[Newsbot]

Title: Richest 62 people own as much wealth as half the world's population, says Oxfam
Category: World
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2016-01-18 06:25:14

[Prof_Chomsky]

Seems fair. Nothing to see here.
Now go watch your local sporting team and drink a beer. Or if you're so inclined, spend your free time debating your favorite wedge issue. Gay marriage? Abortion? Anything will do!

[martin14]

$1:

Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries including China, Brazil, Mexico, Japan and Saudi Arabia.

As usual, we didn't make the list.



Oxfam, yeah there is an unbiased reliable source.

[BeaverFever]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Seems fair. Nothing to see here.
Now go watch your local sporting team and drink a beer. Or if you're so inclined, spend your free time debating your favorite wedge issue. Gay marriage? Abortion? Anything will do!

And don't forget, your favourite celebrities, TV shows, movies and magazines have a lengthy list of 'must have' products that you need to buy RIGHT NOW in order to be relevant to society. So what are you sticking around here reading stuff like this for? Go borrow some more money and get shopping you!!

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Oxfam, yeah there is an unbiased reliable source.

Yes, they are corrupted by their need to earn a non-profit

[Thanos]

And to push Marxist economics which is what they've been noted for in the past. Not defending capitalists but what Oxfam believes in is repeating history's worst failure.

[martin14]

Which charity is that ?

The we need more economists to calculate a bunch of non charity related things, so they can
whine for even more money ?

Just remember where your gift money goes.

[DanSC]

Negative numbers are fun!

Fun fact: the 10th-50th percentile has more wealth than the bottom half, because negative numbers.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

And to push Marxist economics which is what they've been noted for in the past

By whom?

$1:

Which charity is that ?

The we need more economists to calculate a bunch of non charity related things, so they can whine for even more money?

No, it's the we're an anti-poverty charity so we need to study things relevant to poverty charity.


And BTW guys, if you look back, 2 years ago it took 85 of the richest people:

World's 85 richest have same wealth as 3.5 billion poorest
posting.php?mode=quote&f=59&p=2029571

Which at least got of you to respond:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I'm a right winger and even I know this is inherently wrong, if it's true. There is now way that so few people should control that much and it's not the money I'm talking about it's the ability misuse the power that money brings which is the issue.

[Thanos]

No one likes this situation except maybe for the worst of the pigs on Wall Street. I wouldn't shed a tear if the great masters of the universe got Robespierre-d to death one day because pretty much each of everyone of them, and their pig children and their trophy wives and their paid-off lapdog politicians too, all fucking deserve it. The current recession courtesy of the Saudi billionaires who needed to win by more is really just the most recent example of how basically inhumane and awful anyone with too much money really is. But what Oxfam usually proposes though? How many Ukrainian peasants do you have to starve to death anyway before you finally give up on the Five-Year-Plans and Great Leap Forwards before you come up with a theory that doesn't get everyone killed? Highly doubtful the permanently benighted human race will ever come up with a successful moderate position though. We're not creative enough in a world of scarcity to ever find that middle ground between the outrageous/obscene greed of the few and the murderous malice of the "fair" re-distributionists.

[BeaverFever]

What's an example of "what Oxfam usually proposes?"

[BartSimpson]

If we took all of the money away from EVERYONE IN THE WORLD and then distributed it equally among every man, woman, and child then inside the space of two years (on the outside) the poor people would be poor again and the wealthy would be wealthy again.

And the same idiots would have the same explanation as to why this would happen:

"Because it's not fair!"

The truth is that some people are better with money than others. Period.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If we took all of the money away from EVERYONE IN THE WORLD and then distributed it equally among every man, woman, and child then inside the space of two years (on the outside) the poor people would be poor again and the wealthy would be wealthy again.

And the same idiots would have the same explanation as to why this would happen:

"Because it's not fair!"

The truth is that some people are better with money than others. Period.

It's not that what you've said is entirely untrue,it's just not the whole truth. Obviously many of these people were born wealthy and that's the only reason they're rich today. Not just inherited wealth, but inherited advantage: getting in to the best schools because dad's an alumni, tuition fully paid for without crippling debt,Always someone to bail you out when you have money problems,a comfortable good paying job after graduation through a family friend, etc. You think George W. Bush for example would still have become rich if he was born into a poor family???

And yes, there would be disparity, but the disparity doesn't get this extreme until wealthy start rigging the deck in their favour, changing laws to benefit and protect themselves and also make life harder for the rest, who in turn become more desperate and more willing to work for less and pay more for the things they need.

[stratos]

Here is my concern on the subject of taking from the rich. You want their money because 1) They some how got it from you legally? 2) They stole it? 3) You are upset that they have it and you do not? 4) Any other reason you can come up with.

If number 1 then go and get money legally also. If number 3 then immolate how they got it and then you will gain a bit of the pie also. Because if it is any other reason the number 2 then you are guilty of number 2 and will have the people you stole from all hunting you down.

Now lets really play the hypothetical game. You take the money from the rich, will you do like Bart's example and give it evenly out to everyone? Why, they did not earn it or do a thing for it but to be born. In that case Bart's conclusion will come to pass. Not as quickly as he says but it will.

Will you do something else? Why then is it okay for you to do something with the money that you've taken from the rich. Have they not the right to do what they wish with their money?

The argument of it's not fair/right that they have the money and I don't sounds so pathetic that the only response is for most people to just scoff. This causes people to shut you out with any further attempt on your part to present an argument supporting your view point.

[stratos]

$1:

And yes, there would be disparity, but the disparity doesn't get this extreme until wealthy start rigging the deck in their favour, changing laws to benefit and protect themselves and also make life harder for the rest, who in turn become more desperate and more willing to work for less and pay more for the things they need.

Then advocate for a change in the laws that allows this to happen.