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

[Divair]

Screw it. Eat the poor.

1. Eat everyone except Carlos Slim.
2. ???
3. No poverty!

[Caninope]

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.

Would you like to play again?

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

A corrupt democracy is better than a half dozen warlords duking it out for control of a country.

[Divair]

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.

A corrupt democracy is better than a half dozen warlords duking it out for control of a country.

As someone from South Africa:
Only barely. Introducing democracy is a nice tiny step, but it's hardly going to solve any major issues.

[Great Nepal]

So, $60 billion will solve world poverty?
Someone should tell that to Development Assistance Committee who donated $120 billion in 2009, which unless I missed the memo didn't solve world poverty two times over.

[The Serbian Empire]

A corrupt democracy is better than a half dozen warlords duking it out for control of a country.

As someone from South Africa:
Only barely. Introducing democracy is a nice tiny step, but it's hardly going to solve any major issues.

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. Just imagine if one could convert government waste by corruption into aid for the poor.

[Divair]

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.

[Great Nepal]

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.

A corrupt democracy is better than a half dozen warlords duking it out for control of a country.

Non democracy =/= warlords and democracy doesn't automatically mean good.
Nepal was monarchy prior to revolution and it had a constitution, rule of law and actual government.
After revolution, there is no constitution for last six years and there is no actual government either. Oh, and there hasn't been election for last six years either.
I doubt anyone can argue it was better before democracy.

[Trollgaard]

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.

Bullshit. They have no obligation to help. They can do whatever they want with their money. They could make a giant bonfire and burn it all, as its their money.

[Freiheit Reich]

God helps those who help themself.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Poor countries want free money and food yet they still mass produce babies they can't feed and support leaders who steal from the people and don't help the country. Many of these countries (not all) that are poor have high crime rates meaning the people there are not very nice and less deserving of help. Congo, Somalia, and Afghanistan come to mind.

S. Korea was poor in 1960 and look at it today.
Pakistan was poor in 1960 and look at it today.

China 1970 vs. Zimbawbwe 1970. The list goes on and on. Some countries shape up and move up and others continue to be lazy and corrupt. Rich people can't change laziness or an idiotic culture.

[Nidaria]

Handing out money is not the cure to poverty, as others have stated.

[Frisivisia]

God helps those who help themself.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Poor countries want free money and food yet they still mass produce babies they can't feed and support leaders who steal from the people and don't help the country. Many of these countries (not all) that are poor have high crime rates meaning the people there are not very nice and less deserving of help. Congo, Somalia, and Afghanistan come to mind.

S. Korea was poor in 1960 and look at it today.
Pakistan was poor in 1960 and look at it today.

China 1970 vs. Zimbawbwe 1970. The list goes on and on. Some countries shape up and move up and others continue to be lazy and corrupt. Rich people can't change laziness or an idiotic culture.

Poor people are poor because they're lazy, right? Not because they were poor to begin with, or because they went to poor schools, or because they never got enough to eat, or because they couldn't find a good job, or anything. And you would know, being an almost certainly upper-middle class white male who's never gone hungry ever.

[Free South Califas]

The point is the implications for broader policy, not to directly resolve the question of what the top 100 earners should do with their money. If the wealth of 100 people could mathematically do the trick, then the wealth of nations is good enough, too.

[Densaner]

Wait a minute...rich people are greedy? Wow this is shocking!

[Great Nepal]

Wait a minute...rich people are greedy? Wow this is shocking!

More like Oxfam's report is bogus.

[Free South Califas]

So, $60 billion will solve world poverty?
Someone should tell that to Development Assistance Committee who donated $120 billion in 2009, which unless I missed the memo didn't solve world poverty two times over.

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.

[Rudolph Hucker]

God helps those who help themself.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Poor countries want free money and food yet they still mass produce babies they can't feed and support leaders who steal from the people and don't help the country. Many of these countries (not all) that are poor have high crime rates meaning the people there are not very nice and less deserving of help. Congo, Somalia, and Afghanistan come to mind.

S. Korea was poor in 1960 and look at it today.
Pakistan was poor in 1960 and look at it today.

China 1970 vs. Zimbawbwe 1970. The list goes on and on. Some countries shape up and move up and others continue to be lazy and corrupt. Rich people can't change laziness or an idiotic culture.

I have read some fatuous claptrap in my time but you manage to combine it with an extreme form of racism and general witlessness. Do grow up a bit.

[The Serbian Empire]

A corrupt democracy is better than a half dozen warlords duking it out for control of a country.

Non democracy =/= warlords and democracy doesn't automatically mean good.
Nepal was monarchy prior to revolution and it had a constitution, rule of law and actual government.
After revolution, there is no constitution for last six years and there is no actual government either. Oh, and there hasn't been election for last six years either.
I doubt anyone can argue it was better before democracy.

A stable monarchy is still preferable as one can predict what who is ruling in the future. But most countries don't have a royal family to fall back on.

[Divair]

So, $60 billion will solve world poverty?
Someone should tell that to Development Assistance Committee who donated $120 billion in 2009, which unless I missed the memo didn't solve world poverty two times over.

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.

Removing the widespread corruption would dramatically improve the effectiveness of said funding, too.

[Free South Califas]

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.

Bullshit. They have no obligation to help. They can do whatever they want with their money. They could make a giant bonfire and burn it all, as its their money.

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

[Great Nepal]

So, $60 billion will solve world poverty?
Someone should tell that to Development Assistance Committee who donated $120 billion in 2009, which unless I missed the memo didn't solve world poverty two times over.

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.

[New Chalcedon]

Interesting. While I doubt that $240bn/year would solve world poverty (such matters as logistics, distribution of the resulting goods, scale issues etc.), it would certainly make a huge dent.

Not that it'll happen - you'll have to pry their money out of their cold, dead, grasping hands.

On a somewhat more serious note: the data I can grab indicate that ~1 billion people live on less than $1/day (figures from 2005, adjusting for inflation). These 100 peoples' combined income is greater than that of those billion persons. Something strikes me as being profoundly wrong about such a fact, although it's hardly surprising - after all, the top 400 families in America receive as much income as the bottom 150,000,000 American citizens combined.

[Great Nepal]

Bullshit. They have no obligation to help. They can do whatever they want with their money. They could make a giant bonfire and burn it all, as its their money.

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.

[Frisivisia]

Interesting. While I doubt that $240bn/year would solve world poverty (such matters as logistics, distribution of the resulting goods, scale issues etc.), it would certainly make a huge dent.

Not that it'll happen - you'll have to pry their money out of their cold, dead, grasping hands.

On a somewhat more serious note: the data I can grab indicate that ~1 billion people live on less than $1/day (figures from 2005, adjusting for inflation). These 100 peoples' combined income is greater than that of those billion persons. Something strikes me as being profoundly wrong about such a fact, although it's hardly surprising - after all, the top 400 families in America receive as much income as the bottom 150,000,000 American citizens combined.

Income Inequality, mang. It sucks.

[Trollgaard]

Bullshit. They have no obligation to help. They can do whatever they want with their money. They could make a giant bonfire and burn it all, as its their money.

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.