World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

While this may be a partial explanation of the disparity of wealth between nations what about the disparity within nations where everyone supposedly has the same access to property rights and the rule of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U....alth,_2007.jpg

I don't see why anyone would assume that equal opportunity would be the same as equal outcome.

Some people get a leg up by their parents. Some people are naturally more gifted than others. Some people work harder than everyone else. etc.

So how does wealth disparity really say anything? The poorest quintile in the US still lives pretty well compared to most of the world. I would like to hear some of the excuses about why people can't make it in the USA of today. From what I've seen mostly it comes down to lack discipline in their lives.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What does that have to do with a waiter or other employee who owns nothing, has no access to education and works for a pittance?

No idea, I must have gotten off track there somewhere, or you do.

Regardless which country are you talking about? There is basically no waiter who owns nothing that has no access to education. Education is freely available on the internet and in most places libraries. If the person hasn't finished high school there are usually programs to help them get their GED. From there they can do some more work and go to college to learn something that brings more value.

What person who is willing to work is actually stuck? Find me a stuck person and I'll show you how they can improve their lot. This is basic life skill stuff.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Show that this wealth was "shifted" instead of "created".

From where did this wealth shift from? Who had the Koch bros. billions before they did?

Your argument is tiring and like Virus and a dozen other forum right wingers, no amount of evidence matters to you. We see the world through different lenses.


Nonetheless, I'll give you one example of how it sometimes works, but I'm not promising to waste a lot of time since you refuse to consider the world is not what you believe it is, regardless of the evidence.

Koch Industries

Quote:

Koch Industries has spent more than $50 million to lobby in Washington between 2006 and October 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[25]

The company has opposed the regulation of financial derivatives and limits on greenhouse gases.[25] It sponsors free market foundations and causes.[48][49] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, many of Koch Industries' contributions have gone toward achieving legislation on energy issues, defense appropriations and financial regulatory reform.[50] According to Greenpeace, the company has "had a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming," and has out-spent ExxonMobil (another corporation active in the debate over climate change science and legislation) in giving money to organizations debating legislation related to climate change. "From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding."[51][52] Another Greenpeace study states that, between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming.[53][54] Koch Industries replied saying the Greenpeace report "distorts the environmental record of our companies."[52][context?]

One policy proposal to control global warming that Koch Industries has come out against is Low Carbon Fuel Standards, such as were passed in 2007 in California.[28] According to Koch Industries, "LCFS would cripple refiners that rely on heavy crude feedstocks to provide the transportation fuels that keep America moving."[55]

So the industry makes billions and pays 50 million for political influence to cost shift environmental damage from global warming consequences to the taxpayer and the world's poor.

[applecorped]

evasion noticed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

... There is basically no waiter who owns nothing that has no access to education. Education is freely available on the internet and in most places libraries. If the person hasn't finished high school there are usually programs to help them get their GED. From there they can do some more work and go to college to learn something that brings more value.

What person who is willing to work is actually stuck? Find me a stuck person and I'll show you how they can improve their lot. This is basic life skill stuff.

Mind boggling ignorance.

Not everyone has access to education, the net, libraries, or the free time to educate oneself.

Have you never been to a third world country?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by applecorped

evasion noticed.

Whose?

Cost shifting of pollution consequences is a common means of reaping profits at someone else's expense.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And Romney spent roughly the same. Most of it paid for offices, salaries and TV advertising, not bribes campaign contributions to legislators.



The thing is that tax policies aren't brought down on stone tablets from on high. They are legislated and can be -- and routinely are -- amended. Why should a vast inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money you earn from your labor at a job? Treating all income the same would go a long way to creating a fairer tax code.

I'm 100% for The Fair Tax ..

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Mind boggling ignorance.

Not everyone has access to education, the net, libraries, or the free time to educate oneself.

Have you never been to a third world country?

Yep. Have you?

Anyway this is why I asked WHICH COUNTRY specifically (which if course you didn't quote).

3rd world countries are typically filled with tribalism, cronyism and corruption. Without the rule of law and property right you are correct, these people are well and truly screwed.

Honestly not sure how to fix that other than reimplementing something like colonialism where we just run their economy for a few decades to show them the ropes (and institute our laws not let them come up with their own crazy stuff like Egypt just did). I say if we want to help people we should just invade, take over and make them part of the USA.

[Skeptical Greg]

Still waiting to hear how to eliminate global poverty with $61b ( or any amount for that matter) ..

Just a rough outline of the plan - Who will be in charge would be a good start ..

Just assume the money is available..

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Still waiting to hear how to eliminate global poverty with $61b ( or any amount for that matter) ....

Yes, I'm sure you are since it keeps you from having to address the OxFam proposals or the issue they were illustrating with their statement.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Yep. Have you?

Anyway this is why I asked WHICH COUNTRY specifically (which if course you didn't quote).

3rd world countries are typically filled with tribalism, cronyism and corruption. Without the rule of law and property right you are correct, these people are well and truly screwed.

Honestly not sure how to fix that other than reimplementing something like colonialism where we just run their economy for a few decades to show them the ropes (and institute our laws not let them come up with their own crazy stuff like Egypt just did). I say if we want to help people we should just invade, take over and make them part of the USA.

Your claim all poor people need to do is educate themselves and they have the means to do that is ludicrous. Why don't you just say it, you believe the poor are responsible for their own situation, every person could be rich if only they were as smart and skilled as the rich.

That ideology is ludicrous and ignores all the evidence of what causes and contributes to poverty.

As for how one addresses the problems that result in poverty, that's another matter, but ignorantly saying all the poor need to do is go online and educate themselves is a ridiculous claim.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Two separate issues.

Not a separate issue at all. You weren't suggesting that the bed nets and wells and wind-up radios you talked about being for the US, were you?

Originally Posted by Bob001

The original question was how much would it take to dramatically reduce poverty in the world. I contend that a lot of misery could be reduced for a relatively few dollars, which actually would be paid back in increased productivity. Bill Gates is showing how.

Bill Gates is "showing how" with tax-exempt money he diverts to his non-profit charity. IOW, stolen money! At least stolen according to the anti-capitalists here. At any rate, why not let Gates continue to do this rather than letting government take the money, since apparently no government has been able to do what Gates is doing?

Originally Posted by Bob001

In the U.S., the worst part of the increasing concentration of wealth is that vast wealth confers vast political power, which in turn is applied to protect and expand the vast wealth at the expense of the rest of us. Proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare while protecting the low tax on capital gains are one example. Unless you are part of the 1% (or really, the .1%), you surely see that.

Occupy Wall Street-type blather. I bet you think you have the answer too, and I bet it involves gutting the Constitution.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your argument is tiring and like Virus and a dozen other forum right wingers, no amount of evidence matters to you. We see the world through different lenses.


Nonetheless, I'll give you one example of how it sometimes works, but I'm not promising to waste a lot of time since you refuse to consider the world is not what you believe it is, regardless of the evidence.

IOW, you stuck your foot firmnly in your mouth and now want to pretend you didn;t say what you said.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Koch IndustriesSo the industry makes billions and pays 50 million for political influence to cost shift environmental damage from global warming consequences to the taxpayer and the world's poor.

Your claim was that the Kochs stole their billions from other people, not that they lobby Congress about legislation..

Who did they steal it from? Where was their wealth before they had it?

And if you make more than the worldwide average of $7,000/yr, who did you steal the extra from?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes, I'm sure you are since it keeps you from having to address the OxFam proposals or the issue they were illustrating with their statement.

I don't feel any need to address the OxFam proposals, nor do I claim I could eliminate world poverty with $51b.. It is up to the people who make that claim to explain how it would be accomplished..

But I'm sure you know how the claim/evidence thing works...

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your claim all poor people need to do is educate themselves and they have the means to do that is ludicrous. Why don't you just say it, you believe the poor are responsible for their own situation, every person could be rich if only they were as smart and skilled as the rich.

That ideology is ludicrous and ignores all the evidence of what causes and contributes to poverty.

As for how one addresses the problems that result in poverty, that's another matter, but ignorantly saying all the poor need to do is go online and educate themselves is a ridiculous claim.

I do think that in western society most poor people are there because of their own poor decisions.

I situation in a place like Africa is different and IMHO not comparable. There really aren't many excuses in a place like the US to be poor. You have to really screw things up badly in life or have been dealt a serious blow (e.g. being paralyzed).

Now let me be absolutely clear here. I am *not* saying that poor people deserve to be poor. I am *not* saying all poor people are poor because of some choice they've made. But I am saying that there are many who people who are poor because they lack discipline, work ethic and ambition.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

IOW, you stuck your foot firmnly in your mouth and now want to pretend you didn;t say what you said.


Your claim was that the Kochs stole their billions from other people, not that they lobby Congress about legislation..

Who did they steal it from? Where was their wealth before they had it?

And if you make more than the worldwide average of $7,000/yr, who did you steal the extra from?

It doesn't follow that because I said it was a waste of time to debate your points I put my foot in my mouth but you go ahead and prove me right all you want.

If part of your profit is because you vandalized the environment and stuck the taxpayer with the bill using your political influence, you shifted wealth you didn't create it. It's a no brainer, a lot of people, even some laissez faire capitalists recognize the problem. And here you are dodging the issue with your red herring definition of shifting wealth.

You only fool yourself and people like Virus.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I don't feel any need to address the OxFam proposals, nor do I claim I could eliminate world poverty with $51b.. It is up to the people who make that claim to explain how it would be accomplished..

But I'm sure you know how the claim/evidence thing works...

I also know a straw man argument when I see it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I do think that in western society most poor people are there because of their own poor decisions.

I situation in a place like Africa is different and IMHO not comparable. There really aren't many excuses in a place like the US to be poor. You have to really screw things up badly in life or have been dealt a serious blow (e.g. being paralyzed).

Now let me be absolutely clear here. I am *not* saying that poor people deserve to be poor. I am *not* saying all poor people are poor because of some choice they've made. But I am saying that there are many who people who are poor because they lack discipline, work ethic and ambition.

There is plenty of evidence the vast majority of poor, especially the extreme poor, are not poor because of individual faults or circumstances they have any ability to influence, let alone control.

As for your belief the poor "lack discipline, work ethic and ambition" that is a belief that is beyond ignorant. A lot of poor people work incredibly hard just to stay alive.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I also know a straw man argument when I see it.

Which doesn't seem to stop you from using them yourself..

Quote:

As for your belief the poor "lack discipline, work ethic and ambition" that is a belief that is beyond ignorant.

You make it too easy ..

What's next? " Republicans want to cut school lunches " ?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It doesn't follow that because I said it was a waste of time to debate your points I put my foot in my mouth but you go ahead and prove me right all you want.

If part of your profit is because you vandalized the environment and stuck the taxpayer with the bill using your political influence, you shifted wealth you didn't create it. It's a no brainer, a lot of people, even some laissez faire capitalists recognize the problem. And here you are dodging the issue with your red herring definition of shifting wealth.

You only fool yourself and people like Virus.

You're the one who claimed wealth was "shifted", do explain whose wealth was shifted to the Koch bros. So far you are flailing miserably.

This all stems from your belief that people in (pick some 3rd world country) are poor because someone else is rich.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Still waiting to hear how to eliminate global poverty with $61b ( or any amount for that matter) ....

Yes, I'm sure you are since it keeps you from having to address the OxFam proposals or the issue they were illustrating with their statement.

Have you actually looked at the OxFam report linked to in the article?

Most of the article is spent arguing that wealth inequity is the cause of poverty, and the closest thing they get to a proposal can be found half-way down on page three...

Quote:

The policies required to reduce inequality are also well known. Decent work for decent wages has had a huge impact. The rise in the power of capital over labour has been identified by Paul Krugman among many others as a key cause of the recent crisis and one that means that assets are not being used productively, in turn reducing demand.

Free public services are crucial to levelling the playing field. In countries like Sweden, knowing that if you get sick or that you will receive good treatment regardless of your income, is one of the greatest achievements and the greatest equalisers of the modern world.

Knowing that if you lose your job, or fall on hard times, there is a safety net to help you and your family, is also key to tackling inequality. Similarly, access to good quality education for all is a huge weapon against inequality.

Finally, regulation and taxation play a critical role in reining in extreme wealth and inequality. Limits to bonuses, or to how much people can earn as a multiple of the earnings of the lowest paid, limits to interest rates, limits to capital accumulation are all only recently-abandoned policy instruments that can be revived.

Progressive taxation that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is essential, but currently the opposite is the case – taxation is increasingly regressive and the poor pay higher effective tax rates than the rich, a point recently highlighted by Warren Buffet among others, who has called for greater taxes on the rich.

Cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion goes hand in hand with more progressive taxation. Closing tax havens and ending the global race to the bottom on taxation, for example with a globally agreed minimum rate of corporation tax would make a huge difference It is estimated that up to a quarter of all global wealth – as much as $32 trillion - is held offshore. If these assets were taxed according to capital gains taxes in different countries, they could yield at least $189 billion in additional tax revenues.

How do we determine from this that $240 billion is enough to end world poverty four times over?

[000063]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I also know a straw man argument when I see it.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how it is a straw man. What distortions are employed? Where and how does it differ from the claim it purports to represent?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Have you actually looked at the OxFam report linked to in the article?

Most of the article is spent arguing that wealth inequity is the cause of poverty, and the closest thing they get to a proposal can be found half-way down on page three...




How do we determine from this that $240 billion is enough to end world poverty four times over?

I love that "how much people can earn as a multiple of the earnings of the lowest paid" bit. The UK Green Party proposes a multiple of 10.

I wonder how competitive British soccer teams would be if their star player could only make 10 times the pay of the peanut vendor? Or what would become of the British TV and film industry if the stars can only make 10 times as much as the gofer?

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Whose?

Cost shifting of pollution consequences is a common means of reaping profits at someone else's expense.

Noting it in my notebook of noted evasions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 000063

Perhaps you could elaborate on how it is a straw man. What distortions are employed? Where and how does it differ from the claim it purports to represent?

I already have in more than one post. How many times do I have to say, it was an illustration, not a proposal to take money from the rich?

And I showed the math that supported the illustration.

Who cares? If you think the example intended to illustrate a point was exaggerated,fine, say so and move on. I don't think it was an exaggeration to say a billion people defined as most extreme poor could have their income raised by 20% 4 times over using just a single annual earnings of the richest 100 people.

Both the news article and the OP title misstated the OxFam paper. News flash: news media got is wrong. What else is new?

This thread is a waste of time because no discussion is taking place, just the usual dismissals by the right wing thread killers.

[Virus]

Who here believes that world GDP was the same in 1600 as it is now? If wealth can't be created or destroyed, it would have to be the same right?

[kellyb]

Here's an interesting early history of the Koch aristocracy:

http://exiledonline.com/the-birth-of...called-quanah/

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I already have in more than one post. How many times do I have to say, it was an illustration, not a proposal to take money from the rich?

And I showed the math that supported the illustration.

Who cares? If you think the example intended to illustrate a point was exaggerated,fine, say so and move on. I don't think it was an exaggeration to say a billion people defined as most extreme poor could have their income raised by 20% 4 times over using just a single annual earnings of the richest 100 people.

Both the news article and the OP title misstated the OxFam paper. News flash: news media got is wrong. What else is new?

This thread is a waste of time because no discussion is taking place, just the usual dismissals by the right wing thread killers.

The first line of the report is "The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth".

Note they didn't say "extreme poverty".

[Virus]

Here's how it works. Rich guys that support the party I don't like are responsible for global poverty. Rich guys that support my party are not.

According to the left's religion, you can buy indulgences for the sin of being rich.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Here's an interesting early history of the Koch aristocracy:

http://exiledonline.com/the-birth-of...called-quanah/

Does it reveal the mystery of who they stole their billions from?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Virus

Who here believes that world GDP was the same in 1600 as it is now? If wealth can't be created or destroyed, it would have to be the same right?

Do you consider resources and wealth the same thing?

I'm not sure how to begin to talk about this stuff without first differentiating the difference between resources, wealth, and money. It's a very, very complicated subject, or interconnected set of sub-subjects.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Does it reveal the mystery of who they stole their billions from?

Depends of various definitions.

The land for the railroad barons (which they converted into money) was stolen from the native inhabitants of that land and "the commons."

[Virus]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Do you consider resources and wealth the same thing?

I'm not sure how to begin to talk about this stuff without first differentiating the difference between resources, wealth, and money. It's a very, very complicated subject, or interconnected set of sub-subjects.

Do you believe some people are poor because some other people are rich?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Depends of various definitions.

The land for the railroad barons (which they converted into money) was stolen from the native inhabitants of that land and "the commons."

You live in Tennessee... didn't you steal all of your wealth from the native inhabitants too?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Depends of various definitions.

The land for the railroad barons (which they converted into money) was stolen from the native inhabitants of that land and "the commons."

Yes, those examples obtained some of their wealth nefariously.

Now, translate that into ending world poverty by confiscating $50b from some of the world's richest entities.


No doubt, $50b could could alleviate a lot of poverty, but we have yet to see a viable plan for doing that..


Billions of dollars and resources are earmarked for assistance programs every year; what new plan will succeed, where the current efforts have failed ?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Obviously, being extremely poor has negative consequences, but can you explain how one person getting rich, makes another person become poor ?

Just one realistic example would be sufficient...

Casino's? Pay day loan chain owners?

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

No idea, I must have gotten off track there somewhere, or you do.

Regardless which country are you talking about? There is basically no waiter who owns nothing that has no access to education. Education is freely available on the internet and in most places libraries. If the person hasn't finished high school there are usually programs to help them get their GED. From there they can do some more work and go to college to learn something that brings more value.

What person who is willing to work is actually stuck? Find me a stuck person and I'll show you how they can improve their lot. This is basic life skill stuff.

I am pretty much stuck.... But, it's all completely of my own doing.... no victim here.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Caper

Casino's? Pay day loan chain owners?

Interesting. I've enriched both, yet I'm still richer than before.

But if casinos can make people poor, then anything can make people poor.

Movie theaters, for example. Just like casinos, they charge a fee to provide entertainment. People pay the fee because they value the entertainment. People who go broke at the cinema have only themselves to blame. Just like people who go broke at the casino.

Liquor stores. Auto dealerships. The entire tourist industry of the Hawaiian islands. Pretty much anybody who sells a good or a service can make you poorer while they get richer, if you choose. If you choose.

As for pay day loan chains... I've used them more than once. Of course, at the time I was working hard, actively removing foolish expenses from my budget, and applying hard lessons recently learned about money management and personal responsibility. So the pay day loans were just the thing to keep me solvent for the two extra months I needed to set myself on my feet.

I'd been impoverishing myself for years, and then I wised up, and started enriching myself instead. A few pay day loans helped me set myself on the road I'd chosen.

Show me someone who has been made poor at the enrichment of pay day loan chains, and I'll show you someone who intentionally chose to exploit a service whose terms, conditions, and consequences were clear enough when they made their choice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My son is in grad school because I had enough money to send him. The Republic Party has done everything to limit financial aid for people who don't have those resources. How is that not an uneven playing field?

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There is plenty of evidence the vast majority of poor, especially the extreme poor, are not poor because of individual faults or circumstances they have any ability to influence, let alone control.

As for your belief the poor "lack discipline, work ethic and ambition" that is a belief that is beyond ignorant. A lot of poor people work incredibly hard just to stay alive.

Yes, but one could say that they made choices at some point in their lives to put themselves in that position to work very hard for little pay.

I know I can say that. My poor life decisions have put me in my position of crappiness. The first step to self improvement is realizing that you are the problem.