Jump to content
The Corroboree
qualia

The Hundred Richest People in 2012 Earned Enough to End World Poverty Four Times Over

Recommended Posts

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.

The report was published before the World Economic Forum in Davos next week, and calls on world leaders to “end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last 20 years.”

Oxfam’s report argues that extreme wealth is unethical, economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive.

The problem is a global one, Oxfam said: ”In the UK inequality is rapidly returning to levels not seen since the time of Charles Dickens. In China the top 10 percent now take home nearly 60 percent of the income. Chinese inequality levels are now similar to those in South Africa, which is now the most unequal country on Earth and significantly more [inequality] than at the end of apartheid.”

In the US, the richest 1 percent’s share of income has doubled since 1980 from 10 to 20 percent, according to the report. For the top 0.01 percent, their share of national income quadrupled, reaching levels never seen before.

“We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,” Executive Director of Oxfam International Jeremy Hobbs said.

Hobbs explained that concentration of wealth in the hands of the top few minimizes economic activity, making it harder for others to participate: “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favor.”

The report highlights that even politics has become controlled by the super-wealthy, which leads to policies“benefitting the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies.”

“It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite,” the report said.

The four-day World Economic Forum will be held in Davos starting next Wednesday. World financial leaders will gather for an annual meeting that will focus on reviving the global economy, the eurozone crisis and the conflicts in Syria and Mali.

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

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oxfam-the-hundred-richest-people-in-2012-earned-enough-to-end-world-poverty-four-times-over/5319965

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i loved the movie Fight Club, especially project mayhem where they reduced every one to zero.

whoops forgot the first rule

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is Robin Hood when you need him....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are oxfam really trying to say that if the $240 billion was given to starving people, that they would then have enough money to feed themselves for the rest of thier lives? and thier children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc on down the line?

To say it would end poverty is silly, it may for 1 year or even one generation, but forever, no way, when peoples cultures arent weighted towards working hard/smart, then poverty will always come back no matter how much money you give them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad part is that many of ultra rich don't even rate a mention on those "rich lists". Most of the old money types have their money hidden in charitable funds and other sneaky schemes so they can dodge taxes and fly under the radar.

I reckon they should start chopping rich cunts heads off French revolution style and use the money to re-pay some of Americas debt.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally, i think you mean chop thier heads off, take thier money to pay off OUR debts, stuff the US. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are oxfam really trying to say that if the $240 billion was given to starving people, that they would then have enough money to feed themselves for the rest of thier lives? and thier children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc on down the line?

To say it would end poverty is silly, it may for 1 year or even one generation, but forever, no way, when peoples cultures arent weighted towards working hard/smart, then poverty will always come back no matter how much money you give them.

Perhaps if it was invested, then it could theoretically produce enough to help people scrape by indefinitely. But then you would also have to consider the effect on the economy of taking all this money from the rich. They are the ones who set up all the schemes to make money, and if people are aware that making money ends in it being taken off you and given to others, there's no incentive to build up a lucrative business. So what businesses would this money then be invested in? There would be none.

It's basically a question of capitalism versus socialism. Both systems have been tried, as well as various degrees in between, and neither really works all that well for the majority of people. However, capitalism has generally worked better than socialism, and leaving aside the ethics of the utilitarianism/rights dichotomy for the moment, I'd like to see solid evidence that taking all this money off the rich and giving it to the impoverished would actually solve the problem before advocating for it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's less of a suggestion that we take money from the rich and give to the poor, and more that we simply have the resources in the world to fix all the major problems - if we all communicated effectively, shared common goals, thought critically, etc. The idea of an 'economic health' - dictating that half of the world's people should live in squalor, drink fetid water and eat next to nothing - is utterly absurd to me. Never mind the animal and plant species that suffer under our reign.

The prisoner's dilemma, refers to much more than the dilemma of two prisoners being bribed to rat each other out. It also refers to two or more parties, faced with a decision where they can be honest or deceitful, and the pay-offs are structured a certain way, so that if everyone plays fairly, then it's the best overall scenario, but if they cheat and you play fairly - they get a huge advantage (and vice versa), and this - coupled with mutual distrust - means that both sides end up cheating, and they both get the worst outcome of all. Here's kind of another way of explaining the same situation:

Two people meet and exchange closed bags, with the understanding that one of them contains money, and the other contains a purchase. Either player can choose to honor the deal by putting into his or her bag what he or she agreed, or he or she can defect by handing over an empty bag.


Now imagine every country is a player - they all distrust eachother, so no country will cut back on burning petroleum or coal, because then the other countries industries will march ahead.

Some countries have countered this by realizing that it's simply a matter of time before the other countries all lose, so by switching early, they are delaying their advantage until a later date, in exchange for momentary inconvenience.

Another approach to remedy this problem, is the way that an ant colony works. That an ant knows when to sacrifice himself for the good of the colony. If the world worked this way, that people knew when they should self-sacrifice, or countries knew when they should give out more resources than they received.- Not just people, but when people realized their life was less meaningful than a small woodland, or a little stretch of river, or a grove of mangroves - that their individual pain was much less than the gain of everyone else, and that that makes it worth it (this is the antithesis of the modern fanaticism of individuality - that you're a special magical individual, and that your life is the most important thing) - that somehow, despite your individual life ending - life itself (which is still you, as you are life) continuing meant that you didn't really die after all

The prisoner's dilemma comes into it again, because many people would consider sacrificing themselves - but they distrust each other, they don't believe they would receive the same sacrifice from the other parties if the situation was reversed - so they "cheat", and favour themselves at the loss of the whole every time. This type of decision made repeatedly, is obviously far worse for the welfare of lifekind as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Real-life_examples

Real-life examples

These particular examples, involving prisoners and bag switching and so forth, may seem contrived, but there are in fact many examples in human interaction as well as interactions in nature that have the same payoff matrix. The prisoner's dilemma is therefore of interest to the social sciences such as economics, politics and sociology, as well as to the biological sciences such as ethology and evolutionary biology. Many natural processes have been abstracted into models in which living beings are engaged in endless games of prisoner's dilemma. This wide applicability of the PD gives the game its substantial importance.

In environmental studies

In environmental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate change. It is argued all countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb CO2 emissions. The immediate benefit to an individual country to maintain current behavior is perceived to be greater than the purported eventual benefit to all countries if behavior was changed, therefore explaining the current impasse concerning climate change.[citation needed][12]

An important difference between climate change politics and the prisoner's dilemma is uncertainty. The pace at which pollution will change climate is not known precisely. The dilemma faced by government is therefore different from the prisoner's dilemma in that the payoffs of cooperation are largely unknown. This difference suggests states will cooperate much less than in a real iterated prisoner's dilemma, so that the probability of avoiding a climate catastrophe is much smaller than that suggested by a game-theoretical analysis of the situation using a real iterated prisoner's dilemma.[13]

In psychology

In addiction research/behavioral economics, George Ainslie points out[14] that addiction can be cast as an intertemporal PD problem between the present and future selves of the addict. In this case, defecting means relapsing, and it is easy to see that not defecting both today and in the future is by far the best outcome, and that defecting both today and in the future is the worst outcome. The case where one abstains today but relapses in the future is clearly a bad outcome—in some sense the discipline and self-sacrifice involved in abstaining today have been "wasted" because the future relapse means that the addict is right back where he started and will have to start over (which is quite demoralizing, and makes starting over more difficult). The final case, where one engages in the addictive behavior today while abstaining "tomorrow" will be familiar to anyone who has struggled with an addiction. The problem here is that (as in other PDs) there is an obvious benefit to defecting "today", but tomorrow one will face the same PD, and the same obvious benefit will be present then, ultimately leading to an endless string of defections.

John Gottman in his research described in "the science of trust" defines good relationships as those where partners know not to enter the (D,D) cell or at least not to get dynamically stuck there in a loop.

In economics

Advertising is sometimes cited as a real life example of the prisoner’s dilemma. When cigarette advertising was legal in the United States, competing cigarette manufacturers had to decide how much money to spend on advertising. The effectiveness of Firm A’s advertising was partially determined by the advertising conducted by Firm B. Likewise, the profit derived from advertising for Firm B is affected by the advertising conducted by Firm A. If both Firm A and Firm B chose to advertise during a given period the advertising cancels out, receipts remain constant, and expenses increase due to the cost of advertising. Both firms would benefit from a reduction in advertising. However, should Firm B choose not to advertise, Firm A could benefit greatly by advertising. Nevertheless, the optimal amount of advertising by one firm depends on how much advertising the other undertakes. As the best strategy is dependent on what the other firm chooses there is no dominant strategy, which makes it slightly different than a prisoner's dilemma. The outcome is similar, though, in that both firms would be better off were they to advertise less than in the equilibrium. Sometimes cooperative behaviors do emerge in business situations. For instance, cigarette manufacturers endorsed the creation of laws banning cigarette advertising, understanding that this would reduce costs and increase profits across the industry.[15] This analysis is likely to be pertinent in many other business situations involving advertising.[citation needed]

Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma.[16] 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members. Anti-trust authorities want potential cartel members to mutually defect, ensuring the lowest possible prices for consumers.

In sport

Doping in sport has been cited as an example of a prisoner's dilemma.[17]

If two competing athletes have the option to use an illegal and dangerous drug to boost their performance, then they must also consider the likely behaviour of their competitor. If neither athlete takes the drug, then neither gains an advantage. If only one does, then that athlete gains a significant advantage over their competitor (reduced only by the legal or medical dangers of having taken the drug). If both athletes take the drug, however, the benefits cancel out and only the drawbacks remain, putting them both in a worse position than if neither had used doping.[18]

Multiplayer dilemmas

Many real-life dilemmas involve multiple players. Although metaphorical, Hardin's tragedy of the commons may be viewed as an example of a multi-player generalization of the PD: Each villager makes a choice for personal gain or restraint. The collective reward for unanimous (or even frequent) defection is very low payoffs (representing the destruction of the "commons"). The commons are not always exploited: William Poundstone, in a book about the prisoner's dilemma (see References below), describes a situation in New Zealand where newspaper boxes are left unlocked. It is possible for people to take a paper without paying (defecting) but very few do, feeling that if they do not pay then neither will others, destroying the system. Subsequent research by Elinor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, hypothesized that the tragedy of the commons is oversimplified, with the negative outcome influenced by outside influences. Without complicating pressures, groups communicate and manage the commons among themselves for their mutual benefit, enforcing social norms to preserve the resource and achieve the maximum good for the group, an example of effecting the best case outcome for PD.[19]

The Cold War

The Cold War and similar arms races can be modelled as a Prisoner's Dilemma situation.[20] During the Cold War the opposing alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact both had the choice to arm or disarm. From each side's point of view: Disarming whilst your opponent continues to arm would have led to military inferiority and possible annihilation. If both sides chose to arm, neither could afford to attack each other, but at the high cost of maintaining and developing a nuclear arsenal. If both sides chose to disarm, war would be avoided and there would be no costs. If your opponent disarmed while you continue to arm, then you achieve superiority.

Although the 'best' overall outcome is for both sides to disarm, the rational course for both sides is to arm. This is indeed what happened, and both sides poured enormous resources in to military research and armament for the next thirty years until the dissolution of the Soviet Union broke the deadlock.

Edited by CβL
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.00 Billion: World Population

5.60 Billion: People living on less than $10/day

4.20 Billion: Adults living on less than $10/day

$240billion/4.2billion adults = $57 per adult, $114 per couple

What can $114 per couple do to end poverty, you may ask ? In some countries it can fund one of the following:

22 Chickens - ample livestock to create a self-sustainable source of eggs & meat, with scope for business growth as a poultry seller

2 Goats - giving the ability to breed small bovids for milk, cheese and eventually meat. Another scope for small business growth

3 Vegetable Patches - includes training and seeds. Obviously where the land permits.

Let's look at what an entire community of 100 adults with $57, or a combined fund diversion of $5,700.00

$1600 well for drinking water

$600 for 20 vegetable gardens

$500 for a hundred chickens

$1800 for six cows

$1200 for 17 toilets, less disease, better health

The next village over the hill won't need to have chickens or cows, so the money can be spend on weaving looms to make rugs which can be swapped for food and vegetables.

The town across the river from the village over the hill won't need to make textiles or keep livestock, because they will use their money to buy equipment for building dwellings, so they can barter their services for eggs & blankets.

The hamlet next door to them can spend their money on bicycles & parts, to supply cheap transportation for all four communities to commute in between the areas of expertise.

After the $240 Billion comes from 'the rich', we can further bolster the funding to developing countries by diverting the $7 billion that Americans spend on Halloween, $6 Billion on the next US Presidential campaign, $5 Billion per year on the war on drugs.

Or perhaps the 'first world' might re-evaluate the importance of an unjustified war next time the US decides to puff out their mighty chest. The last round of war spending was over $950 Billion, and a further $30 Billion from the UK, and over $20 billion from our very own country's leaders.

Then the big question might be "What will a community living in poverty do to better their lives with a donation of $18,000.00?"

The answer, of course, is "End their Poverty"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if it was invested, then it could theoretically produce enough to help people scrape by indefinitely. But then you would also have to consider the effect on the economy of taking all this money from the rich. They are the ones who set up all the schemes to make money, and if people are aware that making money ends in it being taken off you and given to others, there's no incentive to build up a lucrative business. So what businesses would this money then be invested in? There would be none.

Even if your correct that everyone would just give up and stop expanding there businesses (corporations) if they knew they couldn’t become filthy rich, it still has no real significance to the argument unless you can establish that major corporations, do in fact have a long-term benefit to society as a whole, rather than just benefiting a select few.

It's basically a question of capitalism versus socialism. Both systems have been tried, as well as various degrees in between, and neither really works all that well for the majority of people.

When has a true democratic socialist system ever been attempted?

Anyway, I personally don’t think it is a matter of socialism vs capitalism. Why can’t we just regulate the current system in a more efficient manner, by putting caps on the amount of wealth that any one entity is allowed to hold at any one time? That way the world’s wealth could be in a constant motion, evenly flowing though the world economy, rather than the majority of the world’s wealth just being stock piled by a select few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if your correct that everyone would just give up and stop expanding there businesses (corporations) if they knew they couldn’t become filthy rich, it still has no real significance to the argument unless you can establish that major corporations, do in fact have a long-term benefit to society as a whole, rather than just benefiting a select few.

That wasn't my argument. The argument I used was that if you want to make the money last, you would need to invest it and, for that, you need the corporations to invest in. I don't need to establish that major corporations have a long-term benefit to society as a whole for this to be a valid argument. All I need to establish is that major corporations have a long-term benefit to their shareholders, which in this scenario would be the organisation that was entrusted with these funds for the purposes of ending poverty.

 

When has a true democratic socialist system ever been attempted?

True, you could also ask when a truly democratic economic libertarian system has been attempted. It's always somewhere along the spectrum. I think it's inevitable given the nature of democracy. It's not like one person can have a grand vision and this gets carried out, so we end up with a blend of capitalism and socialism. I'm personally skeptical of both extremes.

 

Anyway, I personally don’t think it is a matter of socialism vs capitalism. Why can’t we just regulate the current system in a more efficient manner, by putting caps on the amount of wealth that any one entity is allowed to hold at any one time? That way the world’s wealth could be in a constant motion, evenly flowing though the world economy, rather than the majority of the world’s wealth just being stock piled by a select few.

The problem is that it's not really about the money itself. Ultimately, it's goods and labour that need to be distributed. When the economy is stable, we can make assumptions about the relative value of money, goods, and labour.

Redistribution of wealth on such a large scale will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the economy, and if the paper itself is worth less than it was before, it's going to cause more problems than it solves. I don't pretend to understand the world economy, but I would like to see evidence that it would be a good idea before supporting such an idea on principle.

Essentially, our taxation systems are supposed to serve this purpose, with the "cap" actually being a tapering at the high income levels. Of course, we all know this doesn't happen in practice, and this is perhaps where the focus should lie, at least in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pretend to understand the world economy

I’m not entirely convinced anyone has any real understanding of how the world economy actually works, from a practical point of view anyway.

Just look at the last financial crisis, ya had all these economist standing around scratching there heads saying “shit, probably should have seen that coming”.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a big fan of monopoly busting.. im really glad that many ppl here vibe with this....

Here is a website I came across a year and a half ago which I vibed with and then I intereacted with these peeps on their page alot while the whole anonymous thing was taking off.. shortly after some anonymous ppl started attacking them and frankly they got rather pissed and predicted that it would die down and be "divided and conquered" so to speak... I still respect anyone that puts their face on the line for whats right.. such as Lupe Fiasco who was recently pulled off stage at an inaugaral address for going on an anti obama, anti war rant... right or wrong the guy put his morals in front of popularity and I respect that.. soemthing the world is lacking tremendously , especially here in the usa that link is www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk.. I don't expect this to vibe with everyone and theres alot of dogma that this is charged with but if you look with an open mind you'll find some very interesting work here @ 2,000,000 + words

I was a realtor for nearly a decade... I watched the bullshit of the banking industry snowball, and I unfortunately had to witness their ungrateful attitude towards ppl they affected with their bad gambles... I spent my last year in the business trying to help ppl caught up in bad situations cause I felt guilty.. the banks had the wrong attitude for a long time... they were willing to take a 30-60k loss rather than working somethign reasonable out with the seller, even when I brought strong buyers to the table... they didd all this bullshit horse and pony show to say they wanted to reach out and help ppl and yet they resisted until they were absolutely forced by politics to change their attitude... they ended up adjusting their practices, which was due, but at the same time they became this dark force in the market.. iwent back in and tried but my passions had all but died.. all the fees have been jacked up so high its pitiful... The whole too big to fail thing is just the left and the right cooperating to send people the message the market is your infallible god.

FUCK WALLSTREET... there were a few banks I had respect for and still do, but the big six should have been divided into the big 33... the ideologs in in the world haven't done shit to help either...

But anyway im ranting now... I went out of business trying to help folks... thats after 8 successful years and losing two of my own homes, not to mention most of my ffriends for being honest about what I think is right here in this fucking bible belt state... but anyways.. im glad to see many ppl here have the same feelings... I was wondering about that but i've always known the perepecitve from around the world is that this is a pretty shady place and for the most part it is... unless im just projecting.. .I've found the bullshit in every circle in which I've tried to fit in, with few exceptions and SAB is one of these places that I know I can be respected as someone who is passionate about my plants rather than which bankster I am loyal too...

Here is a nice little tune

 



Here is a funny for anyone into hip hop lol its a parody of a song called "Damn it feels good to be a Gangsta" lol.. I hope some of you can enjoy this

 

Edited by Spine Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are oxfam really trying to say that if the $240 billion was given to starving people, that they would then have enough money to feed themselves for the rest of thier lives? and thier children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc on down the line?

To say it would end poverty is silly, it may for 1 year or even one generation, but forever, no way, when peoples cultures arent weighted towards working hard/smart, then poverty will always come back no matter how much money you give them.

You are correct in many respects... the root of the problems are cultural if anything,

however you are not going to plug these holes when the choices in politics both amount to apologists for the monopolies...

Some people are born with a head start... you can't deny that... there is nothing meritorious about being born rich... these people are spoiled brats who only have intentions of passing the fortune down their family lines... this is how monsters like bush came to rise to lead such wars...

But indeed, what needs to be addresed more than anything is the poor mentality... and this starts by feeding these ppl some opportunity, fuck the hope,, they need more examples in their own communities that prove that you can rise from the ashes like a phoenix.

You can't ignore monopoly... there is not free markets that co exist with monopoly... the real governments are corporations,, they set the tone for politics...they are not all bad... but when they use their size to create an advantage over the rest then they need to be dealt with... Some of these fuckerks make a thousand times over what it takes for a human do live a decent life... The article shows you how much worse this is getting, exacerbated by the policies of "Too Big to Fail" .. they are an abysmal failure that haven't found their day of reckoning yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link I posted has some links to the meritocracy party... meritocrats believe that the world should be run not by an elite of chosen ones who are fortunate enough to make it into ivy league schools and rub shoulders with the same old tired names, but that people should have the opportunity to to lead governments, purely based on merit alone and there should be subsections of government with different leaders related to their expertise... of course there is no perfect way but if you eliminate the amount of people who get into powerfully political positions just by their merit alone, rather than how much money they have, you can level the playing field.. other concepts they mention are that someone should have to earn their right to vote... I hear in aussie that voting is mandatory.. but here its just anyone who is over 18 and not a convict... the act of voting in our leaders should be highly valued and minimally one should express a basic understanding of some things so that its known they are the less likely to fall prey to our standards of propaganda and deep psychological conditioning, particularly as it relates to the dogma that markets are driven by money schemers, rather than simply demand for products....

They have some contraversial items on the menu such as 100% inheritance tax, but if you think about it, who benefits the most from inheritance... the inheritance of billions of dollars simply guarantess your kids will work for theirs, while you continue to pass down your measley 20,000 lump of change or a maybe a house... frankly, people who have to earn their names in life, are better people in general than people who have this handed to them.. and its ironic that ppl who inherit so many millions and billions, are so anti handouts... they are mostly the ones who benefit from being handed something... so this should be evaluated... some say this is socialism but it can also be implemented in a way to replace democray with meritocratic standards, and function alongside with a capitalist system, or in other words, social capitalism...

ANY OF THE SYSTEMS CAN WORK RIGHT WITH THE RIGHT PPL>.. Hitler gave communism a bad name, bush gave capitalism a bad name... we are quick to judge entire systems by failed experiments.. theres simply more to it, and the fundamentals of the entire game or the monopoly of resources and control of money... how much would things change, if we broke those moonopolies... ppl wouldn't stop using oil... new companies would rise and offer a more competition based market where prices could really be mandated by demand and not market bets and gambles... Democracy is the illusion of free choice.. he with the slickest words and the most money is the winner when it comes to democracy, though i'll admit it has functioned better than most other choices before it.. .in fact, democracy is the step prior to achieving a true meritocracy..

A friend of mine made this video... he's a little more radical than myself, but I appreciate this mans passion more than most

http://youtu.be/k-7CeMoulbw

Edited by Spine Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not entirely convinced anyone has any real understanding of how the world economy actually works, from a practical point of view anyway.

Just look at the last financial crisis, ya had all these economist standing around scratching there heads saying “shit, probably should have seen that coming”.

In my real estate days... the MAJORITY of the veteran realtors, were warning all of us younging what was coming... years prior to the near bust... One of my good friends was one of the top producers... she told me that in 5 years half of these loans will be foreclosed and that is was pure insanity.... they had been through the market crash in the 80s in which the same exact process happened... frankly, the idea that the people at the top were surprised is bullshit, but ppl tend to try and link this to some conspiracy to end the dollar... these fuckers are the ones that saved the dollar to pillage for their own aims...

IN the great depression, the newspapers were used to make certain institutions seem unstable...The elite who owned these newspapers, in turn, ended up being the same ones to buy up all these competitive banks for pennies on the dollar... they are literally following the same forumla, here is nothing hidden about it other than the fact that the poltiicians rely on human impulse to encourage that people rationalize by caving into little holes trying to protect themselves and compete with everyone else, rather than uniting to force better choices onto the scene... Its not the freemasons or the illuminati,,, its straight up greedy people and royalty who don't deserve the positions they were born into... but its time we all being to start deserving what we expect from life... this is truly where it begins.

Edited by Spine Collector
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article is interesting and has some good points, but I imagine very few people (and no people in political office) are going to take it too seriously in it's current format sadly.

The wording used borders a little too much on socialism and a "re-distribution of wealth" vibe, and would be dismissed outright by conservatives, and cautiously side-stepped by liberals.

I agree though that something ought to be done, and I think the article is right in saying that we need to update our political systems and our laws and regulations as best we can to remove the heavy influence of big money on these processes and to even the odds.

Edited by gtarman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly no one is gonna take us seriously until we take us seriously... fuck politicans really... t heres a few that mean well, but the business of politics is not the way to social change, its more like a thermometer

socialism is a dogmatized word... but monopoly isn't dogmatized enough... theres not a true "Left" its only the right and far right in the usa... All the poloticians are apologists for too big to fail.. they can't lose, no one else can compete... they can hide in the shadows til we fall asleep and buy the power back each time we fall asleep... history is this story repeating itself... we need a new way and it starts with rewarding the meritorious, and taking rewards away from those born with the biggest handouts of all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what gets me mad is pure gluttonous waste.

i tried to find video but couldnt find. in australia a couple of days ago there was a world record achieved for the biggest meat pie. it contained some stupendous amounts of meat, eggs etc as the pie was as big as a horse. the chef went on about how he created a masterpiece and then all these people came running in a squashed the whole thing up with hands and fingers in some kind of victory celebration.

seriously thats not good. there is no point to reckless wastage like that, just to have 5 mins of fame. that pie could have fed 100 people all day without a problem but it ends up being squashed for nothing. wastage is a huge problem not many people care alot about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno...all-in-all I'm for equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome is a different beast. I think opportunity is what we need to be equalizing.

And it looks good on paper to say that if we gave X people Y amount of money it would achieve predicted outcome Z. But think of lottery winners, for example:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/lottery-winner-statistics/

Here you can see that even when individual people in modern western countries are handed millions of dollars, there's a 90% chance that the money and it's benefits will be all gone within 3 generations.

Another quote on lottery winners, from this article: “The reality is that 70 percent of all lottery winners will squander away their winnings in a few years,” the Connecticut financial advisers said in a news release. “In the process, they will see family and friendships destroyed and the financial security they hoped for disappear.”

I'm hesitant to believe all such problems can be solved by throwing more money at them. Money helps, but it's the underlying culture, mindsets, and real-world actions that need to be changed for lasting benefit in my opinion. It's silly to believe that poverty exists only because really rich people aren't giving away their money to the poor - there seems to be very complex social, economic and political forces at play...corruption, civil wars, regular wars, droughts, lack of natural resources, skills and education deficits etc

Edited by gtarman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s necessarily about just taking money off the rich and just handing it over to the disadvantaged, which would obviously just create mayhem. I think it’s more about setting up are fairer system that will spread the wealth more evenly.

It’s the perceived sense of entitlement of the wealthy, which creates a lot of these problems in the first place.

The legal opiate industry is a perfect example of this. A rich country like Australia makes billions of dollars selling opiates to the pharmaceutical industry, even though we have plenty of other industries to profit from. Yet in Afghanistan where opium is the only real industry they have, we just go over there and destroy their poppy crops, which just further impoverishes them. I mean WTF is that, why is it that only wealthy countries can legally profit from opiates?

I’m sure most people have heard that old Native American saying, give a man a fish and you’ll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you’ll feed him for a life time.

Edited by jabez
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Santiago, My apologies on behalf of americans everywhere for our culture of wastefulness spreading your way.. our bad!

That's quite exactly how I see it jabez... but once you give equal education and equal opportunity, that automatically becomes a threat to powerful strongholds... it starts with mentality.... our attitudes imo...

its about everyone beginning equally. this is the only way anything can be considered fair... Its certainly not about eliminating failure... but you can't reward ppl over others simply because of their buying power... considering the example of the race ... where a large percentage of ppl begin behind the starting line... while just a few begin with a huge head start... What is it about these priveleged folks that they deserve the head start? The damn near guarantee of a better life??? When the world has moved too far to the right, then moving to the left is the only rational option, however, there is an illusion of leftist policy can be combined with being an apologist for "Too Big To fail"...just more hope served on a silver plate... The LEFT/RIGHT paradigm is a play on our duality and is quite divisive... can we as a society forget about those who are "Too Small To Succeed" and not end up having to rationalize that without an absolute crock???

@the lottery example.... PURELY an example of what uneducated people do with their money...

Real Change starts with self empowerment, and empowering each other...

@ Gtarman... what do you think about education in relation to equality??? is it okay that the best wisdom is shaped in the form of business, only affordable to those born with a head start??? Even if you opened the doors of Yale to the lower class, you would end up scaring off the upscale teachers ... so the same information needs to be widespread...

Equal education = Equal Opportunity... then you can really blame the individual if they don't succeed in life, rather than just blowing off an entire segment of the population as an "issue"... If you want to improve the GDP of a nation, improve the education. I don't think education needs to necessarily be that which one can gain a PhD with... There is always a great demand for one skill or trade over another... The communities here are strongly in need of mentors and guides... these can be just as valuable to the success of a community as the innovators, inventors and scholars..

and also... we need to get away from cookie cutter education, and move to a science based education which focuses on developing the individuals talents rather than trying to cram everyone into a few general choices... One suggestion I take a liking to is a personality test based system, where early education is much more like college life. where the participant is guided based on their own personalities, rather than just judged by how well they favor in a cookie cutter system... We can really go far, and acheive the very best that we humans are capable of if we just destroy the box we've been living in ... There's so much potential its ridiculous...

 

post-11432-0-55081500-1359301453_thumb.j

post-11432-0-55081500-1359301453_thumb.jpg

post-11432-0-55081500-1359301453_thumb.jpg

Edited by Spine Collector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×