85 peoples as wealthy as 3.5 billions peoples

Post Reply New Topic

The real extend of inequality and and the possible solutions that will never happen.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

The World Bank estimated 1.29 billion people were living in absolute poverty in 2008. source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

So, something should also be done to take money from the poor and middle class people in Western countries, because when you compare them to the 1.29 billion people in absolute poverty in the world and the billions that are even poorer and worse off - then these poor and middle class people in Western countries have it too good.

or ... does that fit with the plan

No ... the plan is that something should be done to take everything away from the "Haves" (i.e., those with food, clothing and housing) so that everyone becomes a "Have-Not" (e.g., starving, naked and homeless).

Now THAT is equality!

I'm greedy and won't share my land,I guess that where I fall short on being a philanthropist.
I do wish everyone had a plot of their own but have no good idea how to bring this about without taking.Maybe let people homestead Detroit.

What I have, I earned, and I am proud of it.

Some people have a genuine need and are willing and sometimes unable to work for their wages. Such people have my respect (and some of what I've earned).

Some seem proud of the fact that they "earn" their spare change doing nothing. Such people have my contempt.

I've taken in people who would otherwise be homeless, and helped them get back on their feet. They have expressed nothing less than gratitude.

I've offered to buy meals for panhandlers who have then become belligerent and demanded that I just give them money. They have expressed nothing more than an exaggerated sense of entitlement.

My wealth. My labor. My choice.

This is proof the monetary system fails. Let's look at the real reasons people live in poverty and who runs the countries with the most people living in poverty.

My daughter once had a panhandler yell at her,she didn't offer him money,but some of her food.f**k him.

The arguments for a completely free market, however reasonable they may seem, are absolutely demolished by this.

Half of the people on this rock are broke. They are the ones having more children.

This has been going on for a while.

Twenty years in the Roman army got you two acres. Most people had nothing, and were slaves.

London 1800, more than 90% were broke, spent most of their income on gin, and died young.

It is part of the reason that genocide for free land was such a mess in the Americas. Owning any land made you one of the rich.

The rich are people who did own land, sold it, had Capital, and through education, obsessive work, grew their assets by employing people.

The employed still spent it on drink, had short lives, and most never owned land.

The small land owners could not support themselves, it took a lot of knowledge and investment, and constant labor, to make land productive. There have been few crops that paid, once sugar, tobacco, cotton could make money, but the big house was built by the farm labor in the off season.

Wealth as land cleared, drained, tilled, fenced, wells dug, housing, barns, was all reinvestment.

The economy has grown as land was sold, and the proceeds built factories, and hired thousands of drunks, and a few smart people. Anything that sold, other factories opened, and markets were flooded with low cost goods.

Most of the business that went offshore, took only their Capital and Knowledge. The factories were old, the machines scrap, and the drunks the same as their grandfathers. Three generations of employment, still no education, and holding bottom rung jobs.

When the textile mill, lumber mill, or coal mine closed, the employed had not built themselves a secure place in life.

Lowest education, savings, health, and they blame someone else.

No one gets a billion without paying tens to hundreds of billions on factories, labor, raw materials, and finding markets worldwide. They pay the taxes that support governments, schools, programs for the poor, also armies, police, to protect the general population.

It took the City of London 200 years to get the level of total poverty down to 10%. Some was done by hanging, some by transport, and creating a safe place for Capital, with the top pick of employees available. Other English cities did not fare as well, some were back 200 years.

Capitalism takes an educated population, Capital, and Knowledge of business. Most places have not developed all three.

Lowering standards so more people get a degree, is not education.

We have an obese workforce, something, with a functional education of half way thrrough the Seventh Grade, with a D. They cannot be trained on the job for todays tasks. Those who do get a degree tend to leave.

At the best, half of all people have an IQ below 100. Of the half above more than half hold a Degree. They are not obese and speak English like it was their native language.

Even in the most advanced economies, more than half the people are obsolete.

No program will raise them up to becoming functional, even if applied for generations. By then the standarts of knowledge for employment will be much higher.

I recommend a cheap Gin program, as we spend more on prisons than on education, hanging would solve a lot of long term problems. Cheap Gin, free crack, meth, followed by hanging.

Otherwise, the declining standards of people produced, will destroy everything.

The top half of all people own a lot more than the billionaires, are increasing their education, generally stay fitter, in better health, and pay for their own health care.

We need the 85 wealthy people, we can get by without the 3.5 billion. Paying them to not reproduce, they would take the deal. One child per couple would reduce their numbers by half in a generation, and three quarters in two. All of the free gin, crack, meth, would make those short generations.

Overpopulation, dumb fat people, criminals, and Global Warming are the main problems we face.

We will be doing something about it.

A high permit fee for a second child would cause only those who could support them to have more children.

The other choices are war, war, and I do not know.

Having a goal of reducing the world population to less than a billion in a hundred years, would be a great gift to the future. We will need educated people with skin in the game to deal with global warming.

Funny.

However, Low IQ people win, game over.

Money contradicts itself. It creates a need for us to hoard it if we can, but by hoarding it we take it out of circulation and use, away from its original purpose as a code for quantifying exchange.

What we can't make happen because the whole world would need to do it in one go, is this:

Issue to everyone a regular sum of units of quantified exchange, but work it like coupons. They would cease to exist upon being used, instead of there being any monetary cycle.

This about says it all.

Being wealthy isn't wrong. You don't owe someone else something because your hard work paid off.

In the movie Elysium, people like so say it was about the 1% and the 99%.

What I found interesting is that the 99% ruled the Earth. The 1% had their own "world" and other than factories producing stuff for them and the people on Earth, the populace had the territory. What were THEY doing about their planet? It seemed they were more blaming the 1% for having what they had rather than trying to make their world a better place.

Yep, and all of the world's resources disappear into the void once Monsanto and British Petroleum don't own them anymore, because that's how reality works.

Ahahaha, "hard work". You mean dodging drafts, collecting capital gains by the poolside, and laundering Daddy's money through the Cayman Islands?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej7dfPL7Kho[/youtube]

Yes, you are absolutely right.

If money were divided exactly evenly, everyone would have around $10,000 (£6,000). Obviously that wouldn't last long because people would make stupid decisions, people would make great decisions, people would have different costs of living... However, the world would be a better place if the American earning $50,000 (£30,000) was helping to fund projects in the poorest parts of the world, which would drive down the cost of living and drive up quality of life in those countries. Yes, currently aid is given to foreign countries by nearly all Western governments, and we give money in charity, but not nearly enough. This would quickly increase global GDP, as one of the most valuable resources on the planet is an educated workforce, and another is electricity. Energy and education investment could drive up Africa's GDP/capita to be much nearer to Europe's.

Some quick graphs to back up my point, GDP versus energy consumption:


And GDP versus education:


As always, correlation and causation... perhaps GDP causes energy consumption? A very real possibility. Does GDP cause education? Again, a very real possibility - but studies at Harvard and Harokopio University, Athens seem to indicate that education causes rises in GDP.

In essence, we don't need to totally equalise things*. Just give poorer countries a leg-up and they should reach Western standards.

*Nor should we, totally- they just don't need to be as disparate as they are now.