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

[Frisivisia]

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.

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.

[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.

Income Inequality, mang. It sucks.

It's inescapable, unless we want a communist economy, and I don't. But the degree of it can be managed, such as to ensure that there's enough of the pie left over after the upper crust have taken "their share".

[Romalae]

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.

[Frisivisia]

Income Inequality, mang. It sucks.

It's inescapable, unless we want a communist economy, and I don't. But the degree of it can be managed, such as to ensure that there's enough of the pie left over after the upper crust have taken "their share".

Communism is political Nirvana, it's the perfect system. However, like most perfect systems, it also happens to be a pipe dream.

[New Chalcedon]

It's inescapable, unless we want a communist economy, and I don't. But the degree of it can be managed, such as to ensure that there's enough of the pie left over after the upper crust have taken "their share".

Communism is political Nirvana, it's the perfect system. However, like most perfect systems, it also happens to be a pipe dream.

If Communism was feasible, this wouldn't be Earth. It would be Heaven.

Being as I recognise that humans are humans and not angels, I decline to legislate an attempt at Heaven.

[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.

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.

Not upper middle class, middle-middle class. No, I have not gone hungry but my mother didn't have 8 children. I was the only one. If she had 6 children and made the same wage than I might not eat as well. Don't have children you can't afford, have common sense.

What does color have to do with it? I didn't throw out a race card, why should you? Should I feel guilty I was born with white skin which cost me many scholarship opportunities because I was not 'a minority race'?

Zimbawbwe kept Mugabe in power over 30 years. N. Korea kept Kim Jon Il in power, plenty more long-term crappy dictators in power so that means the poor people are happy with crappy leaders. Romania killed their dictator in 1989. Why can't other places do the same?

I worked in Iraq. Most of those workers were worthless with crappy attitudes. You could give them a 2 hour break and ask them to do a task that takes 30 minutes and they will complain (I am tired, blah, blah). They are tired while I did not get as much breaks. I have experience working with Iraqis and it was negative. I am guessing the work ethic in all Arab countries is the same. Probably most African countries as well. If it is than I understand why they are poor. China and India are stealing jobs, why can't Sudan and Somalia attract factories and call centers as well?

[Trollgaard]

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.

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?

[Arkinesia]

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.

There's nothing “racist” in stating the fact that at present, Congo, Somalia, and Afghanistan present poor prospects for their citizens.

[Yorkopolis]

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.

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, 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.

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.

[Great Nepal]

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

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.

[North Stradia]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Frisivisia]

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.

Not upper middle class, middle-middle class. No, I have not gone hungry but my mother didn't have 8 children. I was the only one. If she had 6 children and made the same wage than I might not eat as well. Don't have children you can't afford, have common sense.

What does color have to do with it? I didn't throw out a race card, why should you? Should I feel guilty I was born with white skin which cost me many scholarship opportunities because I was not 'a minority race'?

Zimbawbwe kept Mugabe in power over 30 years. N. Korea kept Kim Jon Il in power, plenty more long-term crappy dictators in power so that means the poor people are happy with crappy leaders. Romania killed their dictator in 1989. Why can't other places do the same?

I worked in Iraq. Most of those workers were worthless with crappy attitudes. You could give them a 2 hour break and ask them to do a task that takes 30 minutes and they will complain (I am tired, blah, blah). They are tired while I did not get as much breaks. I have experience working with Iraqis and it was negative. I am guessing the work ethic in all Arab countries is the same. Probably most African countries as well. If it is than I understand why they are poor. China and India are stealing jobs, why can't Sudan and Somalia attract factories and call centers as well?

Poor people have more children because they don't have proper access to birth control and abortion, as well as not having good enough sex education. You didn't lose scholarship opportunities because you wee white, and if you keep lying to yourself like that, you're bound to the fantasy world which the right has constructed for itself.

Poor people didn't keep Kim Jong Il in power, he's a tyrant, and tyrants tend to keep power.

Good thing anecdotes which might well be lies aren't evidence.

[Frisivisia]

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.

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

[Freiheit Reich]

Not upper middle class, middle-middle class. No, I have not gone hungry but my mother didn't have 8 children. I was the only one. If she had 6 children and made the same wage than I might not eat as well. Don't have children you can't afford, have common sense.

What does color have to do with it? I didn't throw out a race card, why should you? Should I feel guilty I was born with white skin which cost me many scholarship opportunities because I was not 'a minority race'?

Zimbawbwe kept Mugabe in power over 30 years. N. Korea kept Kim Jon Il in power, plenty more long-term crappy dictators in power so that means the poor people are happy with crappy leaders. Romania killed their dictator in 1989. Why can't other places do the same?

I worked in Iraq. Most of those workers were worthless with crappy attitudes. You could give them a 2 hour break and ask them to do a task that takes 30 minutes and they will complain (I am tired, blah, blah). They are tired while I did not get as much breaks. I have experience working with Iraqis and it was negative. I am guessing the work ethic in all Arab countries is the same. Probably most African countries as well. If it is than I understand why they are poor. China and India are stealing jobs, why can't Sudan and Somalia attract factories and call centers as well?

Poor people have more children because they don't have proper access to birth control and abortion, as well as not having good enough sex education. You didn't lose scholarship opportunities because you wee white, and if you keep lying to yourself like that, you're bound to the fantasy world which the right has constructed for itself.

Poor people didn't keep Kim Jong Il in power, he's a tyrant, and tyrants tend to keep power.

Good thing anecdotes which might well be lies aren't evidence.

A lot of scholarships are for minorities but not whites. Race based scholarships are racist, even if they are anti-white. Bill Gates is racist, read the rule (just one example among many):

http://rense.com/general92/gates.htm

Students are eligible to be considered for a Gates MS scholarship if they are African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American.

How do you explain the French Revolution? Bolshevik Revolution? Cuban Revolution 1959? China Revolution 1949? These were not good but they were examples of crappy leaders being overthrown by poor people (and replaced by new idiots). Corrupt leaders can be overthrown. Read your history books closer.

[Napkiraly]

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.

It's funny how you think all poor people are lazy. You'd be shocked to find out that when my family was poor for four years, my mother was anything but lazy.

[The Occident]

Ability and will mean very different things.

NO. We can't force them to spend their money that way.

Then you have to consider the myriad of other factors. War, corruption on government, cultural divisions and humanitarian will, to name a few. Most of the countries that need this aid the most also have some of the weakest, most corrupt governments in the world. There's little, if any, guarantee of the aid, should it come, getting to where it needs to go. Second, cultural divisions within the nation often lead to conflicts over what aid is recieved, usually on the iterpersonal level. Many of the nations that need this aid also have weak militaries that do not often obey the overrarching command. They will easily disobey orders and hurt or kill others if it means more wood or supplies for themselves. Humanitarian will is the biggest factor.

There is no single nation capable of solving the poverty crisis on its own. When you look to poverty, you can't just blame the wealthiest for not helping the poorest. The world's wealthiest people are typically either investors or inventors, people whose money often goes back into corporate operations. And there's nothing we can do about which way they spend their disposable income. Whenever you look to poverty, it is good to see the potential positive outcomes, but when the bricks are shipped, you have to take a good, hard look at what can realistically be done. The world's top 100 earners can't solve the poverty problem. No one can. It's a vicious, but inimitable cycle. The nation-in-need's people are poor, so the government cannot do what it needs to do to address poverty (or in some cases will not), ergo the nation remains in bad shape.

Population and safety plays an enormous role. Most of these nations have either very dense or very sparse populations, with aid either sometimes having to inch along or being hundreds of miles away at best. Yes, better to move at a snail's pace than not to move at all, but it's hard to distribute aid effectively when you're dealing with some of the most packed (or sparse) areas on Earth.

The poverty question is a question of will versus ability versus circumstance. Seldom do the three ever appear to match.

[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.

It's funny how you think all poor people are lazy. You'd be shocked to find out that when my family was poor for four years, my mother was anything but lazy.

Not all but many. Why has South Korea gone up so much versus Pakistan? Attitude and culture. South Koreans take shorter chai breaks and know how to work. They also value education more. This is an example among many. Also the Iraqis I worked with were generally lazy. My impression of poor countries comes from them as well as news stories about genocide and high crime rates and high corruption rates in poor countries.

[Divair]

It's funny how you think all poor people are lazy. You'd be shocked to find out that when my family was poor for four years, my mother was anything but lazy.

Not all but many. Why has South Korea gone up so much versus Pakistan? Attitude and culture. South Koreans take shorter chai breaks and know how to work. They also value education more. This is an example among many. Also the Iraqis I worked with were generally lazy. My impression of poor countries comes from them as well as news stories about genocide and high crime rates and high corruption rates in poor countries.

Probably has more to do with the fact that SK was flooded with American funds, actually.

[Freiheit Reich]

Not all but many. Why has South Korea gone up so much versus Pakistan? Attitude and culture. South Koreans take shorter chai breaks and know how to work. They also value education more. This is an example among many. Also the Iraqis I worked with were generally lazy. My impression of poor countries comes from them as well as news stories about genocide and high crime rates and high corruption rates in poor countries.

Probably has more to do with the fact that SK was flooded with American funds, actually.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq have billions in US funds. Nice to see it is being used wisely.

Africa gets a lot of donations as well. Most of these donations go into the pockets of crappy leaders (with the will of their subjects). SK used donations in a smart way while other countries squandor them and cry for more.

[Divair]

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq have billions in US funds. Nice to see it is being used wisely.

Get back to me in 40 years and we'll compare how much each country got, sound good?

Africa gets a lot of donations as well. Most of these donations go into the pockets of crappy leaders (with the will of their subjects). SK used donations in a smart way while other countries squandor them and cry for more.

Africa wasn't practically occupied by the USA, but nice try.

[Napkiraly]

Not all but many. Why has South Korea gone up so much versus Pakistan? Attitude and culture. South Koreans take shorter chai breaks and know how to work. They also value education more. This is an example among many. Also the Iraqis I worked with were generally lazy. My impression of poor countries comes from them as well as news stories about genocide and high crime rates and high corruption rates in poor countries.

Probably has more to do with the fact that SK was flooded with American funds, actually.

What Divair said.

Also, did you know that German workers get more time off than Greeks do? Huh, strange. This must mean Greece has a better economy than Germany.

[Freiheit Reich]

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq have billions in US funds. Nice to see it is being used wisely.

Get back to me in 40 years and we'll compare how much each country got, sound good?

Africa gets a lot of donations as well. Most of these donations go into the pockets of crappy leaders (with the will of their subjects). SK used donations in a smart way while other countries squandor them and cry for more.

Africa wasn't practically occupied by the USA, but nice try.

OK, another case. China since 1979 versus Zimbawbwe (and most other African countries) in 1979. China didn't get much US help. Look at how fast their economy has grown. They solved their own poverty without begging for help from Europe or USA. They stole jobs by having competitive advantages and could have grown even faster if they were even more business friendly (they are not the easiest place to do business in). What has Zimbawbwe, Sudan, or Niger done since then?

[Divair]

OK, another case. China since 1979 versus Zimbawbwe (and most other African countries) in 1979. China didn't get much US help. Look at how fast their economy has grown. They solved their own poverty without begging for help from Europe or USA. They stole jobs by having competitive advantages and could have grown even faster if they were even more business friendly (they are not the easiest place to do business in). What has Zimbawbwe, Sudan, or Niger done since then?

Comparing China and Zimbabwe is hilarious, especially as someone from South Africa.

Good fight, son, but I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously here.

[Demara]

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.

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?

[Free South Califas]

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

Handing out guns is not the cure to an invasion, but that doesn't mean it won't help if done correctly.