Domhoff PowerPoint presentation: Inequalities of Development -Lorenz curveandGini coefficient The World Distribution of Household Wealth[16] Article on The World Distribution of Household Wealth report. The Federal Reserve Board - Survey of Consumer Finances Survey of Consumer Finances 1998-2004 charts - pdf Survey of Consumer Finances 1998-2004 dataand resulting Gini indices for mean incomes: 1989:51.1, 1992:47.8, 1995:49.0, 1998:50.4, 2001:52.6, 2004:51.4 Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001 Report on Net Worth and Asset Ownership of Households Projections of the Number of Households in the U.S. 1995-2010 The System of National Accounts (SNA): comparison of U.S. national accounts statistics with those of other countries World Trade Organization: Resources Champagne Glass infographic of global wealth distributionfromDalton Conley'sYou May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologisttextbook which was adapted from the 1992 UNDP originalWorld distribution of wealth[edit]Main article:World distribution of wealth world distribution of wealth by country (PPP) world distribution of wealth by region (PPP) world distribution of wealth by country (exchange rates) world distribution of wealth by region (exchange rates)Data for the following table obtained fromUNU-WIDER World Distribution of Household Wealth Report(The University of California also hosts a copy of the report)Table[edit]RegionPercent of world populationPercent of world net worth (PPP)Percent of world net worth (exchange rates)Percent of world GDP (PPP)Percent of world GDP (exchange rates)

North America5.1727.134.3923.8833.67

Central/South America8.526.514.348.496.44

Europe9.6226.4229.1922.832.4

Africa10.661.520.542.361.01

Middle East9.885.073.135.694.1

Asia52.1829.425.6131.0724.1

Other3.143.72.565.43.38

SOURCE: G. William Domhoff[25]

World distribution of financial wealth[edit]In 2007, 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations.[29]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 report also finds that those in financial services and the internet sectors predominate among the super rich.Europe, the US and some Asia Pacific nations account for most of the extremely wealthy. More than a third live in the US. Japan accounts for 27% of the total, the UK for 6% and France for 5%.The UK is also third in terms of per capita wealth. UK residents are found to have on average $127,000 (64,000) each in assets, with Japanese and American citizens having, respectively, $181,000 and $144,000. All data relate to the year 2000.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, for which more comprehensive date is available. It included all the most significant components of household wealth, including financial assets and debts, land, buildings and other tangible property. Together these total $125 trillion globally.Anthony Shorrocks, director of the research institute at the United Nations University, in New York, led the study. He affirmed that the existence of a nest egg provided an insurance policy that helped people cope with unforeseen events such as ill health or a lost job. Capital allowed people to drag themselves out of poverty, he added. "In some ways, wealth is more important to people in poorer countries than in richer countries." It was more difficult in developing countries to set up a business because it was harder to borrow start-up funds, he said.His team used detailed data from 38 countries, but had to rely on incomplete information from the rest.The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets. Half the world's adult population, however, owned barely 1% of global wealth. Near the bottom of the list were India, with per capita wealth of $1,100, and Indonesia with assets per head of $1,400.Many African nations as well as North Korea and the poorer Asia Pacific nations were places where the worst off lived."These levels of inequality are grotesque," said Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam. "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."Madsen Pirie, director of the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market thinktank, disagreed that distribution of global wealth was unfair. He said: "The implicit assumption behind this is that there is a supply of wealth in the world and some people have too much of that supply. In fact wealth is a dynamic, it is constantly created. We should not be asking who in the past has created wealth and how can we get it off them." He said that instead the question should be how more and more people could create wealth.Ruth Lea, director of the Centre for Policy Studies, a thinkthank set up by Margaret Thatcher, said that although she supported the goal of making poverty history she did not think increasing aid to poorer countries was the answer. "It's no use throwing lots of aid at countries that are basically dysfunctional," she said.The UN report was issued as the Swiss magazine Bilan released a list of the richest Swiss residents. Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea, topped the list with an estimated fortune of $21bn.Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86%; bottom half own just1%Global wealth highest in history despite downturnLiveblog0822360

byGuy BentleyOctober 9, 2013, 11:46amDespite the financial crisis of 2008 and the difficulties in the Eurozone, global wealth has more than doubled since 2000, reaching over 150 trillion, according to the latest global wealth report from Credit Suisse.Economic growth in developing countries and rising populations have played a significant part in the figures. Aggregate total wealth rocketed past the pre-crisis peak in 2010 and has been climbing higher ever since. Average wealth per adult has reached 32,167 after a rise of 4.9 per cent during the year to mid-2013.Change in household wealth by region 2012-2013:The countries experiencing the largest wealth gains of over 620bn included the US, Japan, China, Germany and France. The UK came sixth in total wealth gains with over 125bn.A large part of the gains made in the US were due to rising house prices and a strengthening equity market driving up the Dow Jones. The US increased the global wealth stock by 5.05 trillion, a 54 per cent increase since the downturn of 2008.Switzerland remains the richest nation in the world, on average, with wealth rising to 319,805 per adult. Australia, Norway and Luxembourg all saw an increase in wealth per adult and retained their respective second, third and fourth places from 2012.In terms of global distribution, once debts have been subtracted, 2493 in assets will place an adult in the top half of the worlds wealthiest citizens. Wealth of 46,000 is required for an adult to reach the top 10 per cent of global wealth holders, while personal wealth of 469,422 places an adult in the top one per cent.The report forecasts that wealth will rise by close to 40 per cent in the next five years with emerging markets to increase their share of global wealth to 23 per cent by 2018. China is expected to see household wealth dramatically, growing by 10.1 per cent over the next five years.- See more at:http://www.cityam.com/blog/1381315591/global-wealth-highest-history-despite-downturn#sthash.EFIN10Ht.dpufJust 8.4% of all the 5bn adults in the world own 83.4% of all household wealth (thats property and financial assets, like stocks, shares and cash in the bank). About 393 million people have net worth (thats wealth after all debt is accounted for) of over $100,000, thats 10% own 86% of all household wealth! But $100,000 may not seem that much, if you own a house in any G7 country without any mortgage. So many millions in the UK or the US are in the top 10% of global wealth holders. This shows just how little two-thirds of adults in the world have under $10,000 of net wealth each and billions have nothing at all.

This is not annual income but just wealth in other words, 3.2bn adults own virtually nothing at all. At the other end of the spectrum, just 32m people own $98trn in wealth or 41% of all household wealth or more than $1m each. And just 98,700 people with ultra-high net worth have more than $50 million each and of these 33,900 are worth over $100 million each. Half of these super-rich live in the US.

All this is in a new global wealth report published Credit Suisse Bank and authored by Professors Anthony Shorrocks and Jim Davies see the report here (global wealth reportand the databasewealth database). The professors find that global wealth has reached a new all-time high of $241 trillion, up 4.9% since last year, with the US accounting for most of the rise. Average wealth hit a new peak of $51,600 per adult but the distribution of that wealth is wildly unequal.There is nothing new in this report in one sense because Tony Shorrocks previously authored a UN report back in 2010 (see my post,http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/20/) that found virtually the same wealth inequality and Branko Milanovic also found similar figures in various World Bank studies. But what is also interesting is that Professor Shorrocks finds that there is little or no social mobility between rich and poor over generations 87% of people stay rich or poor, hardly moving up or down the wealth pyramid.This inequality is mirrored within each country (seeUK wealth distribution). In the UK, aggregate total wealth (including private pension wealth but excluding state pension wealth) of all private households in Great Britain was 10.3 trillion. And the wealthiest 10 per cent of households were 4.4 times wealthier than the bottom 50 per cent of households combined. The wealthiest 20 per cent of households owned 62 per cent of total aggregate household wealth.Moreover, according to the Credit Suisse report, the American dream or the British idea of rags to riches is a myth. Two-thirds of American adults are in the same wealth decile as their parents were. Even globally, while some individualsdo alternate wildly between rags and riches, many stay for their whole lifetime in the same wealth neighborhood for people of their age. Dividing the population into wealth quintiles, about half the population remains in the same quintile after ten years and we estimate that at least a third would be in the same quintile after thirty years.Global wealth is projected to rise by nearly 40% over the next five years, reaching $334 trillion by 2018. Emerging markets will be responsible for 29% of the growth, although they account for just 21% of current wealth, while China will account for nearly 50% of the increase in emerging economies wealth. Wealth will primarily be driven by growth in the middle segment, but the number of millionaires will also grow markedly over the next five years.All class societies have generated extremes of inequality in wealth and income. That is the point of a rich elite (whether feudal landlords, Asiatic warlords, Incan and Egyptian religious castes, Roman slave owners etc) usurping control of the surplus produced by labour. But past class societies considered that normal and god-given. Capitalism on the other hand talks about free markets, equal exchange and equality of opportunity. But the reality is no different from previous class societies.

December 7, 2006 A new study on The World Distribution of Household Wealth by the Helsinki-basedWorld Institute for Development Economics Researchof the United Nations University was launched earlier this week. The study shows the richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth. The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. The research finds that assets of US$2,200 per adult placed a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution in the year 2000. To be among the richest 10% of adults in the world required US$61,000 in assets, and more than US$500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1%, a group which with 37 million members worldwide is far from an exclusive club. View all

The UNU-WIDER study is the first of its kind to cover all countries in the world and all major components of household wealth, including financial assets and debts, land, buildings and other tangible property.One should be clear about what is meant by wealth, say co-authors James Davies of the University of Western Ontario, Anthony Shorrocks and Susanna Sandstrom of UNU-WIDER, and Edward Wolff of New York University. In everyday conversation the term wealth often signifies little more than money income. On other occasions economists use wealth to refer to the value of all household resources, including human capabilities.We use the term in its long-established sense of net worth: the value of physical and financial assets less debts. In this respect, wealth represents the ownership of capital. Although capital is only one part of personal resources, it is widely believed to have a disproportionate impact on household wellbeing and economic success, and more broadly on economic development and growth.Wealth levels across countriesUsing currency exchange rates, global household wealth amounted to US$125 trillion in the year 2000, equivalent to roughly three times the value of total global production (GDP) or to US$20,500 per person. Adjusting for differences in the cost-of-living across nations raises the value of wealth to US$26,000 per capita when measured in terms of purchasing power parity dollars (PPP$).The world map shows per capita wealth of different countries. (Figure 1: World Wealth Levels in Year 2000) Average wealth amounted to $144,000 per person in the USA in year 2000, and $181,000 in Japan. Lower down among countries with wealth data are India, with per capita assets of $1,100, and Indonesia with $1,400 per capita.Per capita wealth levels vary widely across countries. Even within the group of high-income OECD nations the range includes $37,000 for New Zealand and $70,000 for Denmark and $127,000 for the UK.Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe, and high income Asia-Pacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90% of total world wealth. (Figure 2: Regional Wealth Shares) Although North America has only 6% of the world adult population, it accounts for 34% of household wealth. Europe and high income Asia-Pacific countries also own disproportionate amounts of wealth. In contrast, the overall share of wealth owned by people in Africa, China, India, and other lower income countries in Asia is considerably less than their population share, sometimes by a factor of more than ten. (Figure 3: Population and Wealth Shares by Region)The study finds wealth to be more unequally distributed than income across countries. High income countries tend to have a bigger share of world wealth than of world GDP. The reverse is true of middle- and low-income nations. However, there are exceptions to this rule, for example the Nordic region and transition countries like the Czech Republic and Poland.The authors of the UNU-WIDER study explain that in Eastern European countries private wealth is on the rise, but has still not reached very high levels. Assets like private pensions and life insurance are held by relatively few households. In the Nordic countries, the social security system provides generous public pensions that may depress wealth accumulation.World wealth inequalityThe concentration of wealth within countries varies significantly but is generally high. The share of the top 10% ranges from around 40% in China to 70% in the United States, and higher still in other countries. The Gini value, which measures inequality on a scale from zero to one, gives numbers in the range from 35% to 45% for income inequality in most countries. In contrast, Gini values for wealth inequality are usually between 65% and 75%, and sometimes exceed 80%. Two high wealth economies, Japan and the United States, show very different patterns of wealth inequality, with Japan having a wealth Gini of 55% and the USA a wealth Gini of around 80%.Wealth inequality for the world as a whole is higher still. The study estimates that the global wealth Gini for adults is 89%. The same degree of inequality would be obtained if one person in a group of ten takes 99% of the total pie and the other nine share the remaining 1%.Where do the worlds wealthy live?According to the study, almost all of the worlds richest individuals live in North America, Europe, and rich Asia-Pacific countries. Each of these groups of countries contribute about one third of the members of the worlds wealthiest 10%. (Figure 4: Regional Composition of Global Wealth Distribution)China occupies much of the middle third of the global wealth distribution, while India, Africa, and low-income Asian countries dominate the bottom third.For all developing regions of the world, the share of population exceeds the share of global wealth, which in turn exceeds the share of members of the wealthiest groups. (Figure 3: Population and Wealth Shares by Region)A small number of countries account for most of the wealthiest 10% in the world. One quarter are Americans and another 20% are Japanese. (Figure 5: Percentage Membership of Wealthiest 10%)These two countries feature even more strongly among the richest 1% of individuals in the world, with 37% residing in the USA and 27% in Japan. (Figure 6: Percentage Membership of Wealthiest 1%)According to Anthony Shorrocks, a countrys representation in the rich persons club depends on three factors: the size of the population, average wealth, and wealth inequality.The USA and Japan stand out, he says, because they have large populations and high average wealth. Although Switzerland and Luxembourg have high average wealth, their populations are small. China on the other hand fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards. However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals for the year 2000, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.Composition of household wealthThe UNU-WIDER study shows major international differences in the composition of assets, resulting from different influences on household behaviour such as market structure, regulation, and cultural preferences.Real property, particularly land and farm assets, are more important in less developed countries. (Figure 7: Asset Composition in Selected Countries) This reflects not only the greater importance of agriculture, but also immature financial institutions.The study also reveals striking differences in the types of financial assets owned. Savings accounts feature strongly in transition economies and in some rich Asian countries, while share-holdings and other types of financial assets are more evident in rich countries in the West. (Figure 8: Composition of Financial Wealth in Selected Countries)According to the authors of the UNU-WIDER study, savings accounts tend to be favoured in Asian countries because there appears to be a strong preference for liquidity and a lack of confidence in financial markets. Other types of financial assets are more prominent in countries like the UK and USA which have well developed financial sectors and which rely heavily on private pensions.Surprisingly, household debt is relatively unimportant in poor countries. As the authors of the study point out: While many poor people in poor countries are in debt, their debts are relatively small in total. This is mainly due to the absence of financial institutions that allow households to incur large mortgage and consumer debts, as is increasingly the situation in rich countriesThe authors go on to note that many people in high-income countries have negative net worth andsomewhat paradoxicallyare among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.The World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) was established in 1985. The institute undertakes multidisciplinary research and policy analysis on structural changes affecting the living conditions of the worlds poorest people; provides a forum for professional interaction and the advocacy of policies leading to robust, equitable, and environmentally sustainable growth; and promotes capacity strengthening and training for scholars and government officials in the field of economic and social policy making.

inShare11By now it should be common knowledge to everyone that in American society, the top wealthiest 1 percentile controls all the political power, holds half the wealth, and pays what is claimed to be the bulk of the taxes (despite mile wide tax loopholes and Swiss bank accounts). The rest of the population is merely filler, programmed to buy every latest self-cannibalizing iteration of the iPad/Pod while never again paying their mortgage and brainwashed to watch 2 hours of prime time TV commercials to keep it distracted from the fact that the last time America was a democracy was around the time the Wright brothers were arguing the pros and cons of frequent flier programs. So far so good. But what about the rest of the world? How is wealth stratified in a global perspective? Where do the "rich" live? What kind of wealth is controlled by various countries? Where are the Ultra High Net Worth people? For answers to all these questions, and much more, confirming that just like in America, the wealthiest 0.5% control over 35% of world wealth, Credit Suisse has compiled and released its latest "Global Wealth Report." The findings are summarized here.The first figure shows world wealth by region. The US, with its wealth of about $50 trillion, accounts for 25% of total world wealth, which at last check was about $200 trillion. And yes, Europe as a region has a slightly greater wealth portion (32%) than does America (31%).

When it comes to geographic distribution, it is to be expected that North America will have the greatest proportion of people in the ultra wealthy category. Indeed, the chart below confirms this.

Drilling down into asset composition in various countries, it becomes obvious why the Fed is so focused on keeping the stock market high. With America being the wealthiest country in the world, and the bulk of US wealth held in financial assets, offset by a material amount of debt, which confirms that a deflationary spiral would be the end for the "wealth effect" so desired by Ben Bernanke. More from CS: "Consider first the relative importance of financial versus non-financial assets, and the size of debt. Expressed as a percentage of gross household assets, the pattern clearly differs markedly between poorer and richer countries and regions. In developing countries (see Figure 1), for example India and Indonesia, it is common for 80% or more of total assets to be held in the form of non-financial assets, largely housing and farms. A high proportion of real property is also evident in transition countries in Europe, reflecting in part the wholesale privatization of housing in the 1990s. As countries develop and grow, the importance of non-financial assets tends to decline, so that the share in China, for instance, is now close to half. In the richest countries, financial assets typically account for more than half of household wealth. There are interesting exceptions to this general pattern. Recent robust house price rises have propelled the share of non-financial assets above 60% in France and some other major European countries. South Africa, on the other hand, is an outlier in the developing world, with exceptionally high holdings of financial assets: the figure of 80% exceeds the share found in both the United States and Japan." In other words, the more "developed" the world becomes, the greater the amount of wealth tied into the perpetuation of the Ponzi lies. Small wonder why so few in charge are willing to actually do anything that changes the status quo.

Next, it is time to drill down in the specific composition of the financial assets.Figure 2 provides more detail, showing the breakdown of financial assets into three categories: currency and deposits, equities (all shares and other equities held directly by households), and other financial assets for selected countries. To add further detail, in most countries the reserves of life insurance companies and pension funds form the largest component of other financial assets. The composition of financial assets differs considerably across countries, especially with regard to the importance of shares and other equities. One interesting trend we note is that equities are not always a large component of household financial wealth, even in countries with very active financial markets. In the United Kingdom and Japan, for example, equities account for just 13% and 9% of total financial assets respectively. In contrast, they make up 37% and 43% of financial assets in Sweden and the USA, respectively. Broadly speaking, the relative importance of currency and deposits falls as that of bonds and equities increases. On the other hand, the portfolio share of other financial assets does not vary a lot, staying in the range of about 40%45%. However, when we come to the UK, Japan and Colombia, which have the lowest portfolio share of equities, the pattern breaks down. The UK has a moderate currency and deposits share, but the largest other financial assets share, reflecting large life insurance and pension reserves. Colombia also has more in the form of other financial assets than is typical. Japan, on the other hand, which has a strong tradition of saving in deposit form, has a very large currency and deposits share and only a 35% share of other financial assets.

An interesting detour looks at gender distribution for asset holders in the US and the UK. As the chart below shows, in the UK women appear to hold more risky assets than men.

Looking at the history of global wealth per adult, net worth peaked just before the first ponzi/credit/housing bubble popped, confirming that a major portion of the then-record $50K/adult net wealth was imaginary. Yet it may have far more to drop: as CS says, "despite the financial crisis, the past decade has in fact been a relatively benign period for household wealth accumulation. Global net worth per adult rose 43% from USD 30,700 in the year 2000 to USD 43,800 by mid-2010. Since the number of adults increased from 3.6 billion to 4.4 billion over this period, aggregate household wealth rose by 72%.One important factor here was the depreciation of the dollar against most major currencies, which accounts for part of the rise in dollar-denominated values, but average net worth still increased by 24% when exchange rates are held constant." The next question is how much latent dollar devaluation has been accrued to this point and how much more is due to only gradually emerge.

The next chart is rather self-explanatory. The richest nations, with wealth in 2010 above USD 100,000 per adult, are found in North America, Western Europe, and among the rich Asian-Pacific and Middle East countries. They are topped by Switzerland, Norway, Australia, Singapore and France, each of which records wealth per adult above USD 250,000. Average wealth in other major economies such as the USA, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada also exceeds USD 200,000.

And some more detail on the various wealth regions:Emerging wealth: The band of wealth from USD 25,000 to USD 100,000 covers many recent EU entrants (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Cyprus) and important Latin American countries (Mexico, Brazil, Chile), along with a number of Middle Eastern nations (Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain).Frontier wealth: The main transition nations outside the EU, including China, Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, fall in the USD 5,000 to USD 25,000 range, together with some of their Far East neighbors (Indonesia, Thailand) and most of Latin America (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, El Salvador). The group also contains a number of African nations at the southernmost tip (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia) and on the Mediterranean coast (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt).Finally, the category below USD 5,000 comprises almost all of South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, and almost all of Central and West Africa.Next is a pie chart of with a detailed break down of wealth distribution by region.

Credit Suisse provides a look at geographic wealth distribution by decile:To be among the wealthiest half of the world, an adult needs only USD 4,000 in assets, once debts have been subtracted. However, each adult requires more than USD 72,000 to belong to the top 10% of global wealth holders and more than USD 588,000 to be a member of the top 1%. The bottom half of the global population together possess less than 2% of global wealth, although wealth is growing fast for some members of this segment. In sharp contrast, the richest 10% own 83% of the worlds wealth, with the top 1% alone accounting for 43% of global assets. Figure 4 shows how the regions of the world are represented amongst the wealth deciles. Unsurprisingly for example, North America and Europe together make up the lions share of the top wealth decile (10%). China has relatively few representatives at the very top and bottom of the global wealth distribution, but dominates the middle section, supplying more than a third of those in deciles 48. The sizeable presence of China in the middle section reflects not only its population size and moderate average wealth level, but also relatively low wealth inequality. Chinas position in the global picture has shifted upwards in the past decade as a consequence of a strong record of growth, rising asset values and the appreciation of the renminbi relative to the US dollar. China already has more people in the top 10% of global wealth holders than any country except for the USA, Japan and Germany, and is poised to overtake both Germany and Japan in the near future.

Next is the chart that everyone has seen as it pertains to America,but few have seen in terms of the entire world. Per CS, Figure 1 showsThe global wealth pyramid in striking detail. It is made up of a solidbase of low wealth holders with upper tiers occupied by fewer and fewerpeople. We estimate that 3 billion individuals more than two thirdsof the global adult population have wealth below USD 10,000. A furtherbillion adults (24% of the world population) are placed in the USD10,000100,000 range, leaving 358 million adults (8% of the worldpopulation) with assets above USD 100,000. Figures for mid-2010indicate that 24.2 million adults are above the threshold for dollarmillionaires.While they make up less than 1% of the global adultpopulation, they own more than a third of global household wealth. Morespecifically, individuals with wealth above USD 50 million are estimatedto number 81,000 worldwide.

Some more details on the various tiers of the pyramid:Bottom of the pyramidThevarious tiers of the wealth pyramid have distinctive characteristics.The base level is spread broadly across countries. It has significantmembership in all regions of the world, and spans a wide variety offamily circumstances. The upper wealth limit of USD 10,000 is a modestsum in developed countries, excluding almost all adults who own houses,with or without a mortgage. Nevertheless, a surprisingly large number ofindividuals in advanced countries have limited savings or other assets.Ahigh proportion are young people with little opportunity or interest inaccumulating wealth. In fact, limited amounts of tangible assetscombined with credit card debts and student loans lead many young peopleto record negative net worth. In Denmark and Sweden, for example, 30%of the population report negative wealth. This is an important and oftenoverlooked segment, not least in the context of the credit crisis.Lowwealth is also a common feature of older age groups, particularly forthose individuals suffering ill health and exposed to high medicalbills. In fact, the means testing applied to many state benefits,especially contributions to the cost of residential homes, provides anincentive to shed wealth. Nevertheless, relatively few people in richcountries have net worth below USD 10,000 throughout their adult life.In essence, membership of the base section of the global wealth pyramidis a transient, lifecycle phenomenon for most citizens in the developedworld.The situation in low-income countries is different. Morethan 90% of the adult population in India and Africa fall in this band;in many low-income African countries, the fraction of the population isclose to 100%. However, the cost of living is usually much lower. For aresident of India, for instance, assets of USD 10,000 would beequivalent to about USD 30,000 to a resident of the United States. Inmuch of the developing world, this is enough to own a house or land albeit possibly with uncertain property rights and to have acomfortable lifestyle by local standards.Middle of the pyramidThebillion adults in the USD 10,000100,000 range form the middle classfrom the perspective of global wealth. With USD 32 trillion in totalwealth, it certainly carries economic weight. This tier has the mostregionally balanced membership, although China now contributes almost athird of the total. The wealth range would cover the median person overmost of his adult life in high income countries. In middle incomecountries it would apply to a middle class person in middle age.However, in low-income countries only those in the top decile qualify,restricting membership to significant landowners, successfulbusinessmen, professionals and the like.High segment of the pyramidWhenwe consider the high segment of the wealth pyramid the group ofadults whose net worth exceeds USD 100,000 the regional compositionbegins to change. With almost 358 million adults worldwide, this groupis far from exclusive. But the typical member of the group is verydifferent in different parts of the world. In high income countries, thethreshold of USD 100,000 is well within the reach of middle-classadults once careers have been established. In contrast, residents fromlow-income countries would need to belong to the top percentile ofwealth holders, so only the exceptionally successful, well endowed orwell connected qualify.The regional contrast shows up in thefact that North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific regions account for92% of the global membership of the USD 100,000+ group, with Europealone home to 39% of the total. As far as individual countries areconcerned, the membership ranking depends on three factors: thepopulation size, the average wealth level, and wealth inequality withinthe country. Only 15 countries host more than 1% of the globalmembership. The USA comes top with 23% of the total. All three factorsreinforce each other in this instance: a large population combining withhigh mean wealth and an unequal wealth distribution. Japan is a strongrunner-up, the only country at present to seriously challenge thehegemony of the USA in the global wealth ranking. Although its relativeposition has declined since the year 2000 due to lackluster stock marketand housing market performance, Japan is still home to 15% ofindividuals with wealth above USD 100,000.Top of the pyramidAtthe top of the pyramid, we find the worlds millionaires, where weagain witness a slightly different pattern of membership. The proportionof members from the United States rises sharply to 41%, and the shareof members from outside of the North America, Europe and Asia-Pacificregions falls to just 6%. The relative positions of most countries movedownwards, but there are exceptions. The French share is estimated todouble to 9%, while Sweden and Switzerland are each now credited withmore than 1% of the global membership.And next, is a detailed look at the very top of the pyramid: those individuals which have over 1 million in net worth.To assemble details of the pattern of wealth holdings above USD 1 million requires a high degree of ingenuity. The usual sources of data official statistics and sample surveys become increasingly incomplete and unreliable at high wealth levels. A growing number of publications have followed the example of Forbes magazine by constructing rich lists, which attempt to value the assets of particular named individuals at the apex of the wealth pyramid. But very little is known about the global pattern of asset holdings in the high net worth (HNW greater than USD 1 million) and ultra high net worth (UHNW from USD 50 million upwards) range.We bridge this gap by exploiting well-known statistical regularities in the top wealth tail. Using only data from traditional sources in the public domain yields a pattern of global wealth holdings in the USD 250,000 to USD 5 million range, which, when projected onward, predicts about 1000 dollar billionaires for mid-2010. Although not exactly comparable, this number is very close to the figure of 1,011 billionaire holdings reported by Forbes magazine for February 2010. Making use of the regional affiliation recorded in rich lists allows us to merge the top tail details with data on the level and distribution of wealth derived from traditional sources in order to generate a regional breakdown of HNW and UHNW individuals. At this time, we do not attempt to estimate the pattern of holdings across particular countries, except China and India which are treated as separate regions. However, as a rule of thumb, residents of the USA account for about 90% of the figure for North America.The base of the wealth pyramid is occupied by people from all countries of the world at various stages of their lifecycle. In contrast, HNW and UHNW individuals are heavily concentrated in particular regions and countries, but the members tend to share a much more similar lifestyle, often participating in the same global markets for high coupon consumption items. The wealth portfolios of individuals are also likely to be similar, dominated by financial assets and, in particular, equity holdings in public companies traded in international markets. For these reasons, using official exchange rates to value assets is more appropriate, rather than using local price levels to compare wealth holdings.Our figures for mid-2010 indicate that there were 24.5 million HNW individuals with wealth from USD 1 million to USD 50 million, of whom the vast majority (22 million) fall in the USD 15 million range. North America dominates the residence ranking, accounting for 11.1 million HNW individuals (45% of the total). Europe accounts for 7.8 million (31.7%) and 4.1 million reside in Asia-Pacific countries other than China and India. We estimate that there are now more than 800,000 HNW individuals in China, each worth between USD 1 million and USD 50 million (3.3% of the global total). India, Africa and Latin America together host the remaining 740,000 HNW individuals (3.0% of the total).

The take home message is that the wealthiest people in the world have the bulk of their wealth entrenched in the current system and any dramatic overhaul or reset of the status quo will be met by the stiff resistance of those who can summon fleet of jets, private armies, and even Fed chairmen on a whim. Whether anyone will have the wherewithal to confront the broken system under such conditions remains to be seen.And for those seeing more granular detail by country, below are the profiles of the 15 or so wealhtiest countries.