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

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39296206]It shouldn't, that would be pretty coercive and invasive. But hoarding capital and other shit whilst others starve is just as bad.[/QUOTE] Then give them food, not money. It doesn't [I]actually[/I] cost anything to produce food - costs incurred are artificial and come from the government taking your money in the first place. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] Or better yet, teach them how to grow their own food. Give a man a fish...

Yeah a lot of the autonomous communities that have formed in Greece recently have successfully become self-sufficient in growing their own food and other resources and trading them with one another and they have formed a whole supply chain without capital or the state involved at all.

And now we're back to square one, because someone is going to catch more fish than some people, and people will seek to trade things for that excess fish so they themselves don't have to fish. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] Then the system evolves; money is invented because it's easier to move than the large quantities of pretty rocks you're trading for the fish you want. Then a government forms to regulate the value of that money and make sure trades are fair...

We have collectively as a species such an abundance of resources yet so many hoard them and are greedy resulting in many still starving, it's sad really.

And that government grows; its responsibilities come to include protection the people catching fish, meaning it will need to take some money from them to buy equipment from other people to go to war with other governments seeking to take fish from the people under its protection. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] I don't need to keep going, do I?

For the most part the Greek communities would just give out food for free as long as nobody was being greedy and attempting to hoard so not really trading. But yeah, I get what you're saying with the government...

All I'm doing is pointing out that it's a cycle. Equal distribution of wealth sounds great, but it's not. Instead people need to willingly recognize the real value of work and pay based on that - but nobody has the right to say what's the real value and what isn't. Certainly, house-building is more important than video game production, but video game production is a rarer skill, so what defines its worth? Hopefully, not the government. It should really only be taking what it needs to provide its citizens with the opportunity to succeed. I don't have a problem with helping the poor, but just throwing money at the problem won't solve it, and high taxes are going to net a lot of wasted money. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] I guess what I'm really saying is that the government shouldn't take more from people who can afford it, but take less from people who can't, while also spending more responsibly. A capitalistic society [I]can[/I] be a fair and happy one.

to hell with poverty, let's get drunk on cheap wine

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;39295651]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.[/QUOTE] So stealing is the answer?

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39296134] In the future, I really hope it will be seen as immoral/illegal to hoard property rights above 2 million dollars per year, when those property rights by all rights belong to the species as a whole and they are actually needed by other people.[/QUOTE] who decides ability, and who decides need?

ITT: demonizing the wealthy

[QUOTE=Angus725;39295472][img]http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/m/Dyadya_lenin_m.jpg[/img] Lenin, wiping the world of filth. (dictators and capitalists in this case)[/QUOTE] Lenin 2013

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39296557]ITT: demonizing the wealthy[/QUOTE] Actually what I've gathered from this thread so far is quite the opposite.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39296557]ITT: demonizing the wealthy[/QUOTE] I could take a little demonization if it meant I could afford a hot air jacuzzi.

-snip-

[QUOTE=cccritical;39296556]who decides ability, and who decides need?[/QUOTE] Democratise it. Let the workers "below" the elite determine whether they deserve to be paid more or not.

[QUOTE=Angus725;39295472][img]http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/m/Dyadya_lenin_m.jpg[/img] Lenin, wiping the world of filth. ([b]dictators[/b] and capitalists in this case)[/QUOTE] lol irony

[QUOTE=Aman VII;39296557]ITT: demonizing the wealthy[/QUOTE] It less offensive than all the conservatives in the world demonizing the poor

...and then we will all go down the pub and have a pint.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39297116]Democratise it. Let the workers "below" the elite determine whether they deserve to be paid more or not.[/QUOTE] That isn't democratic, the jealous poor and even middle class who sincerely believe people with money are personally responsible for their lack of wealth will target and "decide" to give them very little money. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] I'd love to see any of you try to run a large corporation for a week. Being CEO isn't [I]that[/I] easy. There's a reason they are doing it and not you.

If the 100 richest people cared about the poor they wouldn't be the 100 richest people. There are non-100-people that have earned as much money as the 100, but they chose to donate and didn't make the list. Derp

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39295803]Keynesianism hasn't been popular in the USA for decades, monetarism has been more popular.[/QUOTE] Yes, truly. Thankfully our politicians remembered the wise guidance of Friedman and pushed for a massive stimulus and bailout. Oh wait..

[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;39297624]...and then we will all go down the pub and have a pint.[/QUOTE] but comrade! alcohol is the poison used to satiate the proletariat to the oppressive forces of capitalism! it will only be cold hard, Marxist water for us here on in

Why are we all discussing politics and shit in here about economies? All the article means is that if a bunch of rich people gave away the majority of their cash (and I'm sure there's plenty of billionaires and millionaires beneath those top 100, so nobody needs to leave the 'comfort zone') to projects that help build stuff to help end world poverty, world poverty could have been figuratively 'ended'. Of course, it's not that easy, there's always gonna be nationalists who'd rather starve than accept foreign aid and people who don't know the projects exist and the sudden increase in standard in living might make the populations increase, exacerbating the problem and- Anyway. I guess the point is, it's not just "If some rich guys poured some money in the magic box there'd be sunshine and love and rainbows everywhere", it's probably based on calculations of how much it would cost to ensure everyone shelter, food, and water.

There will never not be people in need

Why should the rich pay more in taxes just because they make more money! What is this, a graduated income tax system? Oh wait, it is.

I wonder what those rich people do with pocket change.

I'm skeptical of how low the bar is for 'ending global poverty' when if you take the average of quality of life amongst all nations you end up with Planet Vietnam, Vietnam having a population with 40% below the global poverty line. [QUOTE=teh pirate;39297733]I'd love to see any of you try to run a large corporation for a week. Being CEO isn't [I]that[/I] easy. There's a reason they are doing it and not you.[/QUOTE] FYI this is fallacious, you're stating that because someone's not in a position (that you know of, anyway) they're not qualified to comment on it, and then commenting on it yourself. You're either a CEO or you just revoked your own right to discuss the subject.

Wealth inequality is a given when it comes to capitalism. I thought people knew this.

That's a steady income, don't these guys even consider donating? they'll just cash it in over the year. what the fuck