Well 100 years ago over 90% of the worlds population lived in poverty. Now it’s less than 20% so the trickle down effect does seem to have trickled down.

I’m not sure why you think, for example, that millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty because the very wealthiest 1% in the UK and US have become even wealthier.

And I don’t know where you get your figures from. There has been a drop in poverty in the world in recent decades, which is hardly surprising with the collapse of European empires and new emerging economies, but things are probably not quite as rosy as you might imagine.

71% of the world’s population lives on less than $10 a day

universal suffrage

“Not morally justifiable”
Rather an opinion than fact. Can you justify that?

Isn’t it strange how those who preach fairness object to its results. Fair is treating people the same. We all start as sperm and egg > After that it’s the luck of the draw isn’t it.
Fairness is me and Cav starting our sprint at the same place, not me only 10 yards from the line and him a hundred back. Fairness is equality of start not ending up the same thus penalising the successful.
More to the point I am not gong to get stroppy because someone has a different view to me. I bet at least one narrow minded soul will object to this and not want me to have the right to say it.

Capitalism has lifted vast swathes of people and whole countries out of poverty. remember being out of poverty doesn’t mean being rich, it just means you’re not in ‘poverty’ however that is defined. But its a good thing and a fact. OK, some individuals have got particularly greedy on it and no system is perfect and needs some checks and balances in place and I do think big company bosses earn way too much compared to the bulk of workers – especially when the correlation between how much you pay a CEO and how good they are is not 100% proved – just like football managers.

I don’t know where anyone gets their numbers from. There are lots of numbers around and its pointless presenting them unless you and only you are the author of the numbers as all statistics are based on a whole host of assumptions and unless you state all those assumptions then the numbers are meaningless. At least the charts and graphs add a splash of colour to the thread though.

This notion that things are not as good now as they use to be is BS. There is still alot to go at, still alot of injustices around the world, but the world is by and large and much much better place to be now with more opportunities for more people than any other time in our history. We’re on a journey – not got to the destination, but have travelled a hell of a long way. Why don’t you name a period of history when you would prefer to have been born?

Yes being positive doesn’t allow you to have a moan on the internet instead of doing some work 😉

Ah, the good old days…..

Fair is treating people the same

Should everyone take the lift or should wheelchair users take the stairs?

@ wobbliscott

Polynesian Islander before being discovered by the West obvs !!

Native American before being discovered by the West obvs !!

wobbliscott – Member

Capitalism has lifted vast swathes of people and whole countries out of poverty

Well you originally said that trickle-down economics had reduced global poverty, you are now saying that it’s capitalism wot dun it. That’s not quite the same thing is it?

I said on the previous page :

“Despite what both Trotskyites and Tories might tell you huge and growing income inequality is not necessarily an inevitable consequence of capitalism, much can be done to reduce it without the need for revolution.”

The way to reduce income inequality isn’t by greater accumulation of wealth.

Has Jezza commented on Jeremy Hunt cashing in on £14m today?

It would be interesting to see the wealth of some charities and to see how much of the 44 billion endowment the Bill Gates foundation thing already has.

The real question is does the fact that these few people having a huge wealth matter? Does it restrict commerce and people lives or is it just a reflection of a devalued monetary system.

If you have $20 you are wealthier than 2 billion people according to these statistics and when do we start sending the food parcels to the US because that is where the poorest live according to this data.

Isn’t it strange how those who preach fairness object to its results. Fair is treating people the same. We all start as sperm and egg > After that it’s the luck of the draw isn’t it.
Fairness is me and Cav starting our sprint at the same place, not me only 10 yards from the line and him a hundred back. Fairness is equality of start not ending up the same thus penalising the successful.
More to the point I am not gong to get stroppy because someone has a different view to me. I bet at least one narrow minded soul will object to this and not want me to have the right to say it.

Exactly this. There’re two things guaranteed in life; death and taxes. We all end up back in the same place, one way or another.

THe question shouldn’t be “how is it fair or justifiable that Bill Gates can earn £X billion?” It should be “why are there so many people who can’t be arsed making any effort to be a success like Bill?”

The real question is does the fact that these few people having a huge wealth matter? Does it restrict commerce and people lives or is it just a reflection of a devalued monetary system.

Yes it matters, yes it restricts commerce. The recent global economic crises which caused the collapse of Lehman brothers was due to the instability of inequality. The economy needs consumers, not toxic debt.

It should be “why are there so many people who can’t be arsed making any effort to be a success like Bill?”

Ah! The classic right wing slight of hand: the poor are to blame for their poverty.

Ah! The classic right wing slight of hand: the poor are to blame for their poverty.

Classic davidtaylforth more like.
Funny how someone using basic characters on a screen can make something so funny out of the exact same sentence that some folk on this forum (and thread) would say in all seriousness. 😀 😀

Classic davidtaylforth more like.

Never heard of him.

We do NOT have enough money to rid the world of poverty, despite what the illuminati and the tin foil hat wearers think!

Then look beyond monetary wealth. The people that earn billions waste millions trying to hold onto it. None of them seem especially happy. What’s needed isn’t equality, but enough sharing/investment to meet human rights/needs. Chasing wealth doesn’t lead to happiness. Living conditions around the world continue to improve. Once the majority stop chasing £$¥€ and decide they have enough, things will improve faster still. Let’s not hide behind the top 8 or 1%.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have given away over $40 billion between them.

Fairness is me and Cav starting our sprint at the same place, not me only 10 yards from the line and him a hundred back. Fairness is equality of start not ending up the same thus penalising the successful.

Sounds ok. Obviously being born in the UK is quite a big head start compared to being born in, say, Malawi. How do we get everybody to the same starting point?

With difficulty. We all face the random lottery that is birth. We have no control over it. The only thing that we can control is what we do with the hand we have been dealt. Even then it is only partial.

Isn’t it strange how those who preach fairness object to its results. Fair is treating people the same. We all start as sperm and egg > After that it’s the luck of the draw isn’t it.
Fairness is me and Cav starting our sprint at the same place, not me only 10 yards from the line and him a hundred back. Fairness is equality of start not ending up the same thus penalising the successful.

Nick and thm have essentially given my response to this but to expand we need to ensure everyone is starting at the same place. That means education, health and equality all need resources allocated to lift up those who are starting in the next village never mind just off the track.

Interestingly the whole “living on less than $10 a day” thing says absolutely nothing about the relative poverty of those it affects. Here that money wouldnt get you much, you could probably have food or shelter but not both. In the likes of Cambodia that money could probably stretch pretty far. All that tells us is that judging poverty by way of currency is as useful as judging temperature as a differential of that in Montevideo.

This notion that things are not as good now as they use to be is BS

That is generally true but only of comfort if you are one of those for who things are actually good (ish).
How is it even many people living in an advanced, economically strong nation like the UK struggle to put a decent roof over their heads or good food on then table?

Always amazed at what people chose to defend on here.

Haven’t studies shown that poor people give proportionally more to charity than rich people? e.g. here.

“Oxfam was founded nearly 75 years ago with the noble aim of preventing war-time governments from blocking the provision of urgently needed supplies to Europe’s suffering civilians. On top of the horrors of war, the world was a far more harsh and impoverished place back then.

Globally, nearly 24 per cent of infants failed to reach their fifth birthday, while over half the world’s population were illiterate. This has fallen to 15 per cent in recent years, while the number of children who tragically die before the age of five is down to four per cent. The progress has been vast across numerous measures, but there is still a way to go. These days Oxfam publishes a set of figures every January condemning what it sees as the negative side of the story – the huge wealth gap between the world’s top billionaires and the rest of us. The methodology is attacked each year because using net wealth as a measure suggests that a highly-paid young lawyer in the US with large student debts is poorer than a penniless (but debt-free) beggar in a significantly less developed country.

Nonetheless, Oxfam rolls out the numbers because they guarantee headlines that support the group’s central argument. “It’s just not right that top executives take home massive bonuses while workers’ wages are stagnating or that multinationals and millionaires dodge taxes while public services are being cut,” CEO Mark Goldring said.

This is all very well, but many individuals and organisations take a different view of the world. At City A.M. we choose to focus on the overwhelming evidence that peace, trade, and a strong rule of law are responsible for allowing billions of people to escape poverty in recent decades. The threat to this progress comes from trade barriers, protectionism, overbearing undemocratic governments, corruption and conflict.

Rather than demonising wealthy entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg (who have created thousands of jobs and pledged billions of dollars to curing disease), we should be lobbying western governments to tear down trade barriers and set an example to leaders in other parts of the world. Oxfam’s yearly report is designed to give delegates in Davos some food for thought, but risks becoming a repeated distraction from the real issues facing the world.”

It is not quite as clear cut as Oxfam would have you think. You only need 1 penny to be richer than 40%, it is all in how you measure it.

http://boingboing.net/2017/01/17/reminder-if-you-have-one-penn.html