WCT rules require an abstract or summary with linked content. Warning issued and abstract added:
The world’s 100 richest people earned a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 – enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over, Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.
“The richest 1 percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process,” while the income of the top 0.01 percent has seen even greater growth, a new Oxfam report said.
For example, the luxury goods market has seen double-digit growth every year since the crisis hit, the report stated. And while the world’s 100 richest people earned $240 billion last year, people in ”extreme poverty” lived on less than $1.25 a day.
Oxfam is a leading international philanthropy organization. Its new report, ‘The Cost of Inequality: How Wealth and Income Extremes Hurt us All,’ argues that the extreme concentration of wealth actually hinders the world’s ability to reduce poverty.
Concentrating too much wealth at the top means that the people lower down don't have as much capital to spend on products or to invest. This is worse overall for the economy because it limits options for growth and reduces people to haves and have-nots. Also, a higher average quality of life means a healthier and more educated workforce, which raises economic productivity significantly.
It's not an obligation, but it's still in their best interests to do so.
Concentrating too much wealth at the top means that the people lower down don't have as much capital to spend on products or to invest. This is worse overall for the economy because it limits options for growth and reduces people to haves and have-nots. Also, a higher average quality of life means a healthier and more educated workforce, which raises economic productivity significantly.
It's not an obligation, but it's still in their best interests to do so.
from the title i felt like the OP was/would push for them to be "obligated" to donate some/most of their wealth.
whenever it gets brought up people argue for this, and i just can't agree.
It's a moral imperative. The man who owns a shirt he will not wear has a duty to clothe a shirtless man. The man who stores excess food has a duty to feed a starving man. Many different schools of moral ethics agree that there is an implicit contract with society that one is entitled to use their wealth for the betterment of the society which granted them their wealth.
Before you take this out of context, this isn't a call for socialism; it's a philosophical issue, not a political one. Also, don't take it as being personally responsible for the poor. Don't misinterpret it as you should give all of your possessions away, as philosophically you shouldn't be required to harm yourself significantly in helping another Basically, if you're going to respond to this, then please do it intelligently. See for reference: John Stuart Mill, Thomas Aquinas, and Peter Singer.
I believe the richest members of our society, for the most part, have thoroughly planned out how they're going to help the poor. They're not like pharaohs planning on being buried with it.
As far as I could read, the article gives no concrete details as to what "end poverty" means exactly.
If we're talking about basic provisions for people, that would indeed be awesome.
However, my concern is the giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish principle. In other words, without access to development, to economic opportunities, redistributing wealth is nothing but a temporary solution, like a fad diet is to weight loss.
Extreme inequality is a major problem that will eventually engulf and collapse economies. We are seeing that right now in America and it only gets worse as you widen the scope to include the rest of the world. There will always be rich and poor but its sick to know that there are people with so much money they litterally can't spend it all and people who have litterally nothing and no way to get out of that situation.
Poverty is like a black hole. The closer you get the harder it is to get out. If you ever hit rock bottom in any country its nigh impossible to come back. In America and much of Europe they don't simply let you die but that isn't the case all around the world. And inversly the more money you have the easier it is to make money. Unless something major is done it will never change.
Also I don't think the OP was insinuating that the top 100 people give up money to end poverty but rather putting it in perspective out asinine it is to have so much concentration of wealth. Its mind boggling. Poverty could end tomorrow with no one loosing millions (no matter how many billions you have) but it won't. It would be so easy to end poverty in America and it could be done in a week without destroying the economy and without dismantling the entire social structure. But again they won't.
Personally, I think ending poverty is an impossible goal just from an economic standpoint. No matter how you go at it, there's always going to be inequality in individual productivity, purchasing power, etc. There are always going to be people who have less access to scarce resources, less capital, and the like (I'm probably mixing economics and financial terms, but whatever, it's late, you can figure out what I mean).
Now, raising the standard of living for the poor is a worthy goal. You can reduce homelessness to negligible levels. You can ensure that everyone has adequate access to food, health care, and the like. But ending "poverty" seems a bit too idealistic.
It's a moral imperative. The man who owns a shirt he will not wear has a duty to clothe a shirtless man. The man who store excess food has a duty to feed a starving man. Many different schools of moral ethics agree that there is an implicit contract with society that one is entitled to use their wealth for the betterment of society.
Unfortunately people are under no obligation to behave morally.
I also think the idea of simply 'throwing money' at people in extreme poverty is an over simplification of the issue. There are distribution issues and issues of self efficacy.
I enjoyed an enlightening experience working in an Aboriginal community in the far north of Western Australia. Australia is a wealthy country and we enjoy a good (if not great) system of public benefits. However despite the money coming into the community I was working in (and sometimes when the mining royalties were coming in, people would have cheques for tens of thousands of dollars arrive) the local Aboriginal people lived in poverty. They often begged for food (or more often cigarettes), they lived in hovels, had terrible health issues (obesity, diabetes, skin diseases, STIs) and terrible social issues (drunkenness, violence, sexual abuse). Here are a proud and culturally rich people, brought low by perpetual charity. Whenever they had a problem, they would cry poor and government officials would come in and do everything for them, the result was a careless, spoiled, apathetic and angry people.
It is incredibly difficult to overcome systematic disadvantage and simply gathering up all the money in the world and distributing it equally would result in a similar situation where some people have more, some people have less and some people have nothing. What we need to distribute is education (but even then there will be haves and have-nots).
Has there been a society in modern times that has not had poverty? I dont think removing poverty from the equation is possible. There has to be the haves and have-nots in the way society is run today. From an economic stand point it would be very hard to do. You would have to teach those in poverty whom you wish to help how to spend and save.
Dont get me wrong, its possible for an individual to pull themselves out of poverty, but to rid society of poverty, I dont think its possible. There will always be that group of have-nots in society.
There is a reason it only costs $1.25 a day for us to feed poor people in Africa/India et. If you equalized the distribution of resources those costs would go up.
There are also a lot of political bottlenecks (like armed gangs/paramilitary organizations and cartels) that restrict the flow of resources. "ending poverty" would include the high cost of disposing of these people. I doubt this liberal source has any desire to promote the kind of imperialism that would be required.
To truely end poverty you have to empower people to take responsibility and to produce. That is a lot harder than simply handing out rice and building premade shelters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
To concur with other posts in this thread, a lot of scientific research points out that "mere philanthrophy" (i.e. donating money) doesn't have any good long-term effects on society. My Master Thesis is partially about this topic.
The problems with simply donating money are that:
1) It doesn't ensure that the people recieving it will know how to handle it properly
2) There are already millions and billions of dollars in donations and charities all around the world, from the UN for example, which never reach their destinations due to corrupt public officials or pirates who manage to pocket or steal them before they reach their target
That's just two main problems with merely donating. If the world's wealthiest really wanted to end poverty, their best shot is to start building schools and investing in developing economies so that business as a whole would thrive and wealth could be generated as people begin to develop an entrepreneurial spirit and a capable work force. The resulting competition would generate better goods and services in the long run, and leave society better off as a whole. There will still be poor people, but they would eventually have access to goods and services of quality which will eventually be at a cheaper cost due to competition and rapid technological advancement.
Thus, let's not simplify "end poverty" to simply donating cash, shall we? It encompasses quite a number of societal problems, up to, and including lack of education and health services as well as job security. Maybe the sum of money from the top 100, if divided evenly by all the poor in the world, would end hunger for a year or so, but if we really wanted to build a sustainable society, that money had better go into development of countries where they have none (which is also in their best interests because it will promote business and potentially provide a bigger return on investment in the future).
The problem is that most businesspersons are (unfortunately) focused on the short term, an issue which I think deserves another thread all to itself.
I participate yearly in a survival challenge in which I am dropped off in the wilderness with 1 days rations, a knife, and no other supplies, and have to find my way home. This is typically several weeks hiking from civilization.
I have personally killed several bears in the course of this challenge, with the use of snares and other traps.
So, pstmdrn, how exactly do you propose that we go about fixing this problem?
I mean what, are the richest people in the world suppose to just give away all that they have and magically solve the problem of global poverty? Yeah, it's not that simple. The better question is how exactly can we trickle down the abundance of wealth from the top to the bottom. Speculating on the morals of the matter means nothing if no one can actually redistribute the wealth.
So, pstmdrn, how exactly do you propose that we go about fixing this problem?
I mean what, are the richest people in the world suppose to just give away all that they have and magically solve the problem of global poverty? Yeah, it's not that simple. The better question is how exactly can we trickle down the abundance of wealth from the top to the bottom. Speculating on the morals of the matter means nothing if no one can actually redistribute the wealth.
Trickling down wealth has not ever worked. It's a scam perpetuated by the rich to make you feel less bad about it.
What works, has always worked, and will always work, is people in the middle getting more money. The middle class save enough to allow for others to invest it, and spend enough to redistribute it.
You can't just end poverty with money. You will also need a sound government with the people's interest as it's number one priority and a functional financial system.
Or any money donated will be syphoned into the coffers of the corrupted government leaders.
Simply handing out currency does nothing for the long-term future. It may help alleviate some pains immediately, but it does nothing for the future.
Go ahead and end poverty for this one guy I know and he'll have a place to stay and food to eat for awhile, but in short order the money will be blown on booze and drugs.
Foreign aid is a nightmare. So much of the money Western countries give to Africa ends up being used to prop up dictators and purchase weapons and ammunition instead of things that will genuinely help people. Some dictators have even confiscated food drops!
You need sustainable improvement. Infrastructure. Means of creating goods and services cheaply. Technological advancement. Mental health care.
Finally, you need political stability and freedom which sadly cannot necessarily be purchased.
Oh, probably by investing in infrastructure all over the world and putting funds towards developing unlimited, free energy sources among other technological advances that are just around the corner, yet will not be developed due to energy and technology monopolizers.
If you gave every poor person in the world a million dollars, a shirt would cost 1.5 million dollars. Having the rich dump their money onto the laps of the poor doesn't help anyone, it just causes massive super inflation. It's been tried in several African and South American countries, politicians tell people "elect us and we will give you $$" so they get elected, print $$ out the wazoo, hand it out to the poor, and all it does is drive the cost of goods and services up by the amount of $$ they give out.
Same problem with jacking up the minimum wage. Add $2 to the minimum wage, business owners tack that $2 on the costs of the goods they sell, so the working poor aren't getting ahead.
The better question is how exactly can we trickle down the abundance of wealth from the top to the bottom. Speculating on the morals of the matter means nothing if no one can actually redistribute the wealth.
The worlds richest can help by investing in infrastructure, education, access to health care, and improved human rights if they want to help out poor people. If they are not doing that, governments should tax that wealth and do it for them.
The problem is that the people who run the government and make the tax rules are beholden to the rich people to finance their campaigns, which is why you get massive income inequality and why Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney pay lower marginal tax rates then their housekeepers.
Trickling down wealth has not ever worked. It's a scam perpetuated by the rich to make you feel less bad about it.
I never meant that it had to be trickled down via the volition of the super wealthy. It simply has to be taken through the power of a thrid party.
What works, has always worked, and will always work, is people in the middle getting more money. The middle class save enough to allow for others to invest it, and spend enough to redistribute it.
WCT rules require an abstract or summary with linked content. Warning issued and abstract added:
- Teia
[Clan Flamingo]
My helpdesk should you need me.
Concentrating too much wealth at the top means that the people lower down don't have as much capital to spend on products or to invest. This is worse overall for the economy because it limits options for growth and reduces people to haves and have-nots. Also, a higher average quality of life means a healthier and more educated workforce, which raises economic productivity significantly.
It's not an obligation, but it's still in their best interests to do so.
from the title i felt like the OP was/would push for them to be "obligated" to donate some/most of their wealth.
whenever it gets brought up people argue for this, and i just can't agree.
They're not 'obligated' to do so. But it is in their ultimate best interests to do so. The current economic model is clearly not sustainable.
It's a moral imperative. The man who owns a shirt he will not wear has a duty to clothe a shirtless man. The man who stores excess food has a duty to feed a starving man. Many different schools of moral ethics agree that there is an implicit contract with society that one is entitled to use their wealth for the betterment of the society which granted them their wealth.
Before you take this out of context, this isn't a call for socialism; it's a philosophical issue, not a political one. Also, don't take it as being personally responsible for the poor. Don't misinterpret it as you should give all of your possessions away, as philosophically you shouldn't be required to harm yourself significantly in helping another Basically, if you're going to respond to this, then please do it intelligently. See for reference: John Stuart Mill, Thomas Aquinas, and Peter Singer.
Also, to the OP: have you heard of the Billionaire's Pact: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/08/04/warren-buffett-bill-gates-and-the-billionaire-giving-pledge.html
I believe the richest members of our society, for the most part, have thoroughly planned out how they're going to help the poor. They're not like pharaohs planning on being buried with it.
Standard: N/A
Modern: AffinityWR, Delver WUR
Legacy: High TideU, ZombiesWBRG, 12post UG, Delver UR
As far as I could read, the article gives no concrete details as to what "end poverty" means exactly.
If we're talking about basic provisions for people, that would indeed be awesome.
However, my concern is the giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish principle. In other words, without access to development, to economic opportunities, redistributing wealth is nothing but a temporary solution, like a fad diet is to weight loss.
Poverty is like a black hole. The closer you get the harder it is to get out. If you ever hit rock bottom in any country its nigh impossible to come back. In America and much of Europe they don't simply let you die but that isn't the case all around the world. And inversly the more money you have the easier it is to make money. Unless something major is done it will never change.
Also I don't think the OP was insinuating that the top 100 people give up money to end poverty but rather putting it in perspective out asinine it is to have so much concentration of wealth. Its mind boggling. Poverty could end tomorrow with no one loosing millions (no matter how many billions you have) but it won't. It would be so easy to end poverty in America and it could be done in a week without destroying the economy and without dismantling the entire social structure. But again they won't.
Personally, I think ending poverty is an impossible goal just from an economic standpoint. No matter how you go at it, there's always going to be inequality in individual productivity, purchasing power, etc. There are always going to be people who have less access to scarce resources, less capital, and the like (I'm probably mixing economics and financial terms, but whatever, it's late, you can figure out what I mean).
Now, raising the standard of living for the poor is a worthy goal. You can reduce homelessness to negligible levels. You can ensure that everyone has adequate access to food, health care, and the like. But ending "poverty" seems a bit too idealistic.
Unfortunately people are under no obligation to behave morally.
I also think the idea of simply 'throwing money' at people in extreme poverty is an over simplification of the issue. There are distribution issues and issues of self efficacy.
I enjoyed an enlightening experience working in an Aboriginal community in the far north of Western Australia. Australia is a wealthy country and we enjoy a good (if not great) system of public benefits. However despite the money coming into the community I was working in (and sometimes when the mining royalties were coming in, people would have cheques for tens of thousands of dollars arrive) the local Aboriginal people lived in poverty. They often begged for food (or more often cigarettes), they lived in hovels, had terrible health issues (obesity, diabetes, skin diseases, STIs) and terrible social issues (drunkenness, violence, sexual abuse). Here are a proud and culturally rich people, brought low by perpetual charity. Whenever they had a problem, they would cry poor and government officials would come in and do everything for them, the result was a careless, spoiled, apathetic and angry people.
It is incredibly difficult to overcome systematic disadvantage and simply gathering up all the money in the world and distributing it equally would result in a similar situation where some people have more, some people have less and some people have nothing. What we need to distribute is education (but even then there will be haves and have-nots).
Dont get me wrong, its possible for an individual to pull themselves out of poverty, but to rid society of poverty, I dont think its possible. There will always be that group of have-nots in society.
There are also a lot of political bottlenecks (like armed gangs/paramilitary organizations and cartels) that restrict the flow of resources. "ending poverty" would include the high cost of disposing of these people. I doubt this liberal source has any desire to promote the kind of imperialism that would be required.
To truely end poverty you have to empower people to take responsibility and to produce. That is a lot harder than simply handing out rice and building premade shelters.
The problems with simply donating money are that:
1) It doesn't ensure that the people recieving it will know how to handle it properly
2) There are already millions and billions of dollars in donations and charities all around the world, from the UN for example, which never reach their destinations due to corrupt public officials or pirates who manage to pocket or steal them before they reach their target
That's just two main problems with merely donating. If the world's wealthiest really wanted to end poverty, their best shot is to start building schools and investing in developing economies so that business as a whole would thrive and wealth could be generated as people begin to develop an entrepreneurial spirit and a capable work force. The resulting competition would generate better goods and services in the long run, and leave society better off as a whole. There will still be poor people, but they would eventually have access to goods and services of quality which will eventually be at a cheaper cost due to competition and rapid technological advancement.
Thus, let's not simplify "end poverty" to simply donating cash, shall we? It encompasses quite a number of societal problems, up to, and including lack of education and health services as well as job security. Maybe the sum of money from the top 100, if divided evenly by all the poor in the world, would end hunger for a year or so, but if we really wanted to build a sustainable society, that money had better go into development of countries where they have none (which is also in their best interests because it will promote business and potentially provide a bigger return on investment in the future).
The problem is that most businesspersons are (unfortunately) focused on the short term, an issue which I think deserves another thread all to itself.
How well do you do against one?
I mean what, are the richest people in the world suppose to just give away all that they have and magically solve the problem of global poverty? Yeah, it's not that simple. The better question is how exactly can we trickle down the abundance of wealth from the top to the bottom. Speculating on the morals of the matter means nothing if no one can actually redistribute the wealth.
Trickling down wealth has not ever worked. It's a scam perpetuated by the rich to make you feel less bad about it.
What works, has always worked, and will always work, is people in the middle getting more money. The middle class save enough to allow for others to invest it, and spend enough to redistribute it.
Or any money donated will be syphoned into the coffers of the corrupted government leaders.
Go ahead and end poverty for this one guy I know and he'll have a place to stay and food to eat for awhile, but in short order the money will be blown on booze and drugs.
Foreign aid is a nightmare. So much of the money Western countries give to Africa ends up being used to prop up dictators and purchase weapons and ammunition instead of things that will genuinely help people. Some dictators have even confiscated food drops!
You need sustainable improvement. Infrastructure. Means of creating goods and services cheaply. Technological advancement. Mental health care.
Finally, you need political stability and freedom which sadly cannot necessarily be purchased.
[Clan Flamingo]
This. Sensationalist article is sensationalist
If you gave every poor person in the world a million dollars, a shirt would cost 1.5 million dollars. Having the rich dump their money onto the laps of the poor doesn't help anyone, it just causes massive super inflation. It's been tried in several African and South American countries, politicians tell people "elect us and we will give you $$" so they get elected, print $$ out the wazoo, hand it out to the poor, and all it does is drive the cost of goods and services up by the amount of $$ they give out.
Same problem with jacking up the minimum wage. Add $2 to the minimum wage, business owners tack that $2 on the costs of the goods they sell, so the working poor aren't getting ahead.
The worlds richest can help by investing in infrastructure, education, access to health care, and improved human rights if they want to help out poor people. If they are not doing that, governments should tax that wealth and do it for them.
The problem is that the people who run the government and make the tax rules are beholden to the rich people to finance their campaigns, which is why you get massive income inequality and why Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney pay lower marginal tax rates then their housekeepers.
I never meant that it had to be trickled down via the volition of the super wealthy. It simply has to be taken through the power of a thrid party.
Wait, how does that work exactly?
If it did then we'd all be poor
Value (often represented by money) is the benefit of mutual exchanges. Money is just paper.
You can redistribute money, you'll only be moving paper. You wouldn't be creating any more wealth, productivity or value to the world.
When more people have access to money, prices rise, so there will always be poor people as there are limited resources.