Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty (100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty)

[kpete]

Source: Aljazeera

Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty
UK-based charity says the world's 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over.

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 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.

Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312061337695543.html

---

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf

[OKNancy]

1. Title

the title of the article should read: Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty
This was also posted yesterday in Good Reads. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101653512

[Coyotl]

20. "... should the richest 100 billionaires give away the money they made LAST YEAR"

emphasis added

[OKNancy]

22. I have no idea what this means

I was giving advise to the OP, as a host of LBN. The rules say that they should use the title of the article.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312061337695543.html

I advised her to change it to keep it from being locked.

[Coyotl]

24. The title should give the real news, as does this article:

http://rt.com/news/oxfam-report-global-inequality-357/

"World’s 100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty 4 times over"

making it clear that we are talking about their earnings in JUST ONE YEAR!

[OKNancy]

25. whatever

Statement of Purpose for Latest Breaking News Forum

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only.
No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours.
Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014

---

[DeSwiss]

2. This reminds me of those scientific studies we've all seen.....

...confirming the obvious, such as water is wet. Very, very wet.

- K&R

''I don't understand why we have to pay to live on the planet we were born on. I mean it's such a simple question. But can anyone answer that? Why does anyone have to pay to live on the planet they were born on? Ask yourself that question. And who are we actually paying for the privilege to live here? Who decided this? Who made "them" the boss? Who put "them" in-charge?'' ~Alex Collier

[kpete]

12. wow

Who put "them" in-charge?''

peace, kp

[Blanks]

3. People don't eat money.

We're looking at it wrong if we think the world can be fed with money.

If the world has the resources to feed the hungry we should be feeding the hungry.

The wealthy are standing in the way of the fact that too many people have too little to eat, but it's the allocation of resources that's the problem and not the distribution of wealth. We aren't looking at money's role in the world properly if we think it takes money to feed people.

[Igel]

6. Right premise.

Wrong conclusion.

It takes money to feed people. Money is how we determine the allocation of resources. To a first approximation, it says how important your activities are to the population or some important subcohort of the population.

That's the problem. We've seen that when you increase income you push people to eat more meat, use more electricity. The supply isn't always there, so at a fairly low point more money yields higher prices to continue to allocate resources. More meat and energy resources would go to the newly richer countries, but it wouldn't be the facile and vapid conclusion from Oxfam. They know better; but they assume that Oxfam listeners and newspaper readers are low information people who need simplistic utterances.

Import/export restrictions also help to artificially determine the allocation of resources.

An analogous reason that prices would increase also has nothing to do with global supply but with supply routes. If suddenly a series of small villages in rural Africa (or Kansas) had a demand for 20 MW electricity and 90 thousand land lines, plus high-speed internet they couldn't buy it at almost any price. They lack transmission lines and fibre optic cables (they'd have to go with nifty new high-speed Internet broadcast protocols, but they really are new for the highest speeds--announced by the US military in just the last few weeks).

Then again, all the infrastructure goes back to supply. There can be a shortage because a good doesn't exist; there can be a shortage because (as import/export restrictions already entail) of supply capabilities.

Conclusion: Take all the billionaire's wealth and redistribute it, in addition to some economic dislocation from having their wealth repurposed it also wouldn't yield the glorious results Oxfam imagines. A lie in pursuit of a greater good is still a lie.

[John2]

7. I don't have

a belief in this philosophy whatsoever. Money is the creation of man not God or nature. It has no purpose at all but to put a title on this planet's resources for control of them. I do have a belief in God, and this Earth's resources were placed here for the use of all God's creations. Man created money because of Greed. I think that is being played out.

Indians had no need for money. There was Buffalo all over this country before the white man arrive. Buffalo was seen as food and clothing for Indians. They used that creature for all sorts of necessities before that creature got slaughtered for sport. The Indians didn't put titles on their land either until the white man put titles on land.

Wars for resources also cause poverty and you also have the destruction of wildlife, and the Earth's resources by the wealthy that own oil companies seeking profits. There is a battle going on with environmentalists. This Planet does have enough resources to feed its people. A lot of those resources are owned by a few and wasted also because of Greed and wanting power over others. Other than religion and racism, it is why we have Wars. A small group of people wants to own more resources than they can use to survive. They see that as status in society over others. They will never take it to the Grave or if there is a heaven, they will never take it with them. Instead they choose to pass it to their kin. There are some people who do not see the need to own more than they need. I don't think they would know what to do with Billions of dollars.

Furthermore, The United States has over 450 Billionaires in this country. There is not one country in this entire World even close to the number of Billionaires the U.S. has. We also have over four million millionaires in this country alone. Millions more, not hundreds or even thousands more than the next country. That is why I find the arguments over this country's deficit disingenuous from the wealthy class of this country. They not only hoard the resources in this country but also over the World's other countries. That is why we have a massive military and this World's economy depends on us. Goldman Sach's and J.P. Morgan both had ties in the Greek Economy. They not only control resources but they control economies. For example, Mitt Romney has investments in companies of other countries besides this one and so does many of these Billionaires. Take the B.P. Oil company for example and their operations in Algeria. It is a modern day mercantilism just like in the days of the slave trade. There has always been man's greed.

[Blanks]

16. Food requires neither electricity or the Internet to grow.

In fact taking advantage of biological processes like anaerobic digestion and algae growth to create renewable energy resources in addition to solar and wind are part if the solution.

Money is a huge part of the problem, but it is not a part of the solution. Education, cooperation and innovation are the solution.

If we want to feed the world we need to listen to the people who feed themselves without tractors and chemicals and learn from them. We need to stop thinking that we have all of the answers and look to more natural solutions.

[daleo]

9. Allocation of resources and distribution of wealth are intimately connected

In a global capitalist world.

[FrodosPet]

11. Railroads, highways, trucks, warehouses, croplands, landfills...

As has been mentioned - it's less of a supply problem than a distribution problem.

One big problem is, the solutions are bad for the environment. People don't want the jungles and rainforests and grasslands and other unspoiled areas cut down for farmland, new roads, new rail lines, new cities.

The people who live there often do not want to relocate to existing civilization. And then, if poverty decreases, then resource consumption increases. More energy and water is required. More waste has to be disposed of.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't. If you don't help pull people out of poverty, you are inhumane. If you do, you are speeding the destruction of the planet.

[Blanks]

17. We need to look to the areas where we have...

Already built roads and all the other infrastructure and then abandoned it. For some reason we don't seem to feel like once we have 'developed' land; that it can be redeveloped. Take the asphalt, concrete and gravel up; use it somewhere else and grow something there again.

Abandoned land is a potential resource that we need to take advantage of.

[Democat]

19. Much of the money would be "eaten" by corrupt government leaders

I agree with you. There are plenty of countries where huge amounts of money have been thrown at problems like poverty and progress is extremely slow because of massive corruption problems.

[Blanks]

21. A good book to read...

is 'The Ugly American'. If we want to feed the world; we need to teach the people of the world how to grow food (in that case chickens) in a manner that doesn't require resources that are not locally available.

Once we start selling tractors and pesticides, we're just making the bankers and tge petrochemical industry richer. Locally grown food is the answer to world hunger. The solutions are out there, and it doesn't involve money. It involves using real estate properly and utilizing waste as a resource instead of a pollutant.

[think]

4. Sad commentary on the state of the world. But yet hopeful

if one considers that ending poverty could happen if the powers that be choose to focus our resources in this direction.

From military & security budgets that dwarf reality to a failed war on drugs; money is being wasted to the detriment of the greater society.

Oxfam claims just the income from the world's richest people in 2012, a total of $240 billion net income, could end extreme global poverty four times over.

And then there is this from the article:

According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens.

Some day the wealthy of this world will see the fallacy of believing that there is never enough for everyone, realize they can keep their riches, and let the people of earth live a decent life too. The two goals are not mutally exclusive if one considers the financial numbers given by Oxfam as basis as to how little it would actually take to achieve a massive paradigm shift in human existence.

Obviously just my opinion....

Swords to plowshares/ Tanks to Tractors

[bananas]

5. k&r nt

[hughee99]

8. $240 billion will end WORLD poverty four times over?

We spent $75 billion in the US alone on food stamps and that didn't even wipe out hunger here, let alone global poverty.

[daleo]

10. They are referring to extreme poverty in the third world

Poverty in the developed world is quite different, it seems to me. Though there are some bitterly impoverished people in the developed world.

[RainDog]

13. 100 people could make the world a better place

and they chose not to do so.

[HomerRamone]

14. That this is not rocketing to the front page is a disgrace nt

[BanTheGOP]

15. This is why we need a global Wealth Cap and Tax

We need to cap the wealth of any one individual to no more than 10 million dollars. In addition, we need to tax 50% of all wealth, annually for any amount from 1 to 10 million dollars. This will take care of most needs in the world.

[TheMadMonk]

18. And why on earth would they? Hungry people work for less.

Desperate people don't care about working conditions.

There is no profit in ending world hunger.

[Franker65]

23. Maybe it could end poverty but for how long?

While there are places where there is always poverty, it does come in waves throughout the world. If people are helped now, some other part of the world will experience poverty in a month.