OXFAM: "100 richest people could end world poverty"

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
And that is why I ask to what level could/would the 100 richest people "end poverty",as the western/developed worlds definition is very different to the African definition [not picking on Africa, just an example]. I read something a while back here that listed two of the factors defining children living in poverty here as "not having one weeks family holiday per year" and "not having internet access at home". Compared to the slums of South Africa or India where millions live without running water or sanitation, it seems laughable. Same deal with the whole "Occupy" movement, all these people posting online messages about how "we are the 99%, down with the 1%" etc, not realising that globally speaking having a house, a computer and internet access puts you in the top few percent in terms of wealth...
 
As a child, I lived with my parents and grand mom(communists killed my grand dad) in the space of a single car garage with no running toilet. As an adult, I have also visited and stayed with relatives with no running water and house is accessed by either an hour long hike up a path or by 4 wheeling. Here is the thing: My dad was the first who broke out of this poverty by getting his advanced degree and came to US as a student. Our family in US have being giving money back to the relatives all these years; some back home used that assistance and became even more successful than us but others just stayed where they are. So be it. We as a family will continue to supply a life line; but we will not and can not provide enough to everyone so they can fundamentally change their lives without their own efforts.
 
Not arguing with you... all the more reason that targeted investments could make a huge impact where people are most desperate. A working mechanical water pump can make a HUGE difference in someone's life. So can a polio vaccination or a condom for that matter.

That said, I think that the OP's topic was less about HOW and WHETHER the richest in the world should invest their money (a complicated question fraught with issues and unintended consequences)....and more about the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of very, very few.

Matt

Miguel said:
What i have been saying from the onset. None of us knows what poverty is. Real and true deprivation, lack of bare minimums.
Click to expand...
 
dogofwar said:
Not arguing with you... all the more reason that targeted investments could make a huge impact where people are most desperate. A working mechanical water pump can make a HUGE difference in someone's life. So can a polio vaccination or a condom for that matter.
Click to expand...

Water pumps will have to be maintained and condoms need to be used to be effective.

In the 60s and 70s, Chinese government, still under the communistic ideals, did some massive land redistribution. They relocated a bunch of people who historically relied on government handouts to better home stead so they can be self sufficient. The result? a significant portion of those people went back to the bad lands and preferred more handouts. The poor will always be with us, and reasons are not all oppression related. I believe in a life line to the poor(and the ones available in the west is much more than that already), but to get themselves out of poverty, it requires more than handouts.

As far as concentration of wealth, as long as there are differences in talent, drive and effort; there will always be this in human society. No laws will change that.
 
Exactly - throwing money at poverty doesn't and hasn't worked.

I think that the talent, drive and potential of many people who live in poverty far exceeds that of many who were born in more comfortable circumstances... Being in poverty in most parts of the world has more to do with being born in poverty and the lack of opportunities for social mobility in many situations than personal shortcomings or laziness.

Remove (or greatly reduce) the threats of starvation, accessing clean water, and shelter...add some infrastructure...and you'd be amazed at what people can accomplish!

But as I said in the other half of my post that you quoted: That said, I think that the OP's topic was less about HOW and WHETHER the richest in the world should invest their money (a complicated question fraught with issues and unintended consequences)....and more about the <dangers of> increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of very, very few.

Matt

ecoli73 said:
Water pumps will have to be maintained and condoms need to be used to be effective.

In the 60s and 70s, Chinese government, still under the communistic ideals, did some massive land redistribution. They relocated a bunch of people who historically relied on government handouts to better home stead so they can be self sufficient. The result? a significant portion of those people went back to the bad lands and preferred more handouts. The poor will always be with us, and reasons are not all oppression related. I believe in a life line to the poor(and the ones available in the west is much more than that already), but to get themselves out of poverty, it requires more than handouts.

As far as concentration of wealth, as long as there are differences in talent, drive and effort; there will always be this in human society. No laws will change that.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for those interesting links, Matt.
 
I WOULD AGREE THAT: especially in the last few years there has been a growing opinion that the rich need to be protected (financially) from the poor(tax breaks) ..all I KNOW FOR SURE IS WHENEVER OUR DEAR GOVENOR SAYS:we have to make "tough"decisions..... thats one step deeper I go into poverty....while she encourages tax breaks for her(financial) peers....(rant over):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom