How Can Anybody Sane Think Like This

[Jccarlton]

Report say, basically if you could steal all the rich's money you could end poverty:
http://rt.com/news/oxfam-report-global-inequality-357/
The Oxfam "report":
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.or ... 180113.pdf
This report has no substance. It makes assertions and it seems as if we are just to take them at their word. The references are just fluff, there are no statistics and there are no examples to back up their assertions. Is this the drivel that passes for Progressive program proposals? We are supposed to base world policies on this stuff?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. I don't think you can end poverty simply by stealing the rich's money. Poverty isn't the lack of money, it's the lack of ability to make money. The poor in the world are not poor because the rich are rich. They are poor because of the personal and governmental situation they live in. For the most the poor countries are poor because the means of wealth creation don't exist of are controlled by a small group of people. This is the case in Cuba and North Korea, in Haiti and places where a small group of "elites" control everything. In these places the average person must work through constraints placed upon them by corrupt bureaucrats and arbitrary decrees and can't work and build a business without either paying crippling amounts of bribes, risking confiscation or ahving to have a "connection." That's why most countries are poverty stricken hellholes. You could confiscate all of the wealthy's money, but all you are doing is creating the kind of climate that society's that are impoverished have. Doing what these propose would do no good and would have unpleasant side effects. does anybody remember what happened to the Kulaks. It was not pretty. why do we keep rpeating history's bad mistakes

[zapkitty]

Report say, basically if you could steal all the rich's money you could end poverty

Actually, it doesn't.

[quixote]

Report say, basically if you could steal all the rich's money you could end poverty

Actually, it doesn't.

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

That seems straight-forward to me. I think you're objecting to Jccarlton's interpretation that the article's author is advocating that the rich's money be stolen to end global poverty. Is that right?

[zapkitty]

Simply an observation that what Jccarlton wrote does not reflect what's in the report.

No surprises here... in any regard

[paperburn1]

Simply an observation that what Jccarlton wrote does not reflect what's in the report.

No surprises here... in any regard

I just skimmed the report but it seems to be promoting wealth redistribution as a solution to poverty. I have done a little work in this area in the jungles of the philippines and just handing out money is not a solution. It basically gets spent on short term needs and no thought is given about long term or "greater good" needs.
Education is the first step and teaching of long term thinking is the second skill set needed before investing currency is necessary. Also a loan where they have to pay it back contains far more value for the long tern than just giving out some dollars. If they have to work for it they take better care of the investment and respond with a greater pride in their accomplishments.
To truly end poverty is a complex and multilevel problem that has to be addressed in small steps. For example what seems to be the easiest way to educate? more schools , no it light. these peoples days are full of work from sunrise to sunset to survive. when it becomes night the works stops but they now have free time to use. With proper lights they can read and study learning many things. as a simple test on how important this is try reading by candlelight. You will find electric light is magnitudes better for studying.
sorry kind of went off on a rant. but the think tank rhetoric spewed in that report does not address the real world problems of poverty on a global scale. Nice in theory but in practice not very use full.

[GIThruster]

. . .just handing out money is not a solution. It basically gets spent on short term needs and no thought is given about long term or "greater good" needs.

Yes, it's been shown that inhomogeneities in income instantly arise when the playing field is flattened. After the French revolution for example, when the aristocratic class was looted, or in several instances when socialism took hold in South America, there will be those who save and invest and those who spend and party on. Surprisingly this forms only a small correlation with education. I recall seeing a study on it years ago though I haven't the time to look for it now. The conclusion of the study was that there is no way to create an even income solution because of people's buying habits.

What Gene Roddenberry dreamt of in a future with no money is not a workable solution, and that's why we see that part of his vision evaporate by the time TNG and DS9 came about.

And really why should the ants work hard stockpiling food all summer if the grasshopper is going to eat it all?

[hanelyp]

Oxfam... That would be the people behind such marketing phrase fails as "be a tool" and "be a goat"?

[palladin9479]

I just skimmed the report but it seems to be promoting wealth redistribution as a solution to poverty.

Can't open the report from work, will attempt once I get home.

If it's a typical liberal / *progressive* type writing then wealth redistribution would be their answer to everything. Just more attempts to create yet another socialist / communist state.

[MSimon]

Oxfam does not take into consideration variability in human nature.

[Teahive]

For the most the poor countries are poor because the means of wealth creation don't exist of are controlled by a small group of people. This is the case in Cuba and North Korea, in Haiti and places where a small group of "elites" control everything.

Well, that latter part is inequality.

In these places the average person must work through constraints placed upon them by corrupt bureaucrats and arbitrary decrees and can't work and build a business without either paying crippling amounts of bribes, risking confiscation or ahving to have a "connection." That's why most countries are poverty stricken hellholes.

"Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive"
"Capture of politics by elites is also very prevalent in developing countries, leading to policies that benefit the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies."

To be fair, I think that paper only works as diagnosis of an illness, not as a prescription for treatment.

[palladin9479]

For the most the poor countries are poor because the means of wealth creation don't exist of are controlled by a small group of people. This is the case in Cuba and North Korea, in Haiti and places where a small group of "elites" control everything.

Well, that latter part is inequality.

In these places the average person must work through constraints placed upon them by corrupt bureaucrats and arbitrary decrees and can't work and build a business without either paying crippling amounts of bribes, risking confiscation or ahving to have a "connection." That's why most countries are poverty stricken hellholes.

"Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive"
"Capture of politics by elites is also very prevalent in developing countries, leading to policies that benefit the richest few and not the poor majority, even in democracies."

To be fair, I think that paper only works as diagnosis of an illness, not as a prescription for treatment.

Your correct, yet stealing all the money from the rich does not create an equal society. All it does is redistribute the wealth from the losers (rich) to the winners (new rich) with small token amounts going to the poor.

This is the central issue with nearly every liberal progressive idea. They envision some sort of perfect godlike figure (typically bearing an uncanny resemblance to themselves) being the one to divvy up the spoils and to determine "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Quickly the "needs" of the "new rich" vastly outstrip the "needs" of the "still poor" and you end up right where you started. The next step is for the "new rich" to consolidate their power and ensure the "still poor" never unseat them and thus force them to become "new poor". Various laws and statutes will be passed, all "for the common good / FOR THE CHILDREN!!" which really translates into "for the good of the new rich".

This is why every liberal socialist revolution has merely traded one set of rich entitled masters for another. Humans aren't perfect godlike creatures, we're greedy animals. It's also why Capitalism, which in theory should be the least productive and equal, ends being the most productive and equal system. It operates under the assumption that all humans are greedy and seek betterment for themselves rather then under the assumptions that humans are some perfect insect drone race.

[Teahive]

Your correct, yet stealing all the money from the rich does not create an equal society.

Indeed. A more equal (and, on the whole, more prosperous) society requires a change in attitude. Mostly from the wealthy as their influence makes the largest difference, but everyone contributes.

[KitemanSA]

What most poor countries lack is the great equalizer. No, not education, but access to the blessings of Col. Colts machine.

The old saying goes that God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. Col. Samuel Colt’s revolver continues to serve as an equalizer. Being bigger, tougher and meaner than the next guy may not mean jack spit if the next guy carries a .357 in his waistband.

[MSimon]

What most poor countries lack is the great equalizer. No, not education, but access to the blessings of Col. Colts machine.

The old saying goes that God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. Col. Samuel Colt’s revolver continues to serve as an equalizer. Being bigger, tougher and meaner than the next guy may not mean jack spit if the next guy carries a .357 in his waistband.

I was always partial to the M1911.

[ladajo]

Better safeties on the Series 80 & newer. The old models are a bit dangerous when dropped in Condition 1.