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

[ShadowyStealer]

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.

Not if there was an effective resourced based economy instead.

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.

Sorry, not buying it. See what I did there? Then again, I'm happily anti capitalist

[Free South Califas]

Obviously I could donate $240 billion into a hole in the bottom of the ocean and it wouldn't solve world poverty four times over. It matters how you spend the $60 billion.

I am quite sure Development Assistance Committee donated its money on places with poverty and not a hole in bottom of ocean. If $60 billion would solve global poverty, poverty would have been wiped out decades ago.

Places with poverty and corruption, yes. Presumably, it is possible for DAC, like any other committee, to do its work even better than it has in the past, as well.

No, because they stole the product of others' labor, or benefited from the theft.

Nope they did no such thing.
They generated their money lawfully through consent of all parties involved.

Oh that's rich, you think workers consent to be bossed around The threat of starvation/deprivation is not a context in which consent is meaningfully possible, no.

No, because they stole the product of others' labor, or benefited from the theft.

Uhh...no. A swing and a miss.

Most of them own companies I'm assuming, yes? As the owner of the company they get a shit ton of profit, as its their company.

No theft involved.

Of course, as a Jerb Creater, your perspective in your ill-gotten gains is The Truth, while others are fundamentally absurd. Anyway, you and I both know the truth.

Are we surprised about this?

It seems like there's frequently this "news" about how the [highest of high] could solve/accomplish [widespread poor conditions] many times around. Let's just face reality and acknowledge that they won't.

I doubt Oxfam has any illusions about this. Or anyone else, frankly. The point is not that anyone thinks they will do this...

Was their work equal to what they were payed? If so, I'd like to see what they do, must be fucking amazing. If not, one can make a strong argument that it was stolen from those who did the hard work.

That doesn't really matter if they own the company, now does it?

Swing and a miss. (Hint: Either "it's not really theft" or "it is right to steal it" is a workable answer, but not both.)

No. These people bought some factories, but who did the labour? It's not them for sure. It's the workers, the underdogs, who did it.

Snipped godwin.
The workers were compensated for their labour as per contract both parties signed.

A contract which the owner would resent if circumstances were reversed, typically signed under threat of starvation or deprivation of self or dependents. I don't see it as any more ethically valid than a contract where I agree to let you take my food in exchange for your guards not raping me and leaving me for dead.

No. These people bought some factories, but who did the labour? It's not them for sure. It's the workers, the underdogs, who did it. If it were about those bosses their workers could die for all they cared, 'cause hey! If I can get profit and these workers die, it's good, right? Look at Nazi Germany. People were put in slave labour. By whom? Privately-owned companies. And these privately-owned companies did it on their own accord and on their own choices. Who financed Hitler? Privately-owned companies. They financed Hitler while he went about killing millions of people and leaving yet another several thousand homeless and without a family and in extreme poverty.

No theft involved? Who commenced the labour to create those products? It wasn't those bosses that did, for sure! They just sat back in a chair and bought some factories while the workers did all the work for them, and yet the bosses get lots of money and the workers don't. If that isn't theft to you then I don't know what is.

Godwin's law. You have lost the argument.

That's not actually how logic works, though.

Godwin's law. You have lost the argument.

Wealthy American anti-semites did fund the Nazis, but that doesn't have much to do with anything.

It's not insignificant that every Ford worker was forced to fund the Nazi regime and the Franco war effort with a portion of the product of their labor, especially considering that many were African-American. They were taxed to support both sides in the war (plus Franco, who the US never opposed).

Edit: Many replies were lost due to faulty coding. Oops.

[Yorkopolis]

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?

Russia became a major power through conquest and exploitation, Great Britain became a major power through conquest and exploitation, and Italy didn't exist until at least 1861 as a united state. France though became a major power through conquest and exploitation, and Italy - after it was founded - became a major power through conquest and exploitation. The same counts for Germany.

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.

Nobody gave the USA welfare, but if someone can't give something back it doesn't mean you have to just let them get fucked over. What if your best friend was in financial troubles and asked you if you could hand him some money?

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

Charity is stupid and a horrible way of aiding people. Besides, why do these top 100 earners need all that money anyhow? Buy more cars? What are they going to do with those cars? Put them in a garage only to get them out once in, say, three years or even more? Do they need more houses? Why? Do they need bigger houses? Why? Why do all these people need that money when it could be distributed more fairly? These people, after all, keep getting more money while sitting in an office, patting some shareholders on the back and offering them a few euro's or dollars and then sitting back again, smoking a cigarette, eating donuts and drinking lots of coffee. They didn't work hard to work their way up. They stole, let others do labour for them, took the profits, gave only a little amount of that profit back, commenced lots and lots of fraud, etc.
Shall I give you an example of what companies do? Here, in the Netherlands, we have a massive problem with vacancy of massive office buildings. These office buildings are used to generate vast amounts of wealth for a company, and the worst thing is, they're getting all the money tax-free! One of the companies doing this - KPMG - is notorious for having been in fraud before. And yet, they're still exempt from any punishment at all and their CEO is still accumulating vast amounts of wealth. What do they need it for? Money is a thing, it's arbitrary and unneeded. Free exchange without money, without costs etc. would be a lot better. And besides, having 300 houses in 55 different countries, 5500 cars, and still having vast amounts of wealth and generating only more and more is not needed. Why do these people need 300 houses? Do they even need it at all? Why have 5500 cars, when you're likely going to use only one or two of those? It makes no sense, no sense at all, that people make such vast amounts of wealth, keep generating more, and don't use that wealth for anything. They could use it to solve poverty but hey, why would they? All they care about is their own wallet because they're such self-entitled egocentric pricks, and if it were about them, anyone could die as long as they could keep their wallets filled with money they're never going to use.

[United States of America Under Dodes]

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.

Although I don't agree with abolishing currency (a principle of anarchists I'm led to believe), the current way we handle money in the majority of countries (possibly all), we've given enormous amount of unregulated power to banks and thus the financial sector. 97% of all wealth is now debt and I think it is now that every $1 created it equals to something like $5.50 of debt is created along with it. (According to the 2012 documentary "Four Horsemen")

[Freiheit Reich]

Charity is stupid and a horrible way of aiding people. Besides, why do these top 100 earners need all that money anyhow? Buy more cars? What are they going to do with those cars? Put them in a garage only to get them out once in, say, three years or even more? Do they need more houses? Why? Do they need bigger houses? Why? Why do all these people need that money when it could be distributed more fairly? These people, after all, keep getting more money while sitting in an office, patting some shareholders on the back and offering them a few euro's or dollars and then sitting back again, smoking a cigarette, eating donuts and drinking lots of coffee. They didn't work hard to work their way up. They stole, let others do labour for them, took the profits, gave only a little amount of that profit back, commenced lots and lots of fraud, etc.
Shall I give you an example of what companies do? Here, in the Netherlands, we have a massive problem with vacancy of massive office buildings. These office buildings are used to generate vast amounts of wealth for a company, and the worst thing is, they're getting all the money tax-free! One of the companies doing this - KPMG - is notorious for having been in fraud before. And yet, they're still exempt from any punishment at all and their CEO is still accumulating vast amounts of wealth. What do they need it for? Money is a thing, it's arbitrary and unneeded. Free exchange without money, without costs etc. would be a lot better. And besides, having 300 houses in 55 different countries, 5500 cars, and still having vast amounts of wealth and generating only more and more is not needed. Why do these people need 300 houses? Do they even need it at all? Why have 5500 cars, when you're likely going to use only one or two of those? It makes no sense, no sense at all, that people make such vast amounts of wealth, keep generating more, and don't use that wealth for anything. They could use it to solve poverty but hey, why would they? All they care about is their own wallet because they're such self-entitled egocentric pricks, and if it were about them, anyone could die as long as they could keep their wallets filled with money they're never going to use.

Why does the hippy need the Apple computer or the Amazon Kindle? He can have a typewriter and a paperback book instead. What gives you the right to say what another person needs. I know I don't need 10 cars but I have simpler tastes than Jay Leno. He has earned the right to have 100 plus cars. I don't advocate taking away 99 of his cars and giving them away to the poor. That is theft. If I was rich I would want to make sure my family was taken care of and I would donate to charities that help those I feel deserve it. Let me decide. Bill Gates chose to fund racist scholarships with his money, another man may choose to fund a children's hospital. Let people decide what to do with their money. I don't want to help Africa, the USA is in debt and has no business giving away money until we get the debt down to $0 (after I die probably).

[Yorkopolis]

Charity is stupid and a horrible way of aiding people. Besides, why do these top 100 earners need all that money anyhow? Buy more cars? What are they going to do with those cars? Put them in a garage only to get them out once in, say, three years or even more? Do they need more houses? Why? Do they need bigger houses? Why? Why do all these people need that money when it could be distributed more fairly? These people, after all, keep getting more money while sitting in an office, patting some shareholders on the back and offering them a few euro's or dollars and then sitting back again, smoking a cigarette, eating donuts and drinking lots of coffee. They didn't work hard to work their way up. They stole, let others do labour for them, took the profits, gave only a little amount of that profit back, commenced lots and lots of fraud, etc.
Shall I give you an example of what companies do? Here, in the Netherlands, we have a massive problem with vacancy of massive office buildings. These office buildings are used to generate vast amounts of wealth for a company, and the worst thing is, they're getting all the money tax-free! One of the companies doing this - KPMG - is notorious for having been in fraud before. And yet, they're still exempt from any punishment at all and their CEO is still accumulating vast amounts of wealth. What do they need it for? Money is a thing, it's arbitrary and unneeded. Free exchange without money, without costs etc. would be a lot better. And besides, having 300 houses in 55 different countries, 5500 cars, and still having vast amounts of wealth and generating only more and more is not needed. Why do these people need 300 houses? Do they even need it at all? Why have 5500 cars, when you're likely going to use only one or two of those? It makes no sense, no sense at all, that people make such vast amounts of wealth, keep generating more, and don't use that wealth for anything. They could use it to solve poverty but hey, why would they? All they care about is their own wallet because they're such self-entitled egocentric pricks, and if it were about them, anyone could die as long as they could keep their wallets filled with money they're never going to use.

Why does the hippy need the Apple computer or the Amazon Kindle? He can have a typewriter and a paperback book instead. What gives you the right to say what another person needs. I know I don't need 10 cars but I have simpler tastes than Jay Leno. He has earned the right to have 100 plus cars. I don't advocate taking away 99 of his cars and giving them away to the poor. That is theft. If I was rich I would want to make sure my family was taken care of and I would donate to charities that help those I feel deserve it. Let me decide. Bill Gates chose to fund racist scholarships with his money, another man may choose to fund a children's hospital. Let people decide what to do with their money. I don't want to help Africa, the USA is in debt and has no business giving away money until we get the debt down to $0 (after I die probably).

That's not the same. The rich people take more than they need, while having an Apple computer instead of a typewriter is a whole different thing, because as long as the hippy has one Apple computer, he has taken so much as needed, while if the rich man takes more than 1 car, he has taken more than needed.

[Freiheit Reich]

Why does the hippy need the Apple computer or the Amazon Kindle? He can have a typewriter and a paperback book instead. What gives you the right to say what another person needs. I know I don't need 10 cars but I have simpler tastes than Jay Leno. He has earned the right to have 100 plus cars. I don't advocate taking away 99 of his cars and giving them away to the poor. That is theft. If I was rich I would want to make sure my family was taken care of and I would donate to charities that help those I feel deserve it. Let me decide. Bill Gates chose to fund racist scholarships with his money, another man may choose to fund a children's hospital. Let people decide what to do with their money. I don't want to help Africa, the USA is in debt and has no business giving away money until we get the debt down to $0 (after I die probably).

That's not the same. The rich people take more than they need, while having an Apple computer instead of a typewriter is a whole different thing, because as long as the hippy has one Apple computer, he has taken so much as needed, while if the rich man takes more than 1 car, he has taken more than needed.

That is opinion. An Apple computer may be worth 20 typewriters. The guy could get 1 typewriter and donate the other 19 to poor people that can't even afford a typewriter (or he could use the money to buy them books, food, writing supplies, etc). Nobody needs the Apple computer and it isn't fair one guy gets one when people in Africa can't even afford a typewriter.

Need is relative. Besides, if we work hard than why can't we have some luxuries? I can only read one book at a time but I enjoy having a few dozen in my home to choose from. Should I only be allowed to have 1 book?

Most people don't even need one car. They can use a bike or motor scooter instead. The rich guy doesn't need 100 cars but if he wants them and didn't steal them than let him buy what he wants. The money he spent on cars trickled down to autoworkers and part suppliers anyway. He created jobs through buying cars.

[Jullin]

That's not the same. The rich people take more than they need, while having an Apple computer instead of a typewriter is a whole different thing, because as long as the hippy has one Apple computer, he has taken so much as needed, while if the rich man takes more than 1 car, he has taken more than needed.

Need implies a requirement, or a necessity. An Apple computer is neither of those things. It is a want, a desire. Greed, if you will.

[Free South Califas]

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


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.

Although I don't agree with abolishing currency (a principle of anarchists I'm led to believe)

Some anarchists. Others prefer workarounds like community stores, work-hour certificates, etc. (Cite)

That's not the same. The rich people take more than they need, while having an Apple computer instead of a typewriter is a whole different thing, because as long as the hippy has one Apple computer, he has taken so much as needed, while if the rich man takes more than 1 car, he has taken more than needed.

Need implies a requirement, or a necessity. An Apple computer is neither of those things. It is a want, a desire. Greed, if you will.

Complete and utter bullshit, in all cases where the computer is used for labor or organizing one's day, which is so close to 100% for the people you're talking about that quibbling over the difference is an exercise in absurdity.

If we're just looking at the working and impoverished classes, though, (which, yes, includes these 'hippies' unless they can generally afford to hire help) a computer and a fast internet connection is a need, because otherwise it is impossible to compete fairly for a job. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

[Jullin]

Complete and utter bullshit, in all cases where the computer is used for labor or organizing one's day, which is so close to 100% for the people you're talking about that quibbling over the difference is an exercise in absurdity.

Every job I've ever worked at has provided me with a computer for my productivity needs where one was required. And 'organising one's day' is not a reason for owning a computer. People managed for centuries with diaries and calendars.

If we're just looking at the working and impoverished classes, though, (which, yes, includes these 'hippies' unless they can generally afford to hire help) a computer and a fast internet connection is a need, because otherwise it is impossible to compete fairly for a job. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

Libraries have computer access. Jobcentres offer facilities too. Nobody 'needs' a computer in their home.



And in either of these circumstances, a 10 year old computer will accomplish the same task. I should know, I'm using an eight-year-old machine right now. There's no need for any Apple Macs or high-spec Windows Ultrabooks. And this isn't mentioning the superfluous nature of TVs etc.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that we all sell our non-essential utilities and devote every penny of our wages that we don't need for a basic standard of living to Africa. Because the economy would collapse, for one thing, and then nobody would be able to help anybody. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy - most people posting on this forum have more than they need. And we've earned it, it's ours, to do with as we please.

[Demara]

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?

Well, that's news. I didn't know that "Africa" was one unilateral entity. I always thought that it was a vast landmass, with over one billion heterogeneous people, with over twenty ethnic groups with over ten million people (and far more with fewer than that number), nearly sixty countries and over twenty-two hundred languages spoken. It's almost like you're combined the second most populous/second largest continent in the world together, because, apparently, you can't see the difference between individuals there! That's a wonderful attitude to have towards an entire continent of people!

(less snarky aside: in face, the heterogeneity of African nations has been one of the major questions regarding growth and stimulating growth in Africa and has given birth to a fairly vast literature on the effects* of cultural homogeneity/heterogeneity on growth).

* - with the exception of Barro (1996), these are selected mostly at random, purely to illustrate the size of the literature. Unlike articles I normally link, there's no particular importance to any of these nor are they really particularly interesting.

[Keron]

No, they can't. They can give leaders the financial resources they need to tackle poverty, but that alone does not solve poverty.

I can spend hundreds of billions of dollars and accomplish literally nothing.

[Free South Califas]

Complete and utter bullshit, in all cases where the computer is used for labor or organizing one's day, which is so close to 100% for the people you're talking about that quibbling over the difference is an exercise in absurdity.

Every job I've ever worked at has provided me with a computer for my productivity needs where one was required. And 'organising one's day' is not a reason for owning a computer. People managed for centuries with diaries and calendars.

If we're just looking at the working and impoverished classes, though, (which, yes, includes these 'hippies' unless they can generally afford to hire help) a computer and a fast internet connection is a need, because otherwise it is impossible to compete fairly for a job. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

Libraries have computer access. Jobcentres offer facilities too. Nobody 'needs' a computer in their home.



And in either of these circumstances, a 10 year old computer will accomplish the same task. I should know, I'm using an eight-year-old machine right now. There's no need for any Apple Macs or high-spec Windows Ultrabooks. And this isn't mentioning the superfluous nature of TVs etc.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that we all sell our non-essential utilities and devote every penny of our wages that we don't need for a basic standard of living to Africa. Because the economy would collapse, for one thing, and then nobody would be able to help anybody. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy - most people posting on this forum have more than they need. And we've earned it, it's ours, to do with as we please.

You're hilarious. I'll give it six months before you find some pretense for cutting library hours and axing unemployment services, if you haven't already.

No, they can't. They can give leaders the financial resources they need to tackle poverty, but that alone does not solve poverty.

I can spend hundreds of billions of dollars and accomplish literally nothing.

That would be Oxfam's point, yes.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Yet people scoff when I point out that the rich are parasites engaging in broad-scale theft on a level that approaches genocide.

[Keron]

Yet people scoff when I point out that the rich are parasites engaging in broad-scale theft on a level that approaches genocide.

How is it theft?

[CVT Temp]

Yeah, but ending poverty isn't great-souled.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Yet people scoff when I point out that the rich are parasites engaging in broad-scale theft on a level that approaches genocide.

How is it theft?

Everyone is entitled by their existence as a being capable of thought to equal opportunities for self-actualization. The denial of resources for these opportunities by people with zero rightful claim to them(resources belong to nobody, because nobody created them,) is theft from those who are being denied.

[Keron]

How is it theft?

Everyone is entitled by their existence as a being capable of thought to equal opportunities for self-actualization. The denial of resources for these opportunities by people with zero rightful claim to them(resources belong to nobody, because nobody created them,) is theft from those who are being denied.

I'm not sure that those in extreme poverty are quite so concerned about self-actualisation as they are about physiological needs. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just that: a hierarchy.

And, whilst I do agree that every human should have equality of opportunity, in practice that is almost impossible to implement without a tyrannical government (one can argue that it is his right to distribute his wealth as he sees fit - inheritance, charity, etc.).

Those people have a rightful claim over certain resources. It's the basis of property rights. You legitimise your control over certain resources. So, when I work for a restaurant, that restaurant's owner justifies his use of my labour with the capital that I use off of him, and vice versa.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Everyone is entitled by their existence as a being capable of thought to equal opportunities for self-actualization. The denial of resources for these opportunities by people with zero rightful claim to them(resources belong to nobody, because nobody created them,) is theft from those who are being denied.

I'm not sure that those in extreme poverty are quite so concerned about self-actualisation as they are about physiological needs. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just that: a hierarchy.

And, whilst I do agree that every human should have equality of opportunity, in practice that is almost impossible to implement without a tyrannical government (one can argue that it is his right to distribute his wealth as he sees fit - inheritance, charity, etc.).

Those people have a rightful claim over certain resources. It's the basis of property rights. You legitimise your control over certain resources. So, when I work for a restaurant, that restaurant's owner justifies his use of my labour with the capital that I use off of him, and vice versa.

Property rights are fictional. Private ownership of capital is parasitic activity designed to hinder others. A tyrannical government is not needed; simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of someone's "right" to things you cannot live without and take what you need; the earth provides for free, so every step in the chain is an attempt to steal the food from your mouth.

[Socialist States Owen]

I'm skeptical.

Firstly; is their wealth enough to permanently lift these people out of poverty, or just for a particular period of time? I somehow doubt the former is the case. Secondly, does this involve bankrupting some of these earners? Thirdly, what would stop poverty reoccurring anyway?

[The Occident]

Why does it appear that the solutions most are proposing here involve either killing the poor, blindly throwing money at them, or making unreasonable demands of nations recieving humanitarian aid? o.O

I mean, I'm no bleeding heart, but KILLING them?!

[Choronzon]

If no one was poor who else would the top 100 earners exploit in order to keep earning enough to be one of the top 100 earners?

[Divair]

Why does it appear that the solutions most are proposing here involve either killing the poor, blindly throwing money at them, or making unreasonable demands of nations recieving humanitarian aid? o.O

I mean, I'm no bleeding heart, but KILLING them?!

Jokes, lad.

[Merriwhether]

It might fix some of the civil war problems or warlords. But the corruption slows economic growth and economic stability. Italy is a great example of this as they are considered as one of the PIIGS countries. Their corruption if it was it's own country would be the 76th largest economy and comparable to Serbia and Croatia. Italy's budget would be balanced if the corruption didn't exist. Corruption is a global problem, I selected Italy as it might be the most extreme result of corruption due to economic bulk.

Hardly fixes the civil war or warlord problem. That implies a competent government that:

A. Can fight and win against warlords or rebels (clearly not the case, see Mali for most recent example)
B. Is tolerated by the vast majority of people (still clearly not the case, see Mali again)


Don't get me wrong, democracy is a nice step, but it doesn't stop anything, it only makes some things a bit less likely to happen.

Precisely. The government is incompetent, not the political process.

A normal, virgin Economic System is based on a self-correcting loop or Torus (like the Magnetic Field). The problem with that is the top 1%, as well as corruption, is sucking the life out of it like a giant leech. As aforementioned, the average income of the top 1% has increased 60% over the past 20 years. That leech is only getting bigger.

[Free South Califas]

And, whilst I do agree that every human should have equality of opportunity, in practice that is almost impossible to implement without a tyrannical government

Nope, here are numerous examples of societies which have abolished the state for that very purpose, or never had one.

(one can argue that it is his right to distribute his wealth as he sees fit - inheritance, charity, etc.).

Not ethically, no, one cannot.

Those people have a rightful claim over certain resources. It's the basis of property rights.

And what you call "property rights", we call "theft".

You legitimise your control over certain resources.

Speak for yourself.

So, when I work for a restaurant, that restaurant's owner justifies his use of my labour with the capital that I use off of him, and vice versa.

Under conditions which the owner would almost surely resent if the circumstances were reversed, according to an agreement signed under coercive threat of deprivation.