2% of popn. own half the wealth

[Guest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6211250.stm

I have to say I am appalled by this. It really is quite shocking. How much of this is down to geopolitical determinism, or is it something which the West cam ameliorate?

[DrAlex]

Smelly hippy?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

FORWARD, SOVIET RUSSIA! Oh wait...

[Senethro]

Look everyone, this is the way the world is and its completely fair. Everyone who has wealth has it because they deserve it. Poor people should just get a job or die quietly and tidily or something.

[Orcas]

Ouch!

[hr]

www.sufrasees.blogspot.co,

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

Quoting Senethro from 15:02, 6th Dec 2006
Look everyone, this is the way the world is and its completely fair. Everyone who has wealth has it because they deserve it. Poor people should just get a job or die quietly and tidily or something.

Oh go on, do tell us how we all should set about changing the status quo? I'm upset that people starve. Tell me, how would I go about changing anything, since the political system itself appears to have fallen to apathetic cynicism? (Or cynical apathy, if you prefer)

[Paranoid]

Pipe down and quit your whining

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Humphrey]

Doesnt suprise me seeing as that survey's scope was the entire planet. I would have thought it was nearer 1%.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[novium]

What I would wonder is how the poorer half (that according to the article own only 1% of the world's wealth) can be compared to the past.

What I mean is, how much of that is just the status quo? how much of the contrast is due to the relatively unprecedented creation of wealth in the 'first world' (compared with most of human history)?

Quoting from 00:32, 6th Dec 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6211250.stm

I have to say I am appalled by this. It really is quite shocking. How much of this is down to geopolitical determinism, or is it something which the West cam ameliorate?

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Senethro]

THE SOLUTION IS FREE MARKETS AND FREE TRADE

[novium]

and microloans.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Bryn]

There are some really horrible people on The Sinner, who don't seem to care about other people at all. You people are the future of this country? That's just terrifying.

[Senethro]

Quoting Bryn from 22:39, 6th Dec 2006
There are some really horrible people on The Sinner, who don't seem to care about other people at all. You people are the future of this country? That's just terrifying.

Actually, I think this is just a wellworn topic. 60% of the posts contain some degree of irony.

[Steveo]

Quoting Bryn from 22:39, 6th Dec 2006
There are some really horrible people on The Sinner, who don't seem to care about other people at all. You people are the future of this country? That's just terrifying.

The idea that you may one day shape any sort of future would terrify me, however, I diverge from the task in hand.

It bothers me not one bit that a small percent of people own a large percentage of the wealth. Firstly, I am reminded of Lady Thatchers famous speech to the House of Commons on 22nd November 1990, where she says that, and I quote:

"He were rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. That way you will never create the wealth for better social services".

Your comment, Bryn, smacks of the usual liberal crying and moaning, without any idea of a solution. You've made a bandwagon jumping comment, and that doesn't surprise me, because like many students, you've got wishy washy, wet drip liberal down to a tee.

Wealth concentrated as it is isn't a problem, redistribution is:

"So long as the gap is smaller, they'd rather have the poor poorer, you do not create wealth and opportunity that way".
- M. Thatcher 1990

No amount of distance lends enchantment to socialism and redistribution. It led to Britain having the lowest growth rate in Europe.

[s] Edit: Spelling errors.

[Lid]

Quoting Bryn from 22:39, 6th Dec 2006
There are some really horrible people on The Sinner, who don't seem to care about other people at all. You people are the future of this country? That's just terrifying.

Maybe donating 98% of your personal wealth might even the balance?

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Lid]

Double post ¬.¬

[Gubbins]

Quoting Steveo from 23:53, 6th Dec 2006
Your comment, Bryn, smacks of the usual liberal crying and moaning, without any idea of a solution.

Oh dear. 'Fraid this smacks of the usual right-wing denial of there ever being a problem.

Not that the topic in question is necessarily a problem, per se. Some will always be more equal than others, to paraphrase a certain Mr. Orwell. That said, should we really have people in a situation where some people cannot provide food and water for themselves and their children? A balance needs to be achieved between improving humanity as a whole and helping the less fortunate catch up with the rest of the world.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Bryn]

Quoting Steveo from 23:53, 6th Dec 2006Your comment, Bryn, smacks of the usual liberal crying and moaning, without any idea of a solution. You've made a bandwagon jumping comment, and that doesn't surprise me, because like many students, you've got wishy washy, wet drip liberal down to a tee.

Fuck off. Just because I don't think money is more important than people, doesn't mean I'm a wishy-washy liberal, or I haven't thought about the world in a serious, logical fashion.

And don't quote Margeret Thatcher like you were actually aware of the issues when she was Prime Minister.

[Bryn]

Double post

[kdc4]

My two pence...

If memory serves correctly, Lady Thatcher's quote came in the context of her forced abdication due to her decision to levy a regressive poll tax.

Personally, I think that Lady Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain in many ways (not the poll tax, though!), and I also agree with the earlier quote.

But what was she really saying? Simply, she put it that 'equality' was less important than the absolute condition of the poor, a premise with which I heartily agree.

Equality that makes everyone poorer is hardly beneficial. Inequalities that benefit all, albeit unequally, I believe should be encouraged. Once you've allowed an enterprise economy to take hold, you can use some of the wealth created to pin up a safety net for the less fortunate. If people become millionaires, I cheer them on in the knowledge that 40% of the wealth they create will directly benefit society, in addition to the jobs and new services that they create. The person on the minimum wage can then benefit from the health care, education, etc. that the millionaire's tax creates.

Extending the domestic principle of mixed capitalism, I would suggest the wealthy of the world (countries and inviduals) ought to
use their resources to do what they can (vaccination, education, etc.) for the poorest nations, wherever possible.

Why are the poorest of our world so poor?

Bad governance, bad climates, social taboos, ethnic conflict, unfair trade, red tape, and civil war, for a start.

I certainly don't have an instant solution for any of the above (though I think phasing out CAP/US farm subsidies/price supports would do a lot of good), but that doesn't remove our moral responsibility to at least see what we can do to make things better.

At any rate, there will never be constructive dialogue on the subject until we move beyond the perspective of:

"Poor people should just get a job or die quietly and tidily or something."

Even if this was simply irreverent satire, the worrying fact is that it encapsulates the actual views of many people on the subject of foreign development.

Edited Note: Just read the above post from Gubbins, a more succinct version of what I was trying to say!