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

[Natapoc]

Of course I'm not advocating violence. Where did you get violence from that?

You want to take the money from top 100 earners worldwide. I don't see them giving it willingly.

And how could you possibly even consider biological warfare against the poor?

It's only warfare if they fight back. This would be more along the lines of a final solution to the question of poverty.

Yes, your suggestion to poison the poor with nerve gas does sound very final solution like. And yes you can be quite sure people would fight back against it if they were able.

I don't care if the rich are willing or not. Their right to have massive yachts and live in castles and mansions is not more important than the right of others to simply live.

[Vault 1]

Yes, your suggestion to poison the poor with nerve gas does sound very final solution like.

Biological agent, not nerve gas. Nerve agents contaminate the soil for many years, while Filoviridae have poor environmental resistance and would leave the land open for sustenance agriculture once the biomass decays.

And yes you can be quite sure people would fight back against it if they were able.

Most of the eliminated didn't fight back during WWII, just waited for their turn.

Besides, if they can afford the means to fight back, they aren't all that poor - a Stinger or Igla missile costs $130,000-$160,000, the annual income of at least 50 third-world families - thus not part of the poverty problem.

I don't care if the rich are willing or not. Their right to have massive yachts and live in castles and mansions is not more important than the right of others to simply live.

You are forgetting their right to have private security and US senators in their back pockets for more "public" security. So taking that money won't be bloodless.

And what do you do once all that money is taken and spent? You've let the non-working poor reproduce, so there is even more of them. Proceed to the 1,000 richest, then to 10,000?

[Freiheit Reich]

Wait...wouldn't a more logical conclusion from this be that poverty/income inequality are causal factors in crime (as empirically justified), not the simplistic, reductionist conclusion that more crime implies more "not very nice and less deserving" people?

That would be the logical deduction yes. But it's more fun to blame victims for their problems from a safe distance.

Poverty is not an excuse to be violent. Jesus chose to live in poverty and he managed to avoid becoming a thug. Plenty of nice poor people as well so not a good excuse.

Somalis are worse than Bhutanese. I am against foreign aid but I would rather help out poor people that were not thuggish and hateful in their beliefs if we had to give away foreign aid.

Somalia chooses to be a 3rd world hellhole. The people make it that way. I don't blame them for poverty (they lack resources) but I can blame them for violence. How does religious intolerance and violence help people get fed there?

[Freiheit Reich]

You want to take the money from top 100 earners worldwide. I don't see them giving it willingly.


It's only warfare if they fight back. This would be more along the lines of a final solution to the question of poverty.

Yes, your suggestion to poison the poor with nerve gas does sound very final solution like. And yes you can be quite sure people would fight back against it if they were able.

I don't care if the rich are willing or not. Their right to have massive yachts and live in castles and mansions is not more important than the right of others to simply live.

You have internet. I am betting you have a computer. Why don't you sell your computer and donate your money to the poor since they need food and you can survive without a computer. Plenty of hippy liberals wanting to give away other people's money have IPODs, cable TV, cars, fridges, and other luxuries. Many liberals drink coffee at Starbucks while discussing world poverty. I am honest and not a hypocrite abotu world poverty at least.

Let the rich people decide. Some are generous (like the racist-Bill Gates) and others are not. That is their money and their choice.

[Tsuntion]

Bhutan is poor but they worry about gross national happiness and they have a low crime rate despite poverty. They seem to be fine with a simple way of life. What makes Bhutan different from Congo when it comes to violence? Bhutan is more deserving of help if needed because their citizens don't encourage genocide or other barbaric actions.

I'm confused as to why the people who are surely in less trouble are more deserving of help.

[Vault 1]

Plenty of hippy liberals wanting to give away other people's money have IPODs, cable TV, cars, fridges, and other luxuries.

What would be the point of giving away your own money to make yourself feel better about the world you live in?

It's only fun to make other people (soldiers) shoot other people (pvt security) to rob money from someone else (rich people), then have other people (pilots) spread it around.

[Freiheit Reich]

Bhutan is poor but they worry about gross national happiness and they have a low crime rate despite poverty. They seem to be fine with a simple way of life. What makes Bhutan different from Congo when it comes to violence? Bhutan is more deserving of help if needed because their citizens don't encourage genocide or other barbaric actions.

I'm confused as to why the people who are surely in less trouble are more deserving of help.

Would you rather help a civilized person that will appreciate your help or would you rather help out an ungrateful person that will use your donations to buy weapons and kill others.

The only help Africa needs and would be a good investment is birth control including steralization. They can have as much fun as they want (accepting the AIDS risk of course) and not make babies they can't afford. Charities can help as long as they don't use tax dollars. Let people choose to donate (like Bill Gates), don't make me support people I dislike (like the ungrateful Pakistanis and Afghans).

[Vault 1]

While I obviously wasn't serious about using lethal means of population control, this got me thinking: Could our advanced biomedical and chemical sciences be used to combine the nice and the necessary into one intermediate solution? I'm talking, of course, of providing humanitarian food supplies and high impact birth control solutions in an inseparable form.

That would actually be a good use for some of that money you're so eager to spread around.

[Tsuntion]

Would you rather help a civilized person that will appreciate your help or would you rather help out an ungrateful person that will use your donations to buy weapons and kill others.

I'd rather help them both, including helping the ungrateful person become a civilised person.

The only help Africa needs and would be a good investment is birth control including steralization. They can have as much fun as they want (accepting the AIDS risk of course) and not make babies they can't afford.

What about, say, clean water? Education to help them better themselves? Small investments for local people to start their own businesses or other earning systems? I don't think reducing the number of babies in Africa is going to magically solve all its problems, nor do I think the projects I just listed are not good investments.

[Vault 1]

Small investments for local people to start their own businesses or other earning systems?

I like the "other earning systems" part.

They already have one - it's called 419.

[Lessnt]

We all know they probably wont want to solve it, considering greed and all.

Greed is good.

It is the only thing that can reliably get a person to do the right thing.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I'm guessing Oxfam has a income based definition of poverty and simply calculated how much money it would need to give to every person in poverty to lift them above the line, seems to be the only way you could work out how to put a financial cost on fixing poverty.

As was said right at the start of this thead by the OP, it's a dumb way of assessing the problem. Increasing the income of everyone below the poverty line won't do anything except reduce the value of money in that area. No health care, no education, no judiciary system and no infrastructure are problems that aren't addressed in this report and are likely to keep contributing.

Taking money away from the richest and giving money to those below the poverty line accomplishes what exactly?

[Chestaan]

We all know they probably wont want to solve it, considering greed and all.

Greed is good.

It is the only thing that can reliably get a person to do the right thing.

You're not Gordon Gekko.

Greed only causes poverty and misery in those who need a small amount just so they can buy enough food to live on.

[Freiheit Reich]

While I obviously wasn't serious about using lethal means of population control, this got me thinking: Could our advanced biomedical and chemical sciences be used to combine the nice and the necessary into one intermediate solution? I'm talking, of course, of providing humanitarian food supplies and high impact birth control solutions in an inseparable form.

That would actually be a good use for some of that money you're so eager to spread around.

I like that idea. It is a bit devious and could backfire, people would get angry. What we do is have a label (in small print) in the local language mentioning this so we are not being deceitful. The problem is that they may stop eating the meal for a couple days, have fun, and get pregnant. I support a food/money for steralization instead. Reversal is expensive so poor people couldn't get it reversed.

[Freiheit Reich]

Would you rather help a civilized person that will appreciate your help or would you rather help out an ungrateful person that will use your donations to buy weapons and kill others.

I'd rather help them both, including helping the ungrateful person become a civilised person.

The only help Africa needs and would be a good investment is birth control including steralization. They can have as much fun as they want (accepting the AIDS risk of course) and not make babies they can't afford.

What about, say, clean water? Education to help them better themselves? Small investments for local people to start their own businesses or other earning systems? I don't think reducing the number of babies in Africa is going to magically solve all its problems, nor do I think the projects I just listed are not good investments.

Did Africa help the USA in the 18th century when we were an agricultural nation? Did Africa help us out in the Great Depression period when we had the Dust Bowl? If Africa didn't help us out and we turned out OK than why do we need to help out Africa?

Liberals are more racist than people think. They think of Africans as babies that need white people's help. Why can't we treat Africans like other peoples and let them fend for themselves. It is usually white people that have white guilt. I think Africans can choose to either be prosperous or not, let them sink or swim. We can help them by being business partners with them and we can both make money. Plenty of foreign businesses are making money in China and both parties are happy.

Or do liberals secretly think Africans are genetically dumber than other races and can't succeed. This is how I interpret all the 'help Africa' pleas.

[Vault 1]

What we do is have a label (in small print) in the local language mentioning this so we are not being deceitful. The problem is that they may stop eating the meal for a couple days, have fun, and get pregnant.

That's why I suggest "high impact" - permanent effect from prolonged use. It shouldn't be all that hard.

And you can do it in the open. Including in the US. Want free/near-free food? Go ahead, but it comes with a catch. Want to be able to continue your bloodline? Start supporting yourself first.

Likely to be cheaper than medical sterilizations and won't cause the uneducated masses to protest against "invasion of body" or something. As well as the educated liberal masses; people are offended by bloody images, not by text labels.

[Yorkopolis]

Did Africa help the USA in the 18th century when we were an agricultural nation? Did Africa help us out in the Great Depression period when we had the Dust Bowl? If Africa didn't help us out and we turned out OK than why do we need to help out Africa?

You're making it look like Africa should help us before we help them. And besides, you've just overlooked history, because in those times Africa was all colonies.

Liberals are more racist than people think. They think of Africans as babies that need white people's help. Why can't we treat Africans like other peoples and let them fend for themselves. It is usually white people that have white guilt. I think Africans can choose to either be prosperous or not, let them sink or swim. We can help them by being business partners with them and we can both make money. Plenty of foreign businesses are making money in China and both parties are happy.

And let's not forget about the racist bourgeois whiteys who think they are special snowflakes who should be treated special. If we should treat Africans like other peoples then why do we treat businessmen as such gods? If we let them fend for themselves, then you know what happens? It just keeps getting shittier and shittier and then you've just brought us back to square one. African's aren't babies, but they do need our help. We're giving it to the wrong person though. And besides, if we let everyone fend for themselves, you know what would have happened? We would all live in a shitty society where the poor always end up dying and the rich always end up living in big houses, with big cars, a nice chair and lots of food. You want that?

Or do liberals secretly think Africans are genetically dumber than other races and can't succeed. This is how I interpret all the 'help Africa' pleas.

You're quite wrong. It's white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-fascists and neo-Nazi's who think this kind of dumbshit. Everyone can succeed, but the Africans aren't given the chance. They have poor education, poor people. And they aren't poor because they are "lazy", they were born poor, given poor education, no shit that they can't become richer, they're not even given a fair chance.

[ShadowyStealer]

Well first get rid of money...

But if you can't do that cancel the bloody debt that is 'owned' to the rich western nations. It's just exploitation for greed; pure and simple. That report strikes me as false. They don't mention the proper issues. Like scarcity caused by money and also the whole debt situation.

[Freiheit Reich]

What we do is have a label (in small print) in the local language mentioning this so we are not being deceitful. The problem is that they may stop eating the meal for a couple days, have fun, and get pregnant.

That's why I suggest "high impact" - permanent effect from prolonged use. It shouldn't be all that hard.

And you can do it in the open. Including in the US. Want free/near-free food? Go ahead, but it comes with a catch. Want to be able to continue your bloodline? Start supporting yourself first.

Likely to be cheaper than medical sterilizations and won't cause the uneducated masses to protest against "invasion of body" or something. As well as the educated liberal masses; people are offended by bloody images, not by text labels.

I imagine there could be nasty side effects though. Steralization can probably be done cheap by training local doctors (or ones from nearby poor countries). For men it is even cheaper. The reversal is the harder and more expensive part but that would not be free for the poor. If the food could be made without dangerous side effects and affordable it would be a good idea.

Steralization could be a requirement for welfare if you have been on it over 2-3 months (in USA).

[Volnotova]

Of course I'm not advocating violence. Where did you get violence from that?

You want to take the money from top 100 earners worldwide. I don't see them giving it willingly.

And how could you possibly even consider biological warfare against the poor?

It's only warfare if they fight back. This would be more along the lines of a final solution to the question of poverty.

I can't believe what I am fucking reading here.

Do you know how contagious ebola is?

What if the infection spreads to major western population centres?

[Great Nepal]

Well first get rid of money...

No.
Money is commodity created for sake of convince and does its job well.

But if you can't do that cancel the bloody debt that is 'owned' to the rich western nations. It's just exploitation for greed; pure and simple. That report strikes me as false. They don't mention the proper issues. Like scarcity caused by money and also the whole debt situation.

No, it is neither exploitation nor greed. Is is money of nation A that was lent to the nation B, it is nation B's duty to pay it back.

[Freiheit Reich]

Did Africa help the USA in the 18th century when we were an agricultural nation? Did Africa help us out in the Great Depression period when we had the Dust Bowl? If Africa didn't help us out and we turned out OK than why do we need to help out Africa?

You're making it look like Africa should help us before we help them. And besides, you've just overlooked history, because in those times Africa was all colonies.

Liberals are more racist than people think. They think of Africans as babies that need white people's help. Why can't we treat Africans like other peoples and let them fend for themselves. It is usually white people that have white guilt. I think Africans can choose to either be prosperous or not, let them sink or swim. We can help them by being business partners with them and we can both make money. Plenty of foreign businesses are making money in China and both parties are happy.

And let's not forget about the racist bourgeois whiteys who think they are special snowflakes who should be treated special. If we should treat Africans like other peoples then why do we treat businessmen as such gods? If we let them fend for themselves, then you know what happens? It just keeps getting shittier and shittier and then you've just brought us back to square one. African's aren't babies, but they do need our help. We're giving it to the wrong person though. And besides, if we let everyone fend for themselves, you know what would have happened? We would all live in a shitty society where the poor always end up dying and the rich always end up living in big houses, with big cars, a nice chair and lots of food. You want that?

Or do liberals secretly think Africans are genetically dumber than other races and can't succeed. This is how I interpret all the 'help Africa' pleas.

You're quite wrong. It's white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-fascists and neo-Nazi's who think this kind of dumbshit. Everyone can succeed, but the Africans aren't given the chance. They have poor education, poor people. And they aren't poor because they are "lazy", they were born poor, given poor education, no shit that they can't become richer, they're not even given a fair chance.

Again, they have a chance if they choose to help themselves. Russia became a major power without much outside help, same for Great Britain, Italy. They had ugly and dark periods but they rose up through trade and their own hard work. Why is Africa incapable of doing it on their own?

Who was giving the USA welfare in the 1880's? We had trade with countries but not too much free welfare. The USA had charities and neighbors helped each other by choice, not because the govt. said they had to. The USA was also business friendly. Africa can change if they want to. Giving them money teaches them nothing.

Let charities give Africa education and money but don't force anybody to do it against their free will. That is theft.

[Tsuntion]

Well first get rid of money...

Eh, even if that was possible it'd probably reinvent itself and we'd eventually end up with a standardised currency again after much trouble, whilst not being able to help others any more for it.

[Vault 1]

Do you know how contagious ebola is?

Depends on transmission dose, about 10 PFU is sufficient, transmission occurs through bodily fluids from blood, decaying carcasses, intake of feces-contaminated water.

Contagion is well managed by moderate onset rate, high mortality, obvious symptoms.

What if the infection spreads to major western population centres?

Why hasn't it already, then? There have been plenty of outbreaks.
The virus is not environmentally resistant, transmission requires living hosts or significant exposure to fluids.

Not to mention you wouldn't be using natural virus, there has been extensive work on improved ZEBOV strains at DSTL and VECTOR. Which should provide more rapid onset and further higher mortality, further containing the risks within the poverty exclusion zones.

[Rereumrari]

Considering the techical definition of poverty is living on less than $1.25 a day, you probably wouldn't get that far when it comes to stealing the rich man's money.