The 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over. - Polidicks

[quote] The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report released by international rights group and charity Oxfam. The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday. The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum. The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week. The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process. "We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera. 'Global new deal' "We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," said Jeremy Hobbs, an executive director at Oxfam. "Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder. "In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left." Hobbs said that "a global new deal" is required, encompassing a wide array of issues, from tax havens to employment laws, in order to address income inequality. Closing tax havens, the group said, could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens. In a statement, Oxfam warned that "extreme wealth and income is not only unethical it is also economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive." [/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312061337695543.html[/url] [url]http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf[/url]

suprise.....?

Capitolism!

[img]http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/m/Dyadya_lenin_m.jpg[/img] Lenin, wiping the world of filth. (dictators and capitalists in this case)

"If we gave them the money that we don't need we'd be teaching them a poor work ethic" "Nobody ever gave me free money" "With the increasing tax rates I cant afford anymore handouts"

that's definitely how money works in fact, we should just print enough so that everyone is a millionaire! the perfect plan! I just thought up a neat design for the new bills: [img]http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/ChampkinUploads/Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse(1).jpg[/img]

but you can't end poverty ever anyway, it's like trying to make everyone better than average

[QUOTE=Angus725;39295472] Lenin, wiping the world of filth. (dictators and capitalists in this case)[/QUOTE] Communism isn't the only alternative, we could just have a more regulated capitalist system like the one we had before Reaganomics and Thatcherism raised taxes, deregulated and privatised to such an extent that our current state of affairs was inevitable. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;39295509]that's definitely how money works in fact, we should just print enough so that everyone is a millionaire! the perfect plan! I just thought up a neat design for the new bills: [img]http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/ChampkinUploads/Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse(1).jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Did you even read the article? it suggested redistribution of money not the creation of new money.

I think you have too much money when you couldn't possibly spend it all in your lifetime. Nothings wrong with too much money, but when you have so much money you make others poor there's probably a problem.

[QUOTE=cccritical;39295509]that's definitely how money works in fact, we should just print enough so that everyone is a millionaire! the perfect plan! I just thought up a neat design for the new bills: [img]http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/ChampkinUploads/Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse(1).jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Really? You think a little charity will destroy our economy?

[QUOTE=Eltro102;39295520]but you can't end poverty ever anyway, it's like trying to make everyone better than average[/QUOTE] no but you can lower it be alot

Stupid rich people and their stupid rich people money.

[QUOTE=MuTAnT;39295540]Really? You think a little charity will destroy our economy?[/QUOTE] is it charity if it's done with a gun to your head?

[QUOTE=Eltro102;39295520]but you can't end poverty ever anyway, it's like trying to make everyone better than average[/QUOTE] But it is possible to end people having to live shitty lives where they have to constantly worry about things like food shelter and healthcare.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;39295520]but you can't end poverty ever anyway, it's like trying to make everyone better than average[/QUOTE] The poverty the article refers to isn't just below average income; it's genuine poverty, starvation, homelessness etc. It is entirely possible to redistribute wealth enough to end the direst of poverty and in the long term it would be economical beneficial as it would reduce over reliance on the state and create more consumers by allowing more people to actively particulate in the economy.

today in economics 101 we learn that dumping money into issues solves absolutely nothing

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295521]Communism isn't the only alternative, we could just have a more regulated capitalist system like the one we had before Reaganomics and Thatcherism raised taxes, deregulated and privatised to such an extent that our current state of affairs was inevitable. [/QUOTE] Of course. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics[/url]

[QUOTE=cccritical;39295580]is it charity if it's done with a gun to your head?[/QUOTE] Stealing gold from Midas is hardly stealing at all. Taking a few hundred million from a billionaire to save millions from starvation is entirely justifiable, one person will be unable to buy a third yacht whilst countless others will be saved from a life of destitution.

I don't understand how you guys think this won't help. Building sustainable buildings and farms will help end poverty... Not blow up the fucking economy like some of you are suggesting.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295521]Did you even read the article? it suggested redistribution of money not the creation of new money.[/QUOTE] I think he means that it's not as easy as throwing a bunch of money at poor people and countries.

[QUOTE=cccritical;39295580]is it charity if it's done with a gun to your head?[/QUOTE] i'd be damned if i was forced to help people who are extremely impoverished let them die, there won't be handouts here! stupid poor people, i ain't havin' it

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39295642]today in economics 101 we learn that dumping money into issues solves absolutely nothing[/QUOTE] Are you really suggesting that replacing millions of destitute with people who would be able to get a job and consume goods would have be ineffective? More consumers = More Demand = creation of more jobs to meet demand. More profit and a higher standard of living for all.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295680]Are you really suggesting that replacing millions of destitute with people who would be able to get a job and consume goods would have be ineffective? More consumers = More Demand = creation of more jobs to meet demand. More profit and a higher standard of living for all.[/QUOTE] said no economist anywhere, ever.

The rich people who are bored because of all the money they have already give a bit to charity, for tax deductions or to look good or whatever, they still help a lot, it's hard to call these people bad people because we don't really know how many of them actually DID give to charity.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39295686]said no economist anywhere, ever.[/QUOTE] I basically just described a mixture of Keynesianism and socialism.

wish i had money at all

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295702]I basically just described a mixture of Keynesianism and socialism.[/QUOTE] LOL, you need to read harder into keynesian economics if you said anything that resembles keynesianism.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39295734]LOL, you need to read harder into keynesian economics if you said anything that resembles keynesianism.[/QUOTE] To my understanding Keynes advocated for greater government intervention in the economy and higher taxes on the wealthy, in an effort to control the boom-bust cycle experienced by capitalist economies.

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295702]I basically just described a mixture of Keynesianism and socialism.[/QUOTE] Clearly modern socialism isn't what you think it is.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295755]Clearly modern socialism isn't what you think it is.[/QUOTE] I said socialism not modern socialism.