85 peoples as wealthy as 3.5 billions peoples

Page 6 of 8 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

26 Jan 2014, 1:44 am

First, you would need to demolish the World Bank, probably. Then just start doling out the money equally. But what would that mean?
You would need to demand people do something for the money. Make them do something, give them all a chance, then give them some money. If you don't make them do something to earn it, they will just get spoiled and lazy and there won't be any motivation to do anything. But then you have to decide what's important. What is it you want them to do? I vote we make them work on space industry stuff.

The point being everyone has access to work and money but you would need some way of figuring out who goes where and who does what because 50,000 people cannot do the same job or can they O o ?
If they did, think of the productivity!

Really there's no reason why everyone cannot work and earn. The haves are only holding themselves back by being petty and stupid. They stop the species from advancing into space and distance worlds. Ironically, if the rich were to leave this planet, they would have more than they could ever imagine...a whole universe full of stuff there for the taking.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

26 Jan 2014, 2:59 am

Fnord wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
"Share the wealth"? What's in it for me?
So are you a millionaire or billionaire with massive amounts of money in hedge funds or offshore bank accounts? If not, don't worry about it.

No, I'm just an ordinary middle-aged white male who makes more than 100k$ and less than 1M$ each year.

So, what's in it for me if all the billionaires are forced to share their wealth with everyone else?


Why does it need to benefit you as opposed to several billion other people?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,479
Location: Stendec

26 Jan 2014, 8:41 am

TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
"Share the wealth"? What's in it for me?
So are you a millionaire or billionaire with massive amounts of money in hedge funds or offshore bank accounts? If not, don't worry about it.
No, I'm just an ordinary middle-aged white male who makes more than 100k$ and less than 1M$ each year. So, what's in it for me if all the billionaires are forced to share their wealth with everyone else?
Why does it need to benefit you as opposed to several billion other people?

If there is no direct and immediate material benefit for me, then I am not interested in participating, and all of you "share the wealth" types will have to make it happen on your own.

It's called motivation, kid; so what's in it for me?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

26 Jan 2014, 10:56 am

Fnord wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
"Share the wealth"? What's in it for me?
So are you a millionaire or billionaire with massive amounts of money in hedge funds or offshore bank accounts? If not, don't worry about it.
No, I'm just an ordinary middle-aged white male who makes more than 100k$ and less than 1M$ each year. So, what's in it for me if all the billionaires are forced to share their wealth with everyone else?
Why does it need to benefit you as opposed to several billion other people?

If there is no direct and immediate material benefit for me, then I am not interested in participating, and all of you "share the wealth" types will have to make it happen on your own.

It's called motivation, kid; so what's in it for me?

I'll tell you what's in it for you. Same as what is for everyone else. An elevated species and life abroad I mean waaaay abroad. Every single person on this planet would benefit. The universe could belong to all of us. We could rule it as a species. We must motivate ourselves.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Jan 2014, 12:24 pm

Fnord wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Fnord wrote:
"Share the wealth"? What's in it for me?
So are you a millionaire or billionaire with massive amounts of money in hedge funds or offshore bank accounts? If not, don't worry about it.
No, I'm just an ordinary middle-aged white male who makes more than 100k$ and less than 1M$ each year. So, what's in it for me if all the billionaires are forced to share their wealth with everyone else?
Why does it need to benefit you as opposed to several billion other people?

If there is no direct and immediate material benefit for me, then I am not interested in participating, and all of you "share the wealth" types will have to make it happen on your own.

It's called motivation, kid; so what's in it for me?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui6g23ygov8[/youtube]


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,980

26 Jan 2014, 12:31 pm

Last time I checked, Star Trek was a work of fiction... :chin:


_________________
Omit needless words.


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

26 Jan 2014, 1:01 pm

Thing is, on this planet, space is so limited. When one group colonizes, another is always unhappy, left out in the cold. In interstellar space, it's soooo vast, odds of repeating this are considerably low. You can wonder for millions of years and never see any other species but you can find water on asteroids and virtually uninhabited moons. Resources are abundant with very little competition. I am sure if you tried hard enough, you could find someone's second Earth to disturb but you would have to try extremely hard and the odds would not be in your favor.
So there would be no colonization guilt in outer space. It could be the one place humans cannot mess up simply because it's so spacious. It's SPACE after all. It's called that for a reason.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Jan 2014, 2:00 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Last time I checked, Star Trek was a work of fiction... :chin:

Last time i checked, profound, eloquent or inspiring dialogues weren't the monopoly of literal works.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Jan 2014, 2:07 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Thing is, on this planet, space is so limited. When one group colonizes, another is always unhappy, left out in the cold. In interstellar space, it's soooo vast, odds of repeating this are considerably low. You can wonder for millions of years and never see any other species but you can find water on asteroids and virtually uninhabited moons. Resources are abundant with very little competition. I am sure if you tried hard enough, you could find someone's second Earth to disturb but you would have to try extremely hard and the odds would not be in your favor.
So there would be no colonization guilt in outer space. It could be the one place humans cannot mess up simply because it's so spacious. It's SPACE after all. It's called that for a reason.


If you are even remotely familiar with Star Trek lore, I am pretty sure the paradigm which Jean Luc Picard refers to is an Earthbound one.

On this planet, we already have an abundancy scenario but it is painfully squandered by a socio economic paradigm that has no interest or motive in distributing it in a manner that could and would, eradicate all need.

Space is massive yes and the potential of finding valuable resource on asteroids or uninhabited moons shouldn't be overstated. The friendliest planet that we can most likely get to, Mars, is an irradiated freezing rusted desert with little to no potential for agricultural activity.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,077
Location: Reading, England

26 Jan 2014, 3:44 pm

Fnord wrote:
If there is no direct and immediate material benefit for me, then I am not interested in participating, and all of you "share the wealth" types will have to make it happen on your own.

So you're prepared to benefit from something, but if that benefit is not "direct and immediate" then you want other people to do the work for you?



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

26 Jan 2014, 5:13 pm

thomas81 wrote:
TheGoggles wrote:
Inventor wrote:

A fifteen year old girl in Brazil or Nigeria having her third child, is an economic choice.

The only answer is a mass population reduction by one means or another.


Considering the rate of sexual assault in developing countries.

It is likely the pregnancy wasn't her choice.

Please stop being a genocidal lunatic.

Its more likely to be the moonbattery of the Roman Catholic church that is an over riding factor in these matters.

Many respected polemicists of recent have correctly argued that if you want to redress poverty imbalance in the third world you need to tackle the [lack of] reproductive autonomy of women.


But I am a genocidial lunatic! I favor birth control. We have a five year one time method that might not affect her sex life, but if treated at 12, she will not become pregnant till 17. A second treatment, till 22.

I would be willing to pay for the treatment, and her food and education.

Keep this up for twenty years, you have population reduction, healthy educated women, all the money not spent on half feeding babies, and all the freed up labor to improve their lot in life.

If she has one child at 23, then another five year treatment, she raises one child to five, where they have a very good survival rate. If not, she has another.

One child per woman is worth supporting. It reduces the population by half, and healthy educated mothers raise healthy educated children.

All of our foreign aid has only made things worse. Mostly it goes for machine guns for the Dictator. Food for the army.

Putting the same into paying girls, to get health care, go to school, they will take the money, and the girls can still be used for sex. Not having babies makes them even better for sex. Hotter bods, tighter stuff.

Human nature, the sex drive of men is for sex, babies are an unwanted expense.

The fifteen year old Brazilian or Nigerian girl having her third baby, they do not have the same father, she still lives with her parents. Not having children would not alter her sex life.

It would change her health, potential for education, or at least growing up, and economic status, not having to do what girls do to feed babies. She will still do it, but for clothes, shoes, makeup.

Without trying to change the culture, and for a cost of a dollar a day per girl, about $6,000 from 12 to 22, we can change the world she lives in.

In Africa, the slums of south America, more than a quarter of the population dies in ten years.

In twenty years half are gone, and the other half grew up in a different world.

A declining population creates oppertunity. After the Black Death, there were more houses and fields than people, and no one would serf for a living. It took cash wages to get workers, and that is the start of our cash economy.

Rome was 90% slave, the Dark Ages 98% serf, post Black Death, wage labor became the standard.

Huts made from piles of rocks and mud get replaced by Mason built stonework, which grew ever higher and more complex, both in building, and in the economic structure of groups forming companies, training new labor, and raising the skill level of their arts.

They were poorer and less educated than the poor of today. Population reduction is good.

The worlds poorest do work. Now they are serfs, but if that cheap labor dried up, the jobs still need to be done.

Few people had cash money, the serfs had none. The Black Death caused wage labor, and coming back a few times caused raises. Then the village as a group had more cash than their employer. They took to loaning money to the rich. They also developed their own industries, the Guild System of standards and education, which turned into the Industrial Revolution.

Stated otherwise, 3.5 billion people are as rich as the 85 richest people on earth. Plus they have the labor.

Reducing their numbers to less than a billion, they would be as rich as the richest several hundred, or thousand.

They do have the land and labor. Reducing their overhead, the cost of old people and children, produces surplus capital, which they can invest in processing the raw materials they now export. They can own the ship that transports it to market.

Economic development cannot be done by hunting down the rich. It is the poor that need to be restructured.

It starts with that girl who has been having sex for a few years and is now 11.

In Rio, Africa, Mexico, she can be bought for $100, rented for $1, and Pimp Daddy wants to buy some rights.

She has to write me letters, visit the health clinic every three months, and maybe spend summers with me, at my private girls school on the beach. It is something the culture she comes from would understand,

Pimp Daddy fixed her so she will have a smooth belly, and pert tits.

I have plans for her, so dont do anything that will make me go upside yo head.

It fits with the Legal, Medical, Religious, and Social Ethics of her community.

Do not judge me by some western standards.

In Mexico, if you see a twelve year old you want, take her by force, keep her for sex, it is all legal if you are single, and you offer to marry her. Kidnap and rape are considered courtship. The problem would come from some rich man who has paid a deposit on her future use. You would be stealing his property.

Chattel Rights are alive and well throughout South America and Africa.

Someone who pays for a girls support, can also direct her education, medical care, and have her sent to visit him. Her whole community agrees that he has purchased some rights to her. Girls sent to their Patron will obey.

Working within the system is the way to bring change.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

26 Jan 2014, 5:20 pm

Well, there's the creepiest thing I've read all year. Setting the bar high for 2014.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

26 Jan 2014, 8:23 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeT-hPZCQmQ[/youtube]



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

26 Jan 2014, 10:17 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Fnord wrote:
If there is no direct and immediate material benefit for me, then I am not interested in participating, and all of you "share the wealth" types will have to make it happen on your own.

So you're prepared to benefit from something, but if that benefit is not "direct and immediate" then you want other people to do the work for you?


Libertarians want their proverbial cake and expect to chow down on them.

Its ok as long as they're not the ones picking up the tab. Little wonder so few of them aren't middle class basement dwellers with no knowledge of the big bad world.

If some of them experienced how harsh and brutal it could be, they wouldn't be so quick to diss the safety net of the welfare state. These tea party idiots with their yellow 'don't tread on me' flags for example.

As for those who come from harsh circumstances and metamorphise into libertarians, I don't know. Either they are outright misanthropes to begin with or they were lucky enough to find themselves in the right place and the right time. The free market accumulates wealth around the incumbently wealthy and passes it to their progeny. What it doesn't do is consistently reward hard graft. If that were the case, most of the southern hemisphere would attract the most wealth.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

26 Jan 2014, 10:50 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Ah, how appropriate.

Pew Research just released a wonderful graph which amply illustrates a point I made previously in this thread:

Image
Sources:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/
http://www.levyinstitute.org/conference ... anovic.pdf

Branko Milanovic (who compiled the above data) then asks two questions... based on none other than the (in)famous The Fable of The Bees by Bernard Mandeville (See page 26 in the second link above):


  • Can something that is bad nationally (increased inequality) be good globally (decreased inequality)?
  • Can national vices produce global virtue?

Image


Right on. Capitalism is bringing many out of poverty by "sharing the wealth" away from America and Europe (former wealth nations and now broke nations mostly) !

We should be celebrating the greatness of these 85 people and their work to end world poverty!



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

27 Jan 2014, 9:05 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Ah, how appropriate.

Pew Research just released a wonderful graph which amply illustrates a point I made previously in this thread:

Image
Sources:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... the-world/
http://www.levyinstitute.org/conference ... anovic.pdf

Branko Milanovic (who compiled the above data) then asks two questions... based on none other than the (in)famous The Fable of The Bees by Bernard Mandeville (See page 26 in the second link above):


  • Can something that is bad nationally (increased inequality) be good globally (decreased inequality)?
  • Can national vices produce global virtue?

Image


Right on. Capitalism is bringing many out of poverty by "sharing the wealth" away from America and Europe (former wealth nations and now broke nations mostly) !

We should be celebrating the greatness of these 85 people and their work to end world poverty!



Four major prongs of Western wealth sharing ...

1. Humanitarian aid from Western nations to poverty nations.

2. Immigration of poor people from nations with poverty into the Western countries to share the wealth (many Western nations setup poor people on welfare when they arrive).

3. Capitalism is moving production to lower production cost nations, and this is reducing poverty in those nations (as shown in above graph).

4. Free trade agreements to allow direct competition with foreign nations.

This means Americans/Europeans will have to embrace an ever-lowering standard of living as these forces keep acting to lower their wealth.

However, if people here are honest about their morality of wanting to end poverty, and share wealth from wealthy to non-wealthy, then this is good news? More so, it is fair. So, with regards to morality, or an argument to "fairness", then people here are arguing for the obliteration of their own standard of living. Yea!

I am honored to among such selfless people! :)

Of course .. if this is about trying to greedily keep wealth for oneself - by taking it from wealthier people, and using "poverty" as an excuse for why one wants to do it .. well ... then .. that is just selfishness and phoniness. :wink: