Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty

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.

As a human being, it's your duty to look after those less fortunate than you - in a nutshell.

In the practical sense, for the 100 richest, the more "middle class" or "not starving" there are, the more people available to work in your offices/mines.

"They" are only rich because we the collective allow and essentially say they are...

Think about it. We could all be equally rich and have nice houses with food to eat.

But society decides this person or family is rich and this family or person is poor, it's that simple really.

They have the 'money' to change the world, but that would mean equality.

I am glad this has been researched. I figured this out on my own years ago. The rich have steadily gotten yearly raises, while the workers they employ make peanuts and might get 2 or 3 raises over a 15 year period, not to mention all the bonuses they give out to themselves and their buddies. The problem is that the owners are so far removed from their workers that they don't realize that the employees are real people with real needs and real families.

reply to post by yourmaker


If we were all equally rich, who would do the dirty work? Who would work as garbage men and other equally dirty jobs. I think minimum wage should be higher, and executives pay reduced to compensate.

reply to post by geldib


Compulsive hoarders, why do you think they exist.

Next question?

Maybe I'm just being delusional but I can imagine a world where there is no need of currency, religion, etc, where everybody helps each other to survive whatever this world can throw them.

There is no such thing as ending poverty as there are political interests and government agencies that ensure that it cannot be won.

Since 1964 the United States has spent 15 TRILLION dollars with nothing to show for it. We are now spending a Trillion a year.

www.thenewamerican.com...$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it

www.cato.org...

Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to reevaluate our approach to fighting poverty. We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

So, the richest 1%, Take ALL their money, throw it at the poor and then what? After it is used up, then what?


The ONLY way to end poverty is to "teach the poor to fish" not give them free fish.... and that isn't going to happen, who would be left to vote Democrat for more free stuff (US anyway)?

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?

We our selves could end poverty. Stop supporting capitalism and get behind worker ownership. Poverty is a result of the means of production being monopolised by a minority class for personal gain.

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too....

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

What happens when we feed all the starving and they start living to 100 as humans the more we use the more we need to use. Ie if we feed everyone and no one starved those saved people will now create 5 babies we must feed then those babies create 5 more and so on. We might be able to feed everyone but only for a short while. Look at how many babies people are having now. Large families used to exist out of nesssisity beause babies didn't alway make it to adulthood and they lived on farms where large families were useful now people will have 6 kids just to have 6 kids. If it wasn't for starving people there would be exponentially more starving people. Why do you think there are so many man made death causers in this world.. War, cars that wreck, cancer, aids, and lack of cures for deadly diseases. Even if we could feed everyone the resourses to do it would suck the earth dry in tens of years to maybe a few hundred years max.

omg Oxfam have been saying this for years...

it is a stupid facade... time they came up with new slogan...

have any of you been into an Oxfam store?

all of the goods sold are from all over the world and they are SO expensive... !!! $ !! (if you want to support the FREE TRADE then at least make it AFFORDABLE) = only YUPPIES could buy the stuff OR it was FARGIN GORILLA WOOD!! OMG!!!



[wish there was a shaking head little emoticon] (inserted here) Just like worldvision... omg I wanted to send a little present to my sponsored child BUT I was not allowed to UNLESS I spent money WTF????

I had previously sent all correspondance and cards/pressies directly free of charge...

&^%$#

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?

The means of production would have to be owned in common, that is how you stop one group of people causing another to become poor. People become poor because someone else is taking more than they need. If everyone has access to the means to produce (land mostly) then there is no reason they would become poor other than by their own incompetence.

reply to post by Thurisaz


oh I always PAID THE POSTAGE but they obviously made some new changes to GET MORE MONEY so the ADMIN ASHOLES COULD GET A PAY RISE...

feckers!!

Originally posted by ANOK

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?

The means of production would have to be owned in common, that is how you stop one group of people causing another to become poor. People become poor because someone else is taking more than they need. If everyone has access to the means to produce (land mostly) then there is no reason they would become poor other than by their own incompetence.

So change the cause, not the symptom.

Idealistically, I would agree. But humans, being what they are, are far from the idealistic vision you may have.

You don't end poverty by giving people fish. You end poverty by teaching them how to fish for themselves.

All Oxfam are saying is the rich become the welfare agency of the world. Welfare is welfare, it'snot advancement

no OXFAM pay diddly squat for products made in 3rd world countries, then sell it for heaps and heaps of money to KEEP THEM RICH....

give the bloody profits to the poor farmer.

they are a very wealthy organisation and their profit margin would make even the Grinch

oh and good on Coles and Woolworths... they are buying some stuff directly from the 'small poor 3rd world farmer' and selling it in the shopping centre.

and the price is not outrageous...

I don't believe in giving anyone anything for free. So what would the problems be if say a company dropped the top 15 earners wages by 10% then spreading that out amongst the employees in raises? I have a chart I downloaded that shows that shows from 1949-1979 then 1979-2009 and in the first 30 years bosses and workers pay went up equally with production and profits and in the last 30 years the bosses pay went up with production and profit but the workers didn't, explain that.

reply to post by geldib


What about people who can't work?

Thats a different discussion altogether.