NATION

PASSWORD

Oxfam: World's Top 100 Earners Could Solve Poverty…

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Arkinesia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13210
Founded: Aug 22, 2008
Ex-Nation

Oxfam: World's Top 100 Earners Could Solve Poverty…

Postby Arkinesia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:22 am

…four times over.

Link

The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report (PDF format) released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.

The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.

The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.

The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.

"We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

'Global new deal'

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," said Jeremy Hobbs, an executive director at Oxfam.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

"In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left."

Hobbs said that "a global new deal" is required, encompassing a wide array of issues, from tax havens to employment laws, in order to address income inequality.

Closing tax havens, the group said, could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens.

In a statement, Oxfam warned that "extreme wealth and income is not only unethical it is also economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive."


So, there it is.

My opinions to kick off discussion: While I respect Oxfam's efforts as an organization to fight poverty, I can't help but feel like this is a massively oversimplified, almost to the point of dishonesty, report. Economic issues like this are rarely a simple numbers game as Oxfam is claiming it is.
Last edited by Arkinesia on Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bisexual, atheist, Southerner. Not much older but made much wiser.

Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.

User avatar
Benutia
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Jan 20, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Benutia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:25 am

We all know they probably wont want to solve it, considering greed and all.
The puppet of NS Frenchmen Benutanairan + 3,962 other post.

War, Peace, and Everything in between as the 3rd French Republic

The Demon priest of Wind in Elementals, Return of Kayorest

User avatar
SaintB
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21792
Founded: Apr 18, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby SaintB » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:41 am

There is a big difference between can, will, and wanting too...
Hi my name is SaintB and I am prone to sarcasm and hyperbole. Because of this I make no warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the above statement, of its constituent parts, or of any supporting data. These terms are subject to change without notice from myself.

Every day NationStates tells me I have one issue. I am pretty sure I've got more than that.

User avatar
Benutia
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Jan 20, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Benutia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:55 am

SaintB wrote:There is a big difference between can, will, and wanting too...


Hence my point XD.
The puppet of NS Frenchmen Benutanairan + 3,962 other post.

War, Peace, and Everything in between as the 3rd French Republic

The Demon priest of Wind in Elementals, Return of Kayorest

User avatar
Altria
Attaché
 
Posts: 81
Founded: Apr 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Altria » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:55 am

In other news bears defecate in forests. More at eleven.
Divair wrote:Because Israel, much like the US, has a foreign policy that basically screams "STFU, WE DO WHAT WE WANT".

A member of the Totally Rad senate party.
Currently on a smartphone so don't expect much out of my posts.

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:55 am

Of course they can. They just don't want to.

User avatar
Luna Amore
Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 15005
Founded: Antiquity
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Luna Amore » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:02 am

One of these days I hope we realize that we aren't going to solve problems by throwing larger and larger amounts of money at them.
Samoas are the best Girl Scout cookie. I will not be taking questions.

User avatar
Yue-Laou
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 434
Founded: Nov 20, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Yue-Laou » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:03 am

No, they couldn't. Solving poverty is not just about throwing money around. Income inequality has become pretty concerning though.

User avatar
Novaya Tselinoyarsk
Senator
 
Posts: 4091
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Novaya Tselinoyarsk » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:12 am

Why would they? It isn't profitable to them, which is something the top 100 richest people in the world care very much about.
Proletariacka Rzeczpospolita Nowy Tselinoyarsk
Proletarskaya Respubliki Novaya Tselinoyarsk

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:13 am

Novaya Tselinoyarsk wrote:Why would they? It isn't profitable to them, which is something the top 100 richest people in the world care very much about.

Bill Gates. Just saying.

User avatar
Novaya Tselinoyarsk
Senator
 
Posts: 4091
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Novaya Tselinoyarsk » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:15 am

Divair wrote:
Novaya Tselinoyarsk wrote:Why would they? It isn't profitable to them, which is something the top 100 richest people in the world care very much about.

Bill Gates. Just saying.

He's all 100 top earners? News to me!
Proletariacka Rzeczpospolita Nowy Tselinoyarsk
Proletarskaya Respubliki Novaya Tselinoyarsk

User avatar
OMGeverynameistaken
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12437
Founded: Jun 24, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby OMGeverynameistaken » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:15 am

Yue-Laou wrote:No, they couldn't. Solving poverty is not just about throwing money around. Income inequality has become pretty concerning though.


I'm pretty sure that poverty is generally defined as a lack of money. A lack of money could, by definition, be solved by giving people money.

Of course, the actual problem (caused by the lack of money,) is the poor development of infrastructure, agriculture, etc. Money, properly applied, could solve those problems.


On a minor historical note, Tsar Nicholas II, with a net worth of $290bn (inflation adjusted) at the time of the Russian Revolution is among the top ten wealthiest people in history.
I AM DISAPPOINTED

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:16 am

Novaya Tselinoyarsk wrote:
Divair wrote:Bill Gates. Just saying.

He's all 100 top earners? News to me!

At least say 'most' ;)

User avatar
North Stradia
Minister
 
Posts: 2077
Founded: Jan 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby North Stradia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:02 am

Arkinesia wrote:…four times over.

Link

The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report (PDF format) released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.

The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.

The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.

The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.

"We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

'Global new deal'

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," said Jeremy Hobbs, an executive director at Oxfam.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

"In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left."

Hobbs said that "a global new deal" is required, encompassing a wide array of issues, from tax havens to employment laws, in order to address income inequality.

Closing tax havens, the group said, could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens.

In a statement, Oxfam warned that "extreme wealth and income is not only unethical it is also economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive."


So, there it is.

My opinions to kick off discussion: While I respect Oxfam's efforts as an organization to fight poverty, I can't help but feel like this is a massively oversimplified, almost to the point of dishonesty, report. Economic issues like this are rarely a simple numbers game as Oxfam is claiming it is.



$240 billion / 3 billion = $80

No, an extra $80 a year per person is not going to solve poverty FOUR TIMES OVER. Fourth grade math, folks.
Last edited by North Stradia on Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a Feudo-capitalist, egoist, and a supporter of plutocracy.
R.I.P. Sark, the last feudalist State in the world, born 933, died 2008
Economic Left/Right: +9.89
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +8.12
Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist/Neocon: +5.88
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: +2.90

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:03 am

North Stradia wrote:
Arkinesia wrote:…four times over.

Link

The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report (PDF format) released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.

The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.

The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.

The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.

"We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

'Global new deal'

"We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," said Jeremy Hobbs, an executive director at Oxfam.

"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

"In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left."

Hobbs said that "a global new deal" is required, encompassing a wide array of issues, from tax havens to employment laws, in order to address income inequality.

Closing tax havens, the group said, could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens.

In a statement, Oxfam warned that "extreme wealth and income is not only unethical it is also economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive."


So, there it is.

My opinions to kick off discussion: While I respect Oxfam's efforts as an organization to fight poverty, I can't help but feel like this is a massively oversimplified, almost to the point of dishonesty, report. Economic issues like this are rarely a simple numbers game as Oxfam is claiming it is.



$240 billion / 3 billion = $80

No, an extra $80 a year per person is not going to solve poverty FOUR TIMES OVER. Fourth grade math, folks.

Where did you get the number 3 billion from?

User avatar
North Stradia
Minister
 
Posts: 2077
Founded: Jan 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby North Stradia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:08 am

Divair wrote:
North Stradia wrote:

$240 billion / 3 billion = $80

No, an extra $80 a year per person is not going to solve poverty FOUR TIMES OVER. Fourth grade math, folks.

Where did you get the number 3 billion from?

Ok, my measurements were wrong. I had simply added the populations of Africa, India, and a few other countries, and rounded. A more accurate number (22% living on less than a dollar a day) is 1.5 billion. $160 a year per person is still not going to solve poverty, let alone FOUR TIMES OVER.
I am a Feudo-capitalist, egoist, and a supporter of plutocracy.
R.I.P. Sark, the last feudalist State in the world, born 933, died 2008
Economic Left/Right: +9.89
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +8.12
Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist/Neocon: +5.88
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: +2.90

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:09 am

North Stradia wrote:
Divair wrote:Where did you get the number 3 billion from?

Ok, my measurements were wrong. I had simply added the populations of Africa, India, and a few other countries, and rounded. A more accurate number (22% living on less than a dollar a day) is 1.5 billion. $160 a year per person is still not going to solve poverty, let alone FOUR TIMES OVER.

That's implying you simply hand out money rather that invest it in projects that solve poverty indirectly.

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:11 am

If it only took 240 billion to end poverty we would have eliminated decades ago.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55158
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Big Jim P » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:11 am

SaintB wrote:There is a big difference between can, will, and wanting too...


Or should, or should be expected to.
Hail Satan!
Happily married to Roan Cara, The first RL NS marriage, and Pope Joan is my Father-in-law.
I edit my posts to fix typos.

User avatar
The Serbian Empire
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58107
Founded: Apr 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Serbian Empire » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:11 am

It is an oversimplification which also involves the rich giving everything to the point of being in poverty themselves. Just because that amount of money can provide a reprieve from poverty doesn't mean it would solve it. Infrastructure projects and making dictators allow democratic elections to prevent civil wars would be more useful but those alternatives are far more costly to institute than just throw 240 billion at the problem.
Last edited by The Serbian Empire on Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~ WOMAN
Level 12 Myrmidon, Level ⑨ Tsundere, Level ✿ Hold My Flower
Bad Idea Purveyor
8 Values: https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=56.1&d=70.2&g=86.5&s=91.9
Political Compass: Economic -10.00 Authoritarian: -9.13
TG for Facebook if you want to friend me
Marissa, Goddess of Stratospheric Reach
preferred pronouns: Female ones
Primarily lesbian, but pansexual in nature

User avatar
North Stradia
Minister
 
Posts: 2077
Founded: Jan 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby North Stradia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:12 am

The Serbian Empire wrote:It is an oversimplification which also involves the rich giving everything to the point of being in poverty themselves. Just because that amount of money can provide a reprieve from poverty doesn't mean it would solve it. Infrastructure projects and making dictators allow democratic elections to prevent civil wars would be more useful but those alternatives are far more costly to institute.

This would solve so many of Africa's current problems.
I am a Feudo-capitalist, egoist, and a supporter of plutocracy.
R.I.P. Sark, the last feudalist State in the world, born 933, died 2008
Economic Left/Right: +9.89
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +8.12
Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist/Neocon: +5.88
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: +2.90

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:14 am

The Serbian Empire wrote:It is an oversimplification which also involves the rich giving everything to the point of being in poverty themselves. Just because that amount of money can provide a reprieve from poverty doesn't mean it would solve it. Infrastructure projects and making dictators allow democratic elections to prevent civil wars would be more useful but those alternatives are far more costly to institute than just throw 240 billion at the problem.

The democracies end up corrupt anyway. We need a huge crack down on corruption and we need to invest in education. That'll solve problems.

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55158
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Big Jim P » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:17 am

Screw it. Eat the poor.
Hail Satan!
Happily married to Roan Cara, The first RL NS marriage, and Pope Joan is my Father-in-law.
I edit my posts to fix typos.

User avatar
Doidgeland
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Oct 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Doidgeland » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:17 am

These people need to be FORCED to contribute towards the end of poverty. Their greed is the reason why there is so much of it.

User avatar
North Stradia
Minister
 
Posts: 2077
Founded: Jan 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby North Stradia » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:17 am

Doidgeland wrote:These people need to be FORCED to contribute towards the end of poverty. Their greed is the reason why there is so much of it.

No.
I am a Feudo-capitalist, egoist, and a supporter of plutocracy.
R.I.P. Sark, the last feudalist State in the world, born 933, died 2008
Economic Left/Right: +9.89
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +8.12
Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist/Neocon: +5.88
Cultural Liberal/Conservative: +2.90

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Canarsia, Empire of Colia, La Xinga, Neu California, Ryemarch, Trans Commie Raider Lesbians

Advertisement

Remove ads