Monday, July 28th21.2°C
22568
21195

World's Richest 100

Your thoughts on environment issues and economic issues.

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Triple 6

World's Richest 100

Postby Sneaksuit » Jan 20th, 2013, 10:05 pm

The world's 100 richest people earned in enough money in 2012 to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over!

http://rt.com/news/oxfam-report-global-inequality-357/
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 454
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby grammafreddy » Jan 21st, 2013, 1:12 am

Considering its OXFAM, they spin the numbers their way.

The problem isn't the wealth in the hands of the few, the problem was too much social spending mixed with unsecured public pensions for too many public servants with princely benefits.

Everyone acts like the wealthy just take their money and run - hoard it in a tin can buried in the back yard under the peach tree. In fact, they use their money to make more money - they invest it, loan it, fund new businesses for themselves and other entrepreneurs (like you and me) and create new wealth for many from their rich incomes. Both old businesses and new businesses hire workers, add to production lines, require goods and materials, have to transport raw and finished products, and on and on it goes.

The wealthy also spend their money. That also creates jobs for others. Somebody has to build that mansion, screw in the light bulbs, buy a toaster for the cottage, sail the yacht, grow and cook the food for their banquets, maintain the lush flowing lawns and flower gardens, drive the Bentley - and purchase the toilet paper for their rich asses.

The wealthy also have massive and very generous philanthropic charities - and they do give their wealth away. OXFAM is well funded by them.

From wiki ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam

Operating budget: US$8.7M.


Omaar and de Waal, in Food and Power in Sudan,[29] comment that "the 1990s have seen growing pressure for humanitarian institutions to become more accountable. There has been a succession of reviews of major operations, growing in independence and criticism." They quote an OECD report, The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Operations in Rwanda, which stated that its team "came across examples of Agencies telling, if not falsehoods, then certainly half-truths" and noted "a remarkable lack of attempts by agencies to seek the views of beneficiaries on the assistance being provided".[30] In this climate, Oxfam has faced a number of criticisms, some specific to the organisation itself, others relating to problems said to be endemic to NGO aid agencies.

In response to these criticisms Oxfam and others launched the Sphere Project, an initiative which aims to "improve the quality of assistance provided to people affected by disasters", to "develop a set of minimum standards in cure areas of humanitarian assistance" and to introduce an element of accountability which had previously been lacking.

In 2005, the magazine New Internationalist described Oxfam as a "Big International Non-Government Organisation (BINGO)", having a corporate-style, undemocratic internal structure, and addressing the symptoms rather than the causes of international poverty – especially by acquiescing to neoliberal economics and even taking over roles conventionally filled by national governments.[31]

Similar criticisms[which?] have been voiced by Red Pepper magazine[32] and Katherine Quarmby in the New Statesman.[33] The latter article detailed growing rifts between Oxfam and other organisations within the Make Poverty History movement.

In an article for Columbia Journalism Review,[34] journalist Karen Rothmyer accused NGOs in general and Oxfam in particular of being unduly influenced by the priorities of the media, of providing inaccurate information to the press ("stories featuring aid projects often rely on dubious numbers provided by the organisations") and of perpetuating negative stereotypes which "have the potential to influence policy." She drew on earlier work by journalist Lauren Gelfand, who had taken a year away from journalism to work for Oxfam; "A lot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam" and Linda Polman, author of the Crisis Caravan; "Aid organisations are businesses dressed up like Mother Theresa."
__________________________________________________________________________________________
We are a generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
User avatar
grammafreddy
Chief Sh*t Disturber
 
Posts: 28551
Likes: 2199 posts
Liked in: 775 posts
Joined: Mar 17th, 2007, 10:52 am

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Sneaksuit » Jan 21st, 2013, 11:59 am

So Gramma, you don't question the system for any of this? Doesn't that mean politicians and their policies are perfect? Why does the system continue to change if it's perfect?

Secondly, can you please elaborate on how the richest 100 people being able to solve extreme world poverty 4 times over is the result of "too much social spending mixed with unsecured public pensions for too many public servants with princely benefits".
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 454
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Captain Awesome » Jan 21st, 2013, 12:17 pm

Sneaksuit wrote:Secondly, can you please elaborate on how the richest 100 people being able to solve extreme world poverty 4 times over


Do you believe that the richest 100 people can solve poverty?
Sarcasm is like a good game of chess. Most people don't know how to play chess.
User avatar
Captain Awesome
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22597
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 1300 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2008, 5:06 pm
Location: The United Colonies of The Lizard People

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby grammafreddy » Jan 21st, 2013, 12:27 pm

Sneaksuit wrote:So Gramma, you don't question the system for any of this? Doesn't that mean politicians and their policies are perfect? Why does the system continue to change if it's perfect?

Secondly, can you please elaborate on how the richest 100 people being able to solve extreme world poverty 4 times over is the result of "too much social spending mixed with unsecured public pensions for too many public servants with princely benefits".


1. The article was not about politicians and policies - it was about the world's 100 richest people.

2. I didn't say that.

3. Twist yer knickers elsewhere instead of twisting my words.

4. It's OXFAM fercrissakes. What??? You expect balanced reasoning????
__________________________________________________________________________________________
We are a generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
User avatar
grammafreddy
Chief Sh*t Disturber
 
Posts: 28551
Likes: 2199 posts
Liked in: 775 posts
Joined: Mar 17th, 2007, 10:52 am

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby hardnut » Jan 21st, 2013, 1:30 pm

Doing my own research, using Forbes list of 100 wealthiest people in the world (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/), I calculate that their total worth is $1,715,000,000,000. The world population (from U.S.Census site - http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ) when I checked it was 7,061,131,931 people. If you were to entirely confiscate ALL of the wealth of the top 100 wealthiest and distribute it over the world's population that would come out to $242.96 each person. The article the OP linked to says that "people in 'extreme poverty' lived on less than $1.25 a day." Dividing $242.96 by 365 days a year, that comes out to 67 cents a day. Hmmm.

The Earth Institute of Columbia University states on their web site (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/1780) that 1/6 of the world's population lives in extreme poverty, so let's take that 7,061,131,931and use only 1/6 of that - 1,176,855,321 - to divide up the wealth. $1,715,000,000,000 / 1,176,855,321 = $1,457.78 per person, divided by 365 = $3.99 per day. So if you took all the wealth of the top 100 and divided it up over those in "extreme poverty," it would more than triple the amount they could live on per day. I have to admit that I do not live in such extreme poverty and so don't know if $2.75 more a day would bring a person out of extreme poverty, but I somehow doubt that.

Now, that is if we confiscate EVERYTHING that the top 100 wealthiest have, not just what they earn in a year. The referenced article says that the top 100 earned $240,000,000,000. Taking the 1/6 in extreme poverty, splitting up those earnings would give the extreme poor an additional 56 cents a day. Seriously? This is enough to bring these people out of extreme poverty?

Whenever faced with reports from sources with an agenda (from that article - "Oxfam's report argues that extreme wealth is unethical, economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive."), do your own math.

Of course, if we confiscated the entire wealth of the top 100, or even their entire yearly earnings, that would have far-reaching consequences that would most likely result in loss of jobs, decreased charitable contributions, lower income taxes paid to their respective governments, etc. Not to mention, if we took all of their wealth, it would actually decrease its value considerably. How so? You would need to sell off their assets. Who now is rich enough to afford them? Guess you'll have to sell them at bargain basement prices. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
User avatar
hardnut
Fledgling
 
Posts: 147
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Nov 15th, 2007, 9:36 am
Location: Next to the remote control

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Sneaksuit » Jan 21st, 2013, 1:51 pm

grammafreddy wrote:
1. The article was not about politicians and policies - it was about the world's 100 richest people.


Gramma, the reason there is such an imbalance is because politicians have provided legal avenues for it to occur. That means the system is at fault (policy), not rich people.

Please tie in "too much social spending mixed with unsecured public pensions for too many public servants with princely benefits" to the outcome of world poverty.

Hardnut, thanks for the research. I think if one can even double their grocery budget it would save innumerable lives. Also, I don't see the necessity in stealing money already earned from the rich, policy changes would be adequate.
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 454
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby logicalview » Jan 22nd, 2013, 5:04 am

All the money in the world isn't going to cure poverty. Shame on Oxfam for more lets blame the rich for everything nonsense. I just can't believe how eagerly some of you gobble this stuff up. A big chunk of the world's most impoverished live under brutal dictatorships. Oxfam or any other UN based NGO would see 99% of the money siphoned off immediately by cronies and other scum that don't give a wit about their people. That the solution to poverty is to simply steal money from rich people is just absurd, and fodder for fools.
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of fecal matter by the clean end.
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
 
Posts: 6935
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 395 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 4:59 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby SurplusElect » Jan 22nd, 2013, 11:18 am

logicalview wrote:A big chunk of the world's most impoverished live under brutal dictatorships.


...dictatorships supported / set up by the first world to maintain our first world "way of life".
SurplusElect
Übergod
 
Posts: 1618
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 3 posts
Joined: May 29th, 2012, 1:45 pm

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Captain Awesome » Jan 22nd, 2013, 11:35 am

It's funny how we can't even solve poverty in one single village - even one small community - but some people think they can solve it on the world's scale...
Sarcasm is like a good game of chess. Most people don't know how to play chess.
User avatar
Captain Awesome
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22597
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 1300 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2008, 5:06 pm
Location: The United Colonies of The Lizard People

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Sneaksuit » Jan 22nd, 2013, 11:46 am

logicalview wrote:That the solution to poverty is to simply steal money from rich people is just absurd, and fodder for fools.


Where does it say this?
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 454
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby logicalview » Jan 22nd, 2013, 7:56 pm

SurplusElect wrote:...dictatorships supported / set up by the first world to maintain our first world "way of life".


That's the revisionist leftist lie-filled version that I know our unversities are only to willing to perpetuate to cover their own guilt. If you look at the mess that is Zimbabwe for instance, that was created by massive guilt from foolush Liberals, who thought their consciences would be wiped clean by handing a first world country over to a corrupt evil strong man, because of his skin colour. Now all those guilt-plagued liberals have millions of dead black people on their consciences instead. removed - Jennylives
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of fecal matter by the clean end.
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
 
Posts: 6935
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 395 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 4:59 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Sneaksuit » Jan 23rd, 2013, 4:10 pm

logicalview wrote:That's the revisionist leftist lie-filled version that I know our unversities are only to willing to perpetuate to cover their own guilt. If you look at the mess that is Zimbabwe for instance, that was created by massive guilt from foolush Liberals, who thought their consciences would be wiped clean by handing a first world country over to a corrupt evil strong man, because of his skin colour. Now all those guilt-plagued liberals have millions of dead black people on their consciences instead.

Logicalview, by using sweeping generalizations and gross stereotyping you condition yourself to see a black and white world.


removed - Jennylives
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 454
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby logicalview » Jan 23rd, 2013, 7:37 pm

Try reposting without personal attack - Jennylives
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of fecal matter by the clean end.
User avatar
logicalview
Guru
 
Posts: 6935
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 395 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2006, 4:59 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: World's Richest 100

Postby Sneaksuit » Jan 23rd, 2013, 8:32 pm

logicalview wrote:Try reposting without personal attack - Jennylives


Removed - Jennylives
User avatar
Sneaksuit
Board Meister
 
Posts: 454
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 7 posts
Joined: Mar 16th, 2007, 12:34 pm

Next

Return to Environmental & Economic Concerns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests