Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by Quauhtli
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

What is poor?

Seems to me that wasting energy, having more things than you need, and piling up money to the extreme that you could never spend it all should be against the law. The reason that these people need all this money is precisely to keep the rest of us in an uncomfortable state. A good many aspects to these peoples lives are crimes against future humanity and should be seen this way.

The answer is not in taking away their money. The hungry children of the world do not want their money, they want to learn how to grow, manage and store their own food. they want to be able to travel to a safe place where they can build a home and raise children. They want to do this in a manner that leaves no waste and does not dirty up the countryside. This will never happen if half of the earths produce ends up in the landfill every day.

It is the one percent that employ these harmful, wasteful, and dangerous practices. If we just come down on them hard and hold them responsible for the rest of us, they may have no choice but adapt to more energy efficient, productive practices. My Grandparents generation did not waste the energy from a single plant or animal that came off the farm. the practices that they used to manage and store food were far superior than the ones used today. They lived during the peak of civilization in this way.

The problem here is that while their lifestyles had reached a state of self sustaining independence, our has come to the place where we have almost completely lost these skills and we like piglets, suck from the tits of the one percent. They take our hard work and skills and sell it back to us at jacked up prices with interest.

WE have to separate ourselves from this cannibalism. The mother 1% will lay down and feed us until we have destroyed the planet, because she has only to live for one lifetime, hers, she does not care for the future of her children or the earth.

We have to bring back the farming practices of the 20th century. We have to relearn how to store food. We can use technology to our advantage, managing our practices so that we use every drop of energy that our crops provide. We have to make laws that punish those who would throw away a whole crop of tomatoes simply because the color is not right for the supermarket!

Our future, and that of our children depends on us to stop wasting valuable energy and resources.

It could become profitable for the 1% if they took their industry and flipped a few cogs and sprockets to design a more balanced system for the rest of us. They would never have to give away any money. The poor people of the world do not need it, they need to become self sufficient.

So from your perspective then who's fault is it? Theirs or yours? Who is responsible for this fatal reliance on the "haves" for their existence?

edit on 20-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

It's nobodies fault. It's the natural order of things. First we hoard things that give comfort, then we get greedy once we get good at hoarding. We are all a little guilty of this, at least those of us who are not dirt poor.

It would probably be naive to think we can curb greed in the world, but we can focus on becoming self sufficient in our lives individually and in our communities. We can try and teach good practices to our neighbors and children. We can hold those accountable for their crimes against nature and we can try and build communities that compliment the environment if we think it important enough to work hard towards it. And most importantly we can do our best to keep our neighbors in check, because what they do to their yard, they do to ours.

I think the most important thing we need to focus on is halting the unchecked harvesting of finite resources, as well as the widespread practices that pollute the environment, or soon we will all be starving.

reply to post by ANOK


I'm inclined to think you may object to the term I'm about to use here, but time preference did cast doubt upon exploitation theory. But if Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the labor theory of value is wrong then there is a practical question worth asking: Where are all the producers' coopratives? There's no restriction against forming producers' cooperatives--at least no restriction in North America.

In an anachro-syndicalist society, is an individual free to purchase the means of production & hire individuals who volunteer their labor? I mean, yeah, throw "state ownership of the means of production" out with the Marxian bathwater. I couldn't agree more. But within the framework of doing away with exploitation via the common ownership of the means of production I don't see any obstacles for people to--at present & in the past--form producers' cooperatives. It is an option available to a community. Granted this option is not comprehensive to a theory about an anachro-syndicalist theory of society, but if anachro is going to mean anything then it at least ought to leave open non-coerced options (e.g. private ownership of the means of production if that's what an individual & potential workers prefer).

Originally posted by beezzer
The point is, then what?

Say all the worlds wealthy level the playing field with their "wealth".

Then what?

It won't stay static. What will happen when there are poor again, do we go after those who have just a little more?

I think this argument has always bugged me. It's the "where and when do we draw the line" argument. What you seem to think is that this advocates making everybody as rich as each other forever. That will not solve anything, you are right.

I'd settle for no more starving families who have roofs over their heads and rudimentary health care. My gods, it's the least we can do. And we can afford it. That's reason enough to do it. Anything less is simply hiding selfishness behind some illusion of principles. If there are starving people and rich people on the same planet, then there is also evil. There is no excuse for it.

their is always going to be poverty.

nothing you commies do is ever going to end poverty, ever!!!!

Originally posted by bjax9er
their is always going to be poverty.

nothing you commies do is ever going to end poverty, ever!!!!

You are wrong. There will not always be poverty. Your way is dying.

The Old World Order is like a caterpillar in a cocoon greedily eating away at its lining and will destroy his own hoarded nutrients. The good news is that his form is much more grand once his cocoon is used up.

Originally posted by bjax9er
their is always going to be poverty.

nothing you commies do is ever going to end poverty, ever!!!!

The "commies" don't have to do anything, the worlds working people just need to own the means of production.

If people have access to the means to produce then how can poverty still exist?

Poverty is a lack of the means to produce, yet the machinery and land to produce is available. Kept monopolized by a minority class for their own greed.

People are waking up to this, whatever you might think, we can have a future of peace and prosperity, not your future of more exploitation and poverty for the majority of people.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

Worker Ownership for the 99%: The United Steelworkers, Mondragon, and the Ohio Employee Ownership Center Announce a New Union Cooperative Model to Reinsert Worker Equity Back into the U.S. Economy

Worker-owned businesses are spreading, mainly via the world-wide growth of cooperatives and the Latin American-led wave of workers recuperating factories and other businesses. The businesses range from small, collectively owned industries of women manufacturing T-shirts in their neighborhoods, to national-level coop networks, to laborers claiming once-closed factories for their own....

www.otherworldsarepossible.org...

Worker ownership is the only way to true liberty, all it takes is for people to take responsibility for their own futures.

BTW is that Adam Smith in your Avi?

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” ― Adam Smith

He was anti-capitalist, or would have been if the term had been in use in his time. Those that have some property (land owners mostly) are what became the capitalists (a left-wing term). That quote is concerning the ownership of economic property, and that the states job is to protect that privilege to the detriment of none-property owners (who became known as the working-class).

reply to post by ANOK


Communal ownership leads to degraded facilities. I've lived in a commune, and spoken with others who have been in communes all over the world. It's universal. Unless you own what you are working with, you will let it slip into disrepair. Where is the motivation to maintain it? Only if you must maintain it to do what you want to do, will you do said maintenance.

I have another idea. Facilities for manufacturing have to be requisitioned by a project manager. Let's say there's a need for 10 million blenders in Rwanda. A requisition from a volunteer project coordinator must be made in order to get them built. The regional facility will be built in a modular fashion, so as to allow any kind of material manufacturing. All workers are volunteer, and everyone works. If one doesn't wish to do physical labor, they must be employed as storytellers, bards, or other sorts of traveling entertainers, or historians, archivists, and curators of the heritage of life on Earth. Librarians are needed, too! Thus all contribute to the richness of society. The handicapped can tell stories. If deaf-mute, they can learn to sign to other deaf people, the stories of the world's cultures and the long, difficult climb out of the pit of illusory separation.

Of course, since profit motive is done away with, all of these blenders (remember the blenders?) will be built to the highest standards using high-grade materials. Household appliances need to be made to last a century. I know it's possible, because there are still 200-year-old (and older!) windmills in service. The oldest one in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is over 330 years old. There's no reason that with todays material science there cannot be household goods that outlive their original buyer and their grandchildren. A key is user-serviceability. Taboo in today's profit-driven paradigm, user serviceability can be brought forward major leaps from where it is with no additional effort whatsoever. That's a subject for another thread, however.

Manufacturing facilities will have to be upgraded, and free energy will have to finally be allowed to be developed. There is no longer a need for burning anything for our warmth and power, and there has been no such need for over 100 years, when Nikola Tesla invented his radiant power system that I am now convinced worked on standing waves of resonant "radio-like" emanations to shield one side of a device designed to harness the vacuum energy (think Einstein's theater ticket) from one side of the standing wave, thus inducing a dipole and resultant current flow in a closed circuit.

That, my friends, is an exceedingly cursory glance at the society I have envisioned for mankind. It isn't my idea. It isn't my vision. Many share it, and Gene Roddenberry helped the idea gain its greatest penetration into this world of haves and have-nots. Enlightened self-interest is here, and it's waiting for the haves and have-nots to finish their bickering.


Edit to add: It should be obvious that absolute religious freedom is a given in this society. No one is to be allowed to claim a corner on the truth. Punishable by death, because that is what that divisive spirit wants.for us all (yes I know Demon Religion well). It has proven so, by its consistent and insistent tendency to cause bloodshed in the name of the truth.


Edit to add again: exclusion from this system is of course, an option for anyone, as this lawful society has no need for coercion. Exclusion simply means waiving all benefits and living as best one sees fit, without the use of the trappings of the commonwealth I have described, except when given as gifts by members of the commonwealth or built on one's own. That is, no one would be forbidden from building their own factories and powering it with the radiant energy made available to humankind. Destiny reveals the way, and chooses the victor.

reply to post by seamus


Communes are not communism, in the context of what I'm talking about.

Communal living is not the same as the working class labour movement for worker ownership. The Communes came out of the middle class utopian socialism that was around during the high end of feudalism. That was all replaced by scientific socialism.

The scientific socialists/communists didn't want communal living, they wanted workers common ownership of the means of production. That can be either cooperatives, or individuals working a small plot of land by themselves. It had nothing to do with your life outside of work.

[
You have it confused. It was Proudhon, the first socialist to call themselves an Anarchist, who said, "Property is Theft".

He didn't mean your personal property. He was talking about economic property, capital, property used to exploit labour. The right, given by the state, for a person to use property to hire and exploit labour.

It is theft because of 'surplus value', because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for. Socialists consider that surplus value to be theft, it should belong to the worker who produced it. That is what socialism is all about, worker ownership, workers earn the full fruits of their labour, what they produce is theirs. It is capitalists who take your personal property.

Property rights are a controversial, theoretical construct in economics for determining how a resource is used, and who owns that resource - government, collective bodies, or by individuals.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights[3][4]:

Property rights (economics)

I keep saying this, but it is so important to understand what these terms mean instead of assuming, they hardly ever mean what you would first think they do.

Here’s where there is the most confusion about socialism. Those who really do benefit from capitalism will lie and tell you that under socialism you can’t have your own PERSONAL property. You can’t own your own home or your own boat, etc.

The truth is that your personal property—what you need to enjoy a secure and comfortable life—is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism....

....What capitalism does protect big-time is capital—that is, the kind of private property that is used to exploit workers and create profits. That’s why the capitalist government was so quick to bail out the banks and corporations when they were facing bankruptcy. It has now spent trillions of the workers’ money to save the corporations and banks that exploit them.

Capitalism, socialism & personal property

edit on 1/20/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

And your insistance on correct definitions is exactly what is needed and am thrilled to learn.

A question - as you stated "the worker has to produce more than they are paid for. Socialist consider that surplus to be theft..." That 'surplus value' is what a capitalist would call profit. The 'surplus value' would be the fair market value of (for a simple value) less cost of materials and overhead and direct labor costs. So there would still be wages paid to workers and the surplus value would also be distributed to the workers. I'm trying to get a sense of this in the real world (if there is such a thing). Individual worker's wages would be different depending on skill and ability - but the 'surplus value' would be equal among all workers.

This seems eminently doable....

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by ANOK

 

I'm inclined to think you may object to the term I'm about to use here, but time preference did cast doubt upon exploitation theory. But if Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the labor theory of value is wrong then there is a practical question worth asking: Where are all the producers' coopratives? There's no restriction against forming producers' cooperatives--at least no restriction in North America.

There are such cooperatives. Mondaron in Spain is perhaps the most sucessful and famous. Here is the US, cooperatives used to be the rule in agriculture - until factory farming came into vogue. Tillamok Cheese is a cooperative formed by Oregon Diarys.

Time for me to chime in again! *Ding Ding*

This group and their belief shows absolutely no understanding of economics what so ever. Inflation anyone?

If Scrooge mcducks home exploded and all his cash went to everyone in the city, what would happen next?

Well, first of all - no one would feel the need to go to work or sell their goods - simply because they already had enough money. This would then make prices of all types of goods rise and their common wealth degrade to nothing again.

Now... inflation is an interesting mechanism, and it is truly remarkable how some use it. Take USA for example, the nation creates a debt that is huge by printing money, this money is of course backed in debt to other countries and such. Now.. the more debt you get the cheaper the dollar, (also the nation manipulates its currency). And the cheaper the dollar, the less it`s worth - meanwhile you "erase" the debt by means of inflation. At the same time the cheap dollar boosts export and the GNI (GNP). No wonder China hates it, they own alot of USA`s debt and is the biggest competitor to american export.

So behind the scenes you have two kinds of wars beeing fought, the currency war and the oil and gas war. The religious war is more of a gimmic, as the the only real threat to christianity and such is the extremists.

Although there WILL be another religious battle, but that will be fought with the nations against their own people, the reason for this is that Islam wants a different reality than the government laws. Sharia law will never prevail in a democratic country, not until the Muslims in that country outnumber the Christians.

*Rambling on about everything*

Anywayz.. the point is that this group probably has a combined IQ of 55 and their effort is contradicitonary to their goal.

90+% of the rich's wealth is held in capital goods (factories, raw materials, company stock, etc). Is the article just assuming that if a wealthy person is worth $5B that the wealthy person has $5B of stuff that would help poor people?..

Anyways, you could end world hunger with the world's supply of dog food. Dog food is cheap. Why are some people starving so much they can't even afford dog food? Fascist/ socialist/ totalitarian governments prevent them from freely trading their labor in a market. As a result, those people literally are barred from being productive enough to be worth dog food. The problem isn't resources, wealth, etc.. It's the distribution channels distorted by government.

I would also go along with the population theory as much as I would like to see equality the happier people are the more babies they will make. People are stupid lots of stupid people with no care thought or consideration. And yes equality would not serve the rich in their game of power.

It was interesting to read the member who quoted America having spent trillions on welfare, as the problem there lies with were the money actually goes, and I would like to bet most it goes straight into the pockets of government contractors. It’s been the case in the uk.

Sad though is it not. I don’t think this is the first time this has been bought up either. Every couple of years some charity or fiscal group points it out, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

And nothing ever happens about it, because we are all slaves.

Change to a resource based economy and end all monetary systems. Get rid of for profit food production, focus on sustainability and making sure everyone gets an equal share (the US is wasting approx. 40% of food, literally throwing it away).

Giving the poor money is just a way of perpetuating a linear growth system that is designed (not destined) to fail on a planet with finite resources and cyclical growth patterns.

I'd post links but I fear it may infringe on the solicitation/call to action T&Cs and incur a ban

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by ANOK

 

I'm inclined to think you may object to the term I'm about to use here, but time preference did cast doubt upon exploitation theory. But if Bohm-Bawerk's critique of the labor theory of value is wrong then there is a practical question worth asking: Where are all the producers' coopratives? There's no restriction against forming producers' cooperatives--at least no restriction in North America.

There are such cooperatives. Mondaron in Spain is perhaps the most sucessful and famous. Here is the US, cooperatives used to be the rule in agriculture - until factory farming came into vogue. Tillamok Cheese is a cooperative formed by Oregon Diarys.

Cooperatives are a desperation move in attempt to stay afloat. They are heavily subsidized, get tax breaks and price breaks other business don't enjoy because regulation and legislation. Politicians love them though because they have a captive voting block that won't bite the hands that feed them.

And for the record Tillamok Cheese isn't doing too well these days because they admittedly have an inefficient business model. Just within the last year they laid many many people off.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

The world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years [EPA]
The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.

The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.

The group has called on world leaders to commit to reducing inequality to the levels it was at in 1990, and to curb income extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

The release of the report was timed to coincide with the holding of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.

Source: www.aljazeera.com...

I don't think this is really anything new. I recall a meme from a few years ago that said the Catholic Church could end poverty with the wealth they retain (not much charity from them any more it seems).

I wanted to post this here and see what people think about this. To me, it seems the right thing to do. I'd gladly pay more in taxes and give more if suffering here and aboard could be lessened and without strings attached.

The vibe here on ATS is what I want to gage. Should the wealthy end poverty? Should they be forced to? Why wouldn't they?

I guess it's really the old argument about whether people are born inherently good or inherently evil. It isn't that simple of course - but does anyone here at ATS care? Thanks in advance.

The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.

"We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

--------------------------------------------------
It is almost as the innocent Sandy Hook School children were killed by our government. Why? The government for over 200 hundred years sets up a system of NO CHECKS AND BALANCES for the rich.

If tons of money were to be taken away from the 1% and spent wisely for social agencies to really help the disturbed kids that do the heinous acts of true sorrow. They could have counseling, nurturing and educational systems were they can be taught value of their (good) creative desires.

If you give those kids the idea that you are on their side (before the bad stuff happens), can you even imagine what would happen?
Instead of giving them guns, like their parents could do, they could be given careful guidance.
With the vast amounts of money these social agencies would have (from the 1%), they could be given the abilities that could make them feel that they are a somebody.

But what the republicans do such as Reagan etc? Is cut the social programs. Hello, that is not what needs to be cut and the Sandy Hook nightmare is proof of that.

It is like TRUTH screaming out at the government to DO SOMETHING and get the !% to part with their money on a systematic basis and NOT LET UP!!!!!

Our society is celebrating the wrong people, (looks, fast twitch muscles, 1%

reply to post by marbles87


Marbles, I agree with your post and I it got me thinking what if....
What if the rich all got together and paid off poverty? Could it essentially be done, I do not think so because they are suggesting the $ amount to buy food and raise everyone's standard but I do not think the $ is intended to affect more change as in educating the people how to do things and help themsleves after the initial bailout. You see there are a lot of impoverished people out there that actually have a feeling of entitlement that the gov't should provide for them and shoudl the rich step in and help out, it will just transfer their views onto the upper crust & the gov't.
The way I see it, if the slackers in the world living on the gov't support were to be reset to an equal status to those who have kept themsleves afloat (not rich, mind you just making ends meet regularly) by a benevolent gesture from the richest folks around, they would, most likely relapse into their existing situation(s).
I just don't buy into the "they will become productive members of society and be a worthy investment for those who help them out".
Even the best communist societies require that each member contribute to the whole and I can't see a large percentage of the people chipping in and doing their part in a sustainable manner long enough to get the return on the inital bailout and further, to sustain into the future. It's just human nature that some folks will spend more energy tryign to find a way around work than the actual work involved requires.

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by marbles87

 

Marbles, I agree with your post and I it got me thinking what if....
What if the rich all got together and paid off poverty? Could it essentially be done, I do not think so because they are suggesting the $ amount to buy food and raise everyone's standard but I do not think the $ is intended to affect more change as in educating the people how to do things and help themsleves after the initial bailout. You see there are a lot of impoverished people out there that actually have a feeling of entitlement that the gov't should provide for them and shoudl the rich step in and help out, it will just transfer their views onto the upper crust & the gov't.
The way I see it, if the slackers in the world living on the gov't support were to be reset to an equal status to those who have kept themsleves afloat (not rich, mind you just making ends meet regularly) by a benevolent gesture from the richest folks around, they would, most likely relapse into their existing situation(s).
I just don't buy into the "they will become productive members of society and be a worthy investment for those who help them out".
Even the best communist societies require that each member contribute to the whole and I can't see a large percentage of the people chipping in and doing their part in a sustainable manner long enough to get the return on the inital bailout and further, to sustain into the future. It's just human nature that some folks will spend more energy tryign to find a way around work than the actual work involved requires.

edit on 21-1-2013 by evc1shop because: clarity, spelling

I wanted to jump in here and talk about some of the practicallities of doing something like this and some of the prejudices that would have to be overcome.

1 - The article said and I quote: "The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report released by international rights group and charity Oxfam. " Just think about what that sentence says for a minute ( 100 people, last year, exteme proverty, 4 x). If you were one of those people and could do so much with INCOME from ONE YEAR would you do it? Why don't they. Leading to....

2. Ending poverty isn't about just handing out cash to poor people as many posters have noted. Infrastructure is a huge need, investment in education, research would be the biggest needs. Reclaiming land and water sources would put millions to work around the world - to benefit themselves and the rest of us. Then there is....

3. I truly don't understand this hatred of poor people, this assumption that they are lazy and want a hand out. Many do have mental and physical problems that do preclude working but that is a result of poor and non-existant infrastructure to care for those needs. Ronald Reagan turned out most of the mentally ill on to the streets here in California in the seventies - places where they received care and training with the goal of reentering society. Hasn't worked so good. For every 'Welfair Queen' there are tens of thousand of struggling single mothers and there children and conservatives want to take away food stamps from any parent that tests positive for pot - is that going to help. Do you want a desparate person breaking into your home or business trying to feed their kids? It is pathetic to look down on a poor person, you are no better than they just luckier of birth and circumstance.

Whoops!

Wrong thread.