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

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How do you distribute it at a cost of $0.00?

How would you distribute it at all ?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...

But what does it matter. The people arguing in this thread would much rather argue this irrelevant side track that actually confront the fact the widening wealth gap has negative consequences for all of us...

There you go with a strawman again..

No one in this thread has denied ' the fact the widening wealth gap has negative consequences for all of us. ' or failed to confront it ..

You continue to insist that the claim that $204b would end world poverty four times over, is not a ludicrous claim..

But even assuming that amount would do the trick, you nor anyone else has not addressed the logistics that would make it happen.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[JohnnyG]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...snip...

And their claim was Roughly 3 billion people live on <$1.25 day.

$260 billion is enough to give that 3 billion people $80/each ($20 x 4). Giving 3 billion people $20 more a year moves them from extreme poverty to the level of mere poverty.

...snip...

What is missing here is evidence that an average of less than 6 cents per day per person can bring all 3 billion people from below to above $1.25/day.

[JohnnyG]

Oxfam report:

Quote:

Over the last thirty years inequality has grown dramatically in many countries.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

"World Bank data shows that the percentage of the population living in households with consumption or income per person below the poverty line has decreased in each region of the world since 1990."
From the table:
Percent of world population less than $1.25/day
1981 = 52.2%
2008 = 22.4%

Inequality and extreme poverty seem to be inversely correlated. Could it be that the economic conditions that allow some to get extremely wealthy also help others rise out of extreme poverty?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JohnnyG

What is missing here is evidence that an average of less than 6 cents per day per person can bring all 3 billion people from below to above $1.25/day.

No, what is missing here is a discussion of the actual issues.

The issues are: does that increasing wealth concentration at the top hurt us all?

I believe the evidence says it does, and I believe a large part of that wealth is shifted wealth, not created wealth as the false narrative that has fooled so many people pretends it is.

And: the issue is what to do about it.

Originally Posted by OxFam

The report proposes a new global deal to world leaders to curb extreme poverty to 1990s levels by:
- closing tax havens, yielding $189bn in additional tax revenues
- reversing regressive forms of taxation
- introducing a global minimum corporation tax rate
- boosting wages proportional to capital returns
- increasing investment in free public services

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking about the economy in terms of a zero sum game, as if we have a pie of fixed size that just needs to be cut up differently and somehow that wouldn't change the overall size of the pie being sliced.
Giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money would help some but its the whole give a man a fish, teach a man to fish scenario.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Straw man argument.
...

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...I believe the evidence says it does, and I believe a large part of that wealth is shifted wealth, not created wealth as the false narrative that has fooled so many people pretends it is....

[JohnnyG]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No, what is missing here is a discussion of the actual issues.

The issues are: does that increasing wealth concentration at the top hurt us all?

I believe the evidence says it does, and I believe a large part of that wealth is shifted wealth, not created wealth as the false narrative that has fooled so many people pretends it is.

And: the issue is what to do about it.

Knowing how much money is needed is rather pertienent to any discussion about what to do about it. Wouldn't you agree?

All of the suggestions you list from OxFam are clearly aimed at reducing wealth, I see nothing listed that will actually help the poor. I smell a polical agenda here.

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe, I believe, I believe..

I feel that I have stumbled into some kind of tent revival..

Quote:

closing tax havens, yielding $189bn in additional tax revenues
- reversing regressive forms of taxation
- introducing a global minimum corporation tax rate
- boosting wages proportional to capital returns
- increasing investment in free public services

None of these things will help the poor unless the poverty reducing services can actually be delivered to those in need.

We have been shown nothing that indicates this can be done any more effectively than the failed systems that are already in place.

JohnnyG:

Quote:

All of the suggestions you list from OxFam are clearly aimed at reducing wealth, I see nothing listed that will actually help the poor. I smell a political agenda here.

Precisely; but where is your belief man? Don't you believe ?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I'm as bewildered as you are.

[JohnnyG]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I believe, I believe, I believe..

<snip>

JohnnyG:


Precisely; but where is your belief man? Don't you believe ?

Right here.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

This is the straw man:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money

Because no one is suggesting that be done. In fact it's only the right wingers in the thread arguing as if that was the actual claim of a solution.

Where in these OxFam proposals do you see, "giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money"?

Quote:

- closing tax havens, yielding $189bn in additional tax revenues
- reversing regressive forms of taxation
- introducing a global minimum corporation tax rate
- boosting wages proportional to capital returns
- increasing investment in free public services

Perhaps you think investing in public services is the equivalent?

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is the straw man:Because no one is suggesting that be done. In fact it's only the right wingers in the thread arguing as if that was the actual claim of a solution.

Where in these OxFam proposals do you see, "giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money"?

Perhaps you think investing in public services is the equivalent?

Of course I don't think public services is the equivalent to cash. I wrote early that they need public infrastructure and specifically mentioned things like irrigation, education, roads, farm equipment, trains, etc of which you accused me of poeing the thread. Public services, infrastructure and institutions is what they need.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Of course I don't think public services is the equivalent to cash. I wrote early that they need public infrastructure and specifically mentioned things like irrigation, education, roads, farm equipment, trains, etc of which you accused me of poeing the thread. Public services, infrastructure and institutions is what they need.

Free services, right. Like sending your kid to school? Public health infrastructure? Roads? Fire and police? What else? How about the USDA? The FDA?

Now, let's see what free services I don't want my tax dollars to go for. Military intervention that specifically supports large corporations taking the natural resources in third world countries without benefitting the people whose land the resources are on. (Blow back's a pain.) Corn farm subsidies that resulted in all kinds of new markets for high fructose corn syrup. Private contractors that reaped millions for contracts to rebuild Iraq but instead left after building failing crappy infrastructure. Direct subsidies to the most profitable companies in the world, the oil companies.


Do those concrete examples clear the matter up for you?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Of course I don't think public services is the equivalent to cash. I wrote early that they need public infrastructure and specifically mentioned things like irrigation, education, roads, farm equipment, trains, etc of which you accused me of poeing the thread. Public services, infrastructure and institutions is what they need.

And to get this stuff you need the rule of law and property rights, something that is highly correlated with populations who do well.

Most of the ultra poor in the world are that way because the political system they live within is corrupt.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Free services, right. Like sending your kid to school? Public health infrastructure? Roads? Fire and police? What else? How about the USDA? The FDA?

How does all of this stuff get paid for? By having a capitalist system that generates wealth which can then be used to pay for this stuff. The US didn't have most of this stuff until it was already a wealthy country. Why? Because the property rights and unfettered capitalism of the 19th century made america wealth enough to create this public infrastructure.

The best thing that could happen to most poor people in the world is political reform that affirms property rights, equality and free speech. Something that is sorely lacking in almost all poor countries and something that once introduced starts to almost immediately generate wealth.

I present South Korea as an example.

Quote:

Now, let's see what free services I don't want my tax dollars to go for. Military intervention that specifically supports large corporations taking the natural resources in third world countries without benefitting the people whose land the resources are on. (Blow back's a pain.) Corn farm subsidies that resulted in all kinds of new markets for high fructose corn syrup. Private contractors that reaped millions for contracts to rebuild Iraq but instead left after building failing crappy infrastructure. Direct subsidies to the most profitable companies in the world, the oil companies.

Honestly I don't see the connection. People aren't poor because america is rich. People are poor because their countries don't have their **** together.

I think you'll find that most capitalists (including myself) are also against the government spending tax dollars on rent seeking garbage like military contracts, farm subsidies, blackwater etc. Our political system has been hijacked by special interests in business and additionally by public labor unions. Toss in a little entitlement vote buying and on and on we go.

None of that has anything to do with the poorest people in the world though.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by JohnnyG

Knowing how much money is needed is rather pertienent to any discussion about what to do about it. Wouldn't you agree?

Not at all. Just take 1/4th of the total wealth of the wealthiest 100 people and give it to congress. Don't you worry. They'll make that wealth disappear. No plan required.

You just need to understand far left ideology better. It's not a direct fix. It's an indirect fix. Making wealth disappear from the coffers of the super rich will decrease their power. And very few of the super rich are far left. The wealth of those few who are far left will need to be protected. That's the only plan that's needed.

Originally Posted by JohnnyG

All of the suggestions you list from OxFam are clearly aimed at reducing wealth, I see nothing listed that will actually help the poor. I smell a polical agenda here.

The reek of politics permeates all internet forums. Don't let it throw you off. Think about how best to weaken the powerful. Then you will understand the particular odor you are currently smelling.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of people who starve babies for profit. But nor do I assume that the top 100 earners are the baby-starvers. I'm not sure there is that much profit in starving babies. I can think of a few countries that should be astronomically wealthy if that were the case. No, I'm not talking about the U.S.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

How does all of this stuff get paid for? By having a capitalist system that generates wealth which can then be used to pay for this stuff. The US didn't have most of this stuff until it was already a wealthy country. Why? Because the property rights and unfettered capitalism of the 19th century made america wealth enough to create this public infrastructure.

The best thing that could happen to most poor people in the world is political reform that affirms property rights, equality and free speech. Something that is sorely lacking in almost all poor countries and something that once introduced starts to almost immediately generate wealth.

I present South Korea as an example.

What's your point? S Korea is pure capitalism, laissez faire, no banking regulations, and all services are Libertarian private? Don't pay your fire department fee and they'll watch your house burn down?

Do you think OxFam is promoting socialism and/or communism because they think the rich should pay their fair share of the shared public expenses?

South Korea school for all children between the ages of six and fifteen is free. Free services?

Quote:

Senior high schools, for students aged fifteen to eighteen, do charge tuition fees in order to supplement government funding, but these fees do not appear burdensome enough to prevent students from attending.

There are more than 800,000 civil servants in South Korea today. More than half of these are employed by the central government; only about 300,000 are employed by local governments. Goodness, central government sounds so communisty.

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Honestly I don't see the connection. People aren't poor because america is rich. People are poor because their countries don't have their **** together.

I imagine it would be confusing to you since no one in the thread or in the OxFam paper have said any such thing. Nor are they saying anything about the wealth of some countries vs others.

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I think you'll find that most capitalists (including myself) are also against the government spending tax dollars on rent seeking garbage like military contracts, farm subsidies, blackwater etc. Our political system has been hijacked by special interests in business and additionally by public labor unions. Toss in a little entitlement vote buying and on and on we go.

None of that has anything to do with the poorest people in the world though.

Actually, I don't find the right wing complaining about corporate subsidies to be anywhere near as loud as the complaining they do about the supposed "free services" that a society needs to function without cripples begging in the streets.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What's your point? S Korea is pure capitalism, laissez faire, no banking regulations, and all services are Libertarian private? Don't pay your fire department fee and they'll watch your house burn down?

Do you think OxFam is promoting socialism and/or communism because they think the rich should pay their fair share of the shared public expenses?

South Korea school for all children between the ages of six and fifteen is free. Free services?

What the hell? How does this rant even follow from what was posted?

It's like you just have a knee-jerk response to posts and you don't even bother to read them.

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is the straw man:Because no one is suggesting that be done. In fact it's only the right wingers in the thread arguing as if that was the actual claim of a solution.

Where in these OxFam proposals do you see, "giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money"?

Perhaps you think investing in public services is the equivalent?

I know "giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money" isn't OxFam's policy but unfortunately the report they used as a source for their "The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to
end world poverty four times over" claim says basically that

Quote:

In addition to deciding on which countries and regions to focus, donors must also choose which projects and
programs they will spend their money on. Amidst these complicated budgetary decisions, one simple idea has
recently garnered considerable support from both politicians and development economists: just give money
to poor people.21 Basic cash transfer payments, sometimes conditioned on behavior such as attending school
or routine medical checkups, can serve as a safety net for the poor, providing social protection to ensure basic
necessities are met and shocks are overcome.
Our results suggest that providing every person in the world with a minimum income of $1.25/
day—in other words guaranteeing the right not to live in absolute poverty—is rapidly becoming
feasible. In 2005, supplementing the income of each poor person in the world to bring their daily income
up to $1.25 would have cost $96 billion, or 80 percent of the total volume of foreign aid disbursed that year.
In 2010, with poverty less widespread and larger global aid volumes, the cost of such a global safety net would
be just $66 billion, or slightly more than half of all official aid.22 While the logistics of distributing cash to poor
populations would not be without challenges, recent advances in biometric identification technologies—such
as fingerprint and iris scanning—have greatly expanded the promise of implementing large-scale welfare programs in poor countries.23 Given the success of many cash transfer programs, significantly scaling up their use
to provide a minimum income for all individuals living in poverty might be a fruitful new direction for donors
to pursue

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...rty_chandy.pdf

I'm wondering whether they used this just because it has a relatively low estimate of the extent of extreme poverty and thus the amount needed to relieve it. Others have put the cost higher

Quote:

In his book, The End of Poverty, Jeffrey Sachs made some careful estimates as to what it would cost to end extreme poverty in the world in about twenty years.
To end extreme poverty worldwide in 20 years, Sachs calculated that the total cost per year would be about $175 billion. This represents less than one percent of the combined income of the richest countries in the world.

Actually I sympathise with most of the assertions made in the Oxfam media briefing:
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam...m-mb180113.pdf
Extreme wealth and inequality is economically inefficient
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Socially Divisive
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Environmentally Destructive

but I think the throw away line "enough to end world poverty four times over" was a mistake, and a diversion from the points they were trying to make.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

What the hell? How does this rant even follow from what was posted?

It's like you just have a knee-jerk response to posts and you don't even bother to read them.

What the hell? How does Newton's rant even follow from what I posted?

Let's see what went wrong where in the exchange:

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking about the economy in terms of a zero sum game, as if we have a pie of fixed size that just needs to be cut up differently and somehow that wouldn't change the overall size of the pie being sliced.
Giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money would help some but its the whole give a man a fish, teach a man to fish scenario.

I said it was a straw man and portlandatheist asked, what was the straw man.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is the straw man:
Because no one is suggesting that [taking money from the rich and giving it directly to the poor] be done. In fact it's only the right wingers in the thread arguing as if that was the actual claim of a solution.

Where in these OxFam proposals do you see, "giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money"?

Perhaps you think investing in public services is the equivalent?

Quote:

Of course I don't think public services is the equivalent to cash. I wrote early that they need public infrastructure and specifically mentioned things like irrigation, education, roads, farm equipment, trains, etc of which you accused me of poeing the thread. Public services, infrastructure and institutions is what they need.

The way I read that portlandatheist was still not connecting the dots that the OxFam proposal said, "increasing investment in free public services", it didn't say, "increasing handouts to the poor".

Why are the right wingers claiming this is the equivalent of redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor? It ignores the fact the wealth actually flows up from our taxes not down. For every dollar I pay in taxes, the rich get more of it than the poor do.

Newton continued the straw man citing South Korea as an example claiming "property rights and unfettered capitalism" raises all boats. Well they don't. And S Korea is hardly the unfettered capitalist country Newton imagines it is. That's why I replied what I did.

The only knee jerking around here comes from the right wingers who see any and every progressive solution as an attack on capitalism. That's bullpucky.

[Skeptical Greg]

Still waiting to hear a logistical plan for reducing poverty.. Who will administer this plan, & etc..

Assume you have collected all of the money you will ever need ...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

I know "giving people that live in poverty a bunch of money" isn't OxFam's policy but unfortunately the report they used as a source for their "The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to end world poverty four times over" claim says basically that

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...rty_chandy.pdf

Well, that certainly supports OxFam's claim that 240 billion is more than enough. Maybe we can move on from that side track at least.

I think you are looking at two separate issues. The thread is about narrowing the wealth gap to end extreme poverty. The Brooking's paper offers multiple solutions including, using direct payments to put a floor under the most extremely poor.

If we want to argue that in the thread, it helps to start with the citation you've linked to since the Brooking's paper noted evidence and a plan:

Quote:

Given the success of many cash transfer programs, significantly scaling up their use to provide a minimum income for all individuals living in poverty might be a fruitful new direction for donors to pursue.

Originally Posted by bobwtfomg

but I think the throw away line "enough to end world poverty four times over" was a mistake, and a diversion from the points they were trying to make.

If you look at the history of right wing political tactics that were intensified with the Rove Play Book era, you'll find it wouldn't have mattered what OxFam said. If they didn't use that line, the right wing political strategists would have just picked some other sidetrack out of the report to distract their minions with.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Still waiting to hear a logistical plan for reducing poverty.. Who will administer this plan, & etc..

Assume you have collected all of the money you will ever need ...

And who are you waiting to hear that from? A forumite in a couple paragraph post?

Because surely all problems can be solved with simple single actions.




OxFam had some specific recommendations as does the Brookings paper bobwtfomg cited. Perhaps for you those reports are tl,dr.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

And who are you waiting to hear that from? A forumite in a couple paragraph post?

Surprised you don't recognize rhetoric when you see it..


It has been mentioned more than once that there are extensive barriers, mostly political, that stand in the way of outside help..
If you remove those barriers, a lot on the poverty problems would be self correcting. But you would rather confiscate steal the money first, then worry about how to pass it around later..

Quote:

Because surely all problems can be solved with simple single actions.

Simple actions like cash payments you touted above ?

We all know how easy it is to deliver cash payments to people in poverty ...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Surprised you don't recognize rhetoric when you see it..

I recognize you aren't interested in seriously evaluating proposed solutions. I don't call that rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

It has been mentioned more than once that there are extensive barriers, mostly political, that stand in the way of outside help..
If you remove those barriers, a lot on the poverty problems would be self correcting. But you would rather confiscate steal the money first, then worry about how to pass it around later..

Simple actions like cash payments you touted above ?

We all know how easy it is to deliver cash payments to people in poverty ...

I touted? I think you need to find where I touted cash payments or confiscating anyone's money because you're blatantly wrong.

[Skeptical Greg]

You quoted the Brookings report, as if it were realistic:

Quote:

Given the success of many cash transfer programs, significantly scaling up their use to provide a minimum income for all individuals living in poverty might be a fruitful new direction for donors to pursue.

Where is the money ( $billions ) you want to spend on poverty going to come from ?

DallasDad responded to your proposals here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...4&postcount=28

[bobwtfomg]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Where is the money ( $billions ) you want to spend on poverty going to come from ?

how about from the money promissed in Monterrey 10 years ago and never delivered

Quote:

The shocking fact, unknown to most Americans, is that the
U. S. contribution to development aid, when measured as a percentage
of GNP, is actually the lowest of any of the twenty-two
donor countries. Sweden, for example, gives 0.87 percent of its
GNP, while the U.S. currently gives just 0.13 percent of its own .
In other words, we are currently giving thirteen cents per hundred dollars of income, while we might need to give another
thirty-five to fifty cents to get the job done. In 2002, the Bush administration actually promised, in an international agreement
known as the Monterrey Consensus, to make concrete efforts
toward contributing 0.7 percent of GNP to developing aid, which
would be more than enough to address the needs of the poorest
countries . The White House has ignored the goal from the moment
it signed the Monterrey document, and you, dear reader,
have almost surely never even heard about that pledge. Alas, the
poor countries know all too well that the U.S. made the pledge
and then quickly broke it.

http://web.archive.org/web/200609141...squire0504.pdf

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

You quoted the Brookings report, as if it were realistic:...

And you reply as if you read it.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What the hell? How does Newton's rant even follow from what I posted?

Let's see what went wrong where in the exchange:

I said it was a straw man and portlandatheist asked, what was the straw man.
The way I read that portlandatheist was still not connecting the dots that the OxFam proposal said, "increasing investment in free public services", it didn't say, "increasing handouts to the poor".

Why are the right wingers claiming this is the equivalent of redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor? It ignores the fact the wealth actually flows up from our taxes not down. For every dollar I pay in taxes, the rich get more of it than the poor do.

Newton continued the straw man citing South Korea as an example claiming "property rights and unfettered capitalism" raises all boats. Well they don't. And S Korea is hardly the unfettered capitalist country Newton imagines it is. That's why I replied what I did.

The only knee jerking around here comes from the right wingers who see any and every progressive solution as an attack on capitalism. That's bullpucky.

As usual you are putting words in my mouth and are completely missing my point, probably on purpose.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

As usual you are putting words in my mouth and are completely missing my point, probably on purpose.

Translation: Newton didn't read SG's posts.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Translation: Newton didn't read SG's posts.

I read them, I don't think you understood mine. Perhaps I'm not clear enough but it seems like others understood.

Regardless I don't see any need to continue beating a dead horse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I read them, I don't think you understood mine. Perhaps I'm not clear enough but it seems like others understood.

Regardless I don't see any need to continue beating a dead horse.

Right, all the usual right wingers in the thread get your points, regardless your points are all straw man attacks. And none of you make any attempt whatsoever to get past your ludicrous beliefs the mega-rich all created their wealth and the poor are poor because (as all Randians believe) the poor are simply inferior humans.

Your al duped by the narrative of "created" wealth, check.

[MNBrant]

Skeptic ginger, they are just using the pile on defense. There are just too many posts saying mainly the same thing to matter at this point. I said creating wealth is stealing. I didn't say it was bad. Everybody steals. The difference is the rich person has people to do the stealing for him called employees. As you notice, often times they don't even know they are stealing thus you have this snowball of posts effect that often happens on these hot button issues.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Right, all the usual right wingers in the thread get your points, regardless your points are all straw man attacks. And none of you make any attempt whatsoever to get past your ludicrous beliefs the mega-rich all created their wealth and the poor are poor because (as all Randians believe) the poor are simply inferior humans.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your al duped by the narrative of "created" wealth, check.

Is world GDP greater today than it was in 1600?

[Virus]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

Skeptic ginger, they are just using the pile on defense. There are just too many posts saying mainly the same thing to matter at this point. I said creating wealth is stealing. I didn't say it was bad. Everybody steals. The difference is the rich person has people to do the stealing for him called employees. As you notice, often times they don't even know they are stealing thus you have this snowball of posts effect that often happens on these hot button issues.

Is world GDP greater today than it was in 1600?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Right, all the usual right wingers in the thread get your points, regardless your points are all straw man attacks. And none of you make any attempt whatsoever to get past your ludicrous beliefs the mega-rich all created their wealth and the poor are poor because (as all Randians believe) the poor are simply inferior humans.

Your al duped by the narrative of "created" wealth, check.

What kind of schreeching is this random noise?

the narrative of "created" wealth. Pray tell wtf are you even talking about?
Of course wealth is created. It's created by the interactions between humans naturally. It's certainly not a zero sum game if that's what you are suggesting.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you reply as if you read it.

I read the part where it claimed cash payments had been successful in the past, and which you singled out and quoted, as if it supports your argument.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your al duped by the narrative of "created" wealth, check.

Please list the economists who think wealth is a fixed sum and can't be created.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by MNBrant

Skeptic ginger, they are just using the pile on defense. ....

I was thinking more like the lalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you tactic.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I believe the evidence says it does, and I believe a large part of that wealth is shifted wealth, not created wealth as the false narrative that has fooled so many people pretends it is.

So your solution is to shift wealth some more?

I don't see any evidence of a link between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. If you or Oxfam have any evidence that the extremely wealthy somehow caused or contribute to extreme poverty, then it should be presented.

Those living in extreme poverty don't do so because the world economy has taken advantage of them in some way or another, they do so because they don't take part in the world economy at all. What they need is a way to participate so they can be lifted out of extreme poverty.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is the straw man:Because no one is suggesting that be done. In fact it's only the right wingers in the thread arguing as if that was the actual claim of a solution.

You seem to be saying it, when you say:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Does it bother none of you whatsoever we are talking 100 people vs more than a billion? Seriously?

How else would one interpret that?