Just how much money do you need to be among the global 1 percent? That was the question asked in a CNBC article today. The answer was provided, and is re-printed here below: According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or "wealth," as "the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts." More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide, Credit Suisse reports, far more than from any other country, while "China is now clearly established in second place in the world wealth hierarchy," with 4.2 million citizens among the world's top 1 percent. To be among the top 10 percent worldwide, you don't even need six figures: A net worth of $93,170 will do it. And even if you have just $4,210 to your name, you're still richer than half of the world's residents. To the CNBC and Credit Suisse Research people, this indicates an "extreme level of persistent wealth inequality."

It did not offer why was it, for example, that even people in the US with very modest net worth ($4,210), who could be considered in poverty, are so well off in the world context? Why not ask that question? Why just establish that the awful concept of 'wealth inequality' is some how the cause. That its not fair for some people to have more than others. That those with more have somehow stolen it from those who do not. Therefore, governments must fix the problem and now you arrive at "wealth redistribution", a favorite leftist, and Obama, governmental concept.

Yet, when you analyze deeper, you find that free governments with capitalist economies (or in China's case, Maoist governments with significant western capitalistic reforms) have much greater relative wealth?

Must be politically driven?

More From CNBC: