50% of the worlds wealth owned by 2%
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 2,641
I think that is a slight underestimation with that $40billion a year. Funding the NHS costs far more than that figure and that is just for a small country, although the NHS is pretty poorly managed.
Throwing money at a problem is not going to solve it. You've got many other hurdles to go through as others have mentioned, such as corruption, before poverty is really resolved.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
We are never going to bring everyone in the world above the poverty line. We can give aid, it will help but it will never solve the situation, it just moves the problem to a different area.
Welcome to capitalism, I much prefer it to socialism.
Soldato
The idea that we can bring the majority of third world countries out of poverty by throwing money at the problem is a fairly naive point of view. Past experience has shown it to be ineffective (take a look at the African debt issue).
First up - to whom do you give the money? Poor countries invariably have corrupt Governments, and passing tens/hundreds of millions to corrupt Governments only goes to line the pockets of corrupt politicians, and those in the favour of said politicians. Very little if any reaches those in real need.
The second option is to pass money directly to those in need. But how is this to be done? It's not like they have a bank account that can simply be creditied... And being (for the most part) at the mercy of local militia, anything substantial that they are given is simply taken away.
The only viable alternative is direct and sustained food-aid / medicine provisions. But this is NOT a long-term solution... This requires millions of foreign aid workers to be present in countries where they are often unwelcome (by local militia and Governments I mean - not the people who will clearly welcome any help they can get). This still does not help anything more than day-to-day survival. It does not help people to "build businesses" or otherwise prosper.
In an idealistic world, yes - the amount of sheer capital (in terms of absolute resources) needed to solve the problem would be relatively easy to pony up. But in the pragmatic world we actually live in, there is no way to use these resources to solve the problem. Until corrupt Governments are replaced with stable Governments, who can look out for the best interests of their citizens and protect them from local militia, rather than simply lining their pockets, there is no way to help those in need to build up long term stability.
This leaves us with the option of invading country after country in an almighty military crusade, which would be immensely costly in terms of lives, and could easily spiral out of control, or simply sitting back and hoping for change. Clearly the world is taking the latter approach.
First up - to whom do you give the money? Poor countries invariably have corrupt Governments, and passing tens/hundreds of millions to corrupt Governments only goes to line the pockets of corrupt politicians, and those in the favour of said politicians. Very little if any reaches those in real need.
The second option is to pass money directly to those in need. But how is this to be done? It's not like they have a bank account that can simply be creditied... And being (for the most part) at the mercy of local militia, anything substantial that they are given is simply taken away.
The only viable alternative is direct and sustained food-aid / medicine provisions. But this is NOT a long-term solution... This requires millions of foreign aid workers to be present in countries where they are often unwelcome (by local militia and Governments I mean - not the people who will clearly welcome any help they can get). This still does not help anything more than day-to-day survival. It does not help people to "build businesses" or otherwise prosper.
In an idealistic world, yes - the amount of sheer capital (in terms of absolute resources) needed to solve the problem would be relatively easy to pony up. But in the pragmatic world we actually live in, there is no way to use these resources to solve the problem. Until corrupt Governments are replaced with stable Governments, who can look out for the best interests of their citizens and protect them from local militia, rather than simply lining their pockets, there is no way to help those in need to build up long term stability.
This leaves us with the option of invading country after country in an almighty military crusade, which would be immensely costly in terms of lives, and could easily spiral out of control, or simply sitting back and hoping for change. Clearly the world is taking the latter approach.
Soldato
Someone's bitter about not being a millionaire...
You need more trumped up statistics.
How about 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the people? Surely 80% is better to deal with than just 50%?
Or is that not something you want to bother with because it will include you? How about starting the ball rolling by selling your PC and donating the money to Oxfam?
How about 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the people? Surely 80% is better to deal with than just 50%?
Or is that not something you want to bother with because it will include you? How about starting the ball rolling by selling your PC and donating the money to Oxfam?
Caporegime
not necessarily. wealth attracts money. with money you can simply buy the 'next big thing' before it becomes the big thing, and cream even more money from it.
it happens all the time. if you have wealth you can speculate and outbid other people and potentially gain incremental wealth that someone who had lower wealth would not have access to...
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 907
The fact is Human Nature is greed, at the end of the day all you should really care about is do I have enough for me and my family, and then when you have that you want more. Its going to be way after our time before some sort of worldwide equality is achieved, if ever.
True, but many have worked very hard to create wealth from scratch.
Caporegime
or to steal it, or have been born into it...
its pure luck and chance in many cases. yes some people have worked hard from scratch but then, they will be 'new money' and not respected by those who were simply gifted it as a birthright.
its pure luck and chance in many cases. yes some people have worked hard from scratch but then, they will be 'new money' and not respected by those who were simply gifted it as a birthright.
You want to give money and make the world equal in places where its still almost pre historic in its culture?
They still burn people for being witches in part of Africa.
You have corrupt governments that stop aiding getting to people it should
Why should someone that has worked very hard to get where they are now be reasonable for the wealth of everyone else?
Doesn't Bill Gates have quite a big and well known charity and has said when he dies most of his fortune will go to it?
Since when is it their problem to deal with the rest of the world? It isn't plain and simple.
Before starting a vigilante rampage against them maybe take a look at what the real problems are.
They still burn people for being witches in part of Africa.
You have corrupt governments that stop aiding getting to people it should
Why should someone that has worked very hard to get where they are now be reasonable for the wealth of everyone else?
Doesn't Bill Gates have quite a big and well known charity and has said when he dies most of his fortune will go to it?
Since when is it their problem to deal with the rest of the world? It isn't plain and simple.
Before starting a vigilante rampage against them maybe take a look at what the real problems are.
Is Gates respected amongst the rich?
Soldato
Was there not a report recently, I think by the BBC which stated that most of the money raised live by Live Aid / Band Aid all those years ago, was diverted and used to pay for guns?
Terrible if true. But that is what it is like out there.
Last edited:
I love this statistic, assuming that the 2% have millions and millions in their banks, I wonder if 'people' realise that the top 5% of earners in the uk have an average salary of £55k a year, hardly multi billionaires, when you extrapolate that out into the big wide world where a large propotion live in mud huts I think its safe to say that the top 2% of earners really aren't all millionaires!
I'd imagine the "rich" have an equal liking/disliking for him that the normal ("poor?") people of this world have. Couldn't see any reason for an opinion changing based on cash in the bank
One problem is that if we keep giving food aid to Africa then many will just live from handout to handout and be no better off, a few will use initiative and manage to pull themselves out of their hole but many won't. Then we're just left with a parasitic country (or even continent) taking lots and giving nothing back.
I'd like to see Africa drag itself out of the past and be a healthy and prosperous place but until they remove corrupt warlords, militias and gangs then we'll have a long wait. We can't really send western armies in to remove them as we'll then be in exactly the same position as Iraq and Afghanistan where the locals will see them as an occupying force in their country even though they are trying to help. It's something they have to do themselves,
I'd like to see Africa drag itself out of the past and be a healthy and prosperous place but until they remove corrupt warlords, militias and gangs then we'll have a long wait. We can't really send western armies in to remove them as we'll then be in exactly the same position as Iraq and Afghanistan where the locals will see them as an occupying force in their country even though they are trying to help. It's something they have to do themselves,
Indeed, I'd not say many people here are in the top 2% but when you start getting to 10%, 15% I think you'd be surprised what that translates to.
If you have clean water and food in your belly you are fortunate, if you have a PC, Sky and other consumer electronics you are one of the blessed.