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

[Demara]

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

I'm sure that Jeffrey Sachs would be stunned to learn that you have come to an objective understanding of one of the thorniest economic/political problems of our day and that all of his academic work is totally invalidated by one, unexplained, unsubstantiated sentence online. Similarly, I'm sure William Easterly is surprised that he's been proven objectively correct by someone on the internet.*

* I'm being mean, I realise that, and I apologise for it. The point is that there aren't objective correct answers on this subject...and treating some statements as such is downright disrespectful to the work that people have done towards understanding problems like aid and poverty. Approaching this topic begins at reading Sachs and Easterly (and, for me, Duflo/Banerjee as well**), and then making comprehensive, case-by-case judgements. Development economics is a vast field, not one-line statements.***

** My own belief on aid is probably somewhere in the middle, in case you were curious, but that's undoubtedly coloured by my own work experience with organisations like JPAL and IFMR.

*** I'm not saying that you haven't read these authors don't know the field very well, I'm simply using this post as an example of this phenomenon. I apologise if I unfairly singled you out.

[Chestaan]

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.

You seem to believe that it's just a coincidence that poor countries also have high crime rates. It's not. They have high crime rates because they're poor. They also have high birth rates because they are poor. So, to argue that we shouldn't help nations out of poverty because they have high birth and crime rates makes no sense, as reducing poverty would also likely reduce crime and birth rates.

[LeftNightmare]

Good thing they're not being forced to give a free ride to a billion people.

[Salandriagado]

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

You realise, of course, that in many of these countries, having children is a net profit, right? Because after the first few years, the ones that survive get working on the farm or in the streets and bringing in an income. There is a reason that they have so many children, you know.

and support leaders who steal from the people and don't help the country.

"Support" has nothing to do with it. "Force" is rather more like it.

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.

Nothing to do with the people there, generally. Congo has been on the receiving end of some serious shit, with dictators propped up by foreign forces, Somalia is in the middle of a civil war, and Afghanistan is being invaded.

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

Here's a tip: don't go there. You will not like the answer to why that happened.

Pakistan was poor in 1960 and look at it today.

Still poor?

China 1970 vs. Zimbawbwe 1970. The list goes on and on.

Zimbabwe had a fucking civil war and a whole shitton of other problems. You might also want to avoid going into why China managed what it did, you aren't going to like that either.

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.

Thank you for demonstrating beyond doubt that you have absolutely no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

You do realize that for those people, 160 dollars a year is, at the very least, a 50 percent increase in their income, which in those economies would put them above subsistence level?

[The Occident]

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.

The will of the subjects? You sure about that?

[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.

You seem to believe that it's just a coincidence that poor countries also have high crime rates. It's not. They have high crime rates because they're poor. They also have high birth rates because they are poor. So, to argue that we shouldn't help nations out of poverty because they have high birth and crime rates makes no sense, as reducing poverty would also likely reduce crime and birth rates.

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.

[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

You realise, of course, that in many of these countries, having children is a net profit, right? Because after the first few years, the ones that survive get working on the farm or in the streets and bringing in an income. There is a reason that they have so many children, you know.

and support leaders who steal from the people and don't help the country.

"Support" has nothing to do with it. "Force" is rather more like it.

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.

Nothing to do with the people there, generally. Congo has been on the receiving end of some serious shit, with dictators propped up by foreign forces, Somalia is in the middle of a civil war, and Afghanistan is being invaded.

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

Here's a tip: don't go there. You will not like the answer to why that happened.

Pakistan was poor in 1960 and look at it today.

Still poor?

China 1970 vs. Zimbawbwe 1970. The list goes on and on.

Zimbabwe had a fucking civil war and a whole shitton of other problems. You might also want to avoid going into why China managed what it did, you aren't going to like that either.

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.

Thank you for demonstrating beyond doubt that you have absolutely no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about.

Most Afghanis are Pashtuns and most Taliban are Pashtuns. Of course the Pashtuns supported the Taliban in power. After the USSR pulled out Afghanistan had a civil war and then the Taliban stayed in power with the will of the majority. If the people were against a leadership they would force it out (see my older comment about various revolutions). I can't feel too sorry for countries that allow crappy leaders. The USA elected Bush and Obama and we are suffering for it as well. It is our fault for choosing these leaders, not Europe's fault.

China had restrictions on freedoms but at least the lives of most of their citizens improved. Afghanistan under the Taliban had even harsher restrictions (except when it came to childbearing) and they stayed poor.

Civil War means war between people IN the country. Those are Somalis fighting among themselves and choosing to be violent instead of making their country a regional powerhouse. They have a port, beaches, abundance of cheap labor. If they stop corruption, get a free government, cut down crime, and legalize drinking, gambling, prostitution, and have low tax/duty free shopping than they could be like the UAE (without the oil). Arabs could go there to party and spend their money at the same time. This is happening in Dubai. They choose not to do these things so they will stay poor.

[Frisivisia]

You seem to believe that it's just a coincidence that poor countries also have high crime rates. It's not. They have high crime rates because they're poor. They also have high birth rates because they are poor. So, to argue that we shouldn't help nations out of poverty because they have high birth and crime rates makes no sense, as reducing poverty would also likely reduce crime and birth rates.

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.

Sure is a good thing that anecdotes aren't data, otherwise you'd be right.

[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.

Sure is a good thing that anecdotes aren't data, otherwise you'd be right.

It is the foreigners causing most of the crime problems in Bhutan. Still, it is low:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Bhutan

http://safety.worldnomads.com/Bhutan/72 ... -Happiness

Dangerous countries (many I mentioned earlier as bad, including Pakistan and Afghanistan):

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/14/most-d ... -iraq.html

[Frisivisia]

Sure is a good thing that anecdotes aren't data, otherwise you'd be right.

It is the foreigners causing most of the crime problems in Bhutan. Still, it is low:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Bhutan

http://safety.worldnomads.com/Bhutan/72 ... -Happiness

Dangerous countries (many I mentioned earlier as bad, including Pakistan and Afghanistan):

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/14/most-d ... -iraq.html

Good job not addressing my post at all.

[Hornesia]

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.

Really, so if someone gets paid the amount that they agreed to work for, and the man in charge makes more, he's stealing?

[Frisivisia]

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

Really, so if someone gets paid the amount that they agreed to work for, and the man in charge makes more, he's stealing?

If he's being payed for more than his labor is worth, he's stealing from those who are not being payed enough for their work.

[Hornesia]

Really, so if someone gets paid the amount that they agreed to work for, and the man in charge makes more, he's stealing?

If he's being payed for more than his labor is worth, he's stealing from those who are not being payed enough for their work.

You're dodging the question, as the labor agrees to their pay.

[Freiheit Reich]

It is the foreigners causing most of the crime problems in Bhutan. Still, it is low:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Bhutan

http://safety.worldnomads.com/Bhutan/72 ... -Happiness

Dangerous countries (many I mentioned earlier as bad, including Pakistan and Afghanistan):

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/14/most-d ... -iraq.html

Good job not addressing my post at all.

You wanted proof that Bhutan has low crime and that Pakistan and Afghanistan are dangerous right? This is proof, it is easy to find more. I was not making that part up.

[Herskerstad]

Net income of the top 100 billionaires wealth, or a quarter of one of the stimulus's passed in 2008?

Poverty is not solved by throwing money at it. The US has spent equal to their current debt since 1980 on fighting poverty in their own nation. While there is an extraordinary difference between being poor in the US and being poor in Zimbabwe, I think it is fair to say a measly 240 billion will not solve world poverty. Certainly nor will collectivizing their wealth.

[Vault 1]

I'm pretty sure that poverty is generally defined as a lack of money. ...
Of course, the actual problem (caused by the lack of money,) is the poor development of infrastructure, agriculture, etc.

This is not true.

The problem and the cause of that problem is the poor development of infrastructure, agriculture, et cetera.
Lack of money is in turn caused by the lack of things money represents.

Some countries have indeed tried solving it by giving people money: see Zimbabwe.

[Cameroi]

the worlds top 100 corporations could pay all of their employees a living wage and demand of their sub contractors to do so too, and stop using their political influence to promote wars and the market they create for arms production. forgive me if i have my doubts how much of their earnings is earned by the top 100 anything.

[Natapoc]

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?

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

[Natapoc]

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 don't particularly see why they should have a choice.

[Vaklor]

I wonder what the rich people have been doing with their money...

[United States of America Under Dodes]

I don't think it's going to be the top 100 earners that are going to solve poverty, but rather a coalition of governments, governments that have been devised by the people.

"There is enough for everyone's need. There is never enough for everyone's greed." (Gandhi) 1997

[Vault 1]

I don't particularly see why they should have a choice.

Are you advocating violence?

Out of violent means, why not just fix the problem by spreading enough of this over places where poverty is at its worst?

It's something that doesn't even take top 100 earners, just 100 good men.

[Natapoc]

I don't particularly see why they should have a choice.

Are you advocating violence?

Out of violent means, why not just fix the problem by spreading enough of this over places where poverty is at its worst?

It's something that doesn't even take top 100 earners, just 100 good men.

Of course I'm not advocating violence. Where did you get violence from that? And how could you possibly even consider biological warfare against the poor?

[Vault 1]

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.