Ending world poverty

[firemanbob]

Why do you keep harping on about dividing the money equally?

 

Because even if everything was divided equally there simply wouldn't be enough to do what you want to do, as you are only suggesting taking money from the very wealthy that will leave you with even less to do the things you want to do and won't alleviate world poverty, but it will increase poverty in nations like the Britain.

 

That's not what this thread is about. I don't think anyone except you has ever mentioned dividing it equally. It will never happen.

Unless it is divided equally there will always be poverty.

 

 

As for the wealthy resisting, we have to appeal to their better nature. They also have enormous vanity. What better way to secure your place in history?

There are a good many philanthropists throughout the world, but their gernerosity needs co-ordinating and direction. Some of it will have to be through taxation, but if everyone including the rich just paid the proper 30% without recourse to tax fiddles and dodges, there would be enough.

 

They don't have enough to do the things you want to do, if you want to help everyone then the people in Britain and other Western countries will have to consume significantly less than we consume now. The average British person has net worth of £147,134 which is £126,000 more than our fair share of global wealth. I don't think the average Britain is going to be happy giving up £126,000 of their wealth. There would be enough if the wealthy gave you everything they have.

Edited September 20, 2014 by firemanbob

[Anna B]

Because even if everything was divided equally there simply wouldn't be enough to do what you want to do, as you are only suggesting taking money from the very wealthy that will leave you with even less to do the things you want to do and won't alleviate world poverty, but it will increase poverty in nations like the Britain.

 

Unless it is divided equally there will always be poverty.

 

 

 

 

They don't have enough to do the things you want to do, if you want to help everyone then the people in Britain and other Western countries will have to consume significantly less than we consume now. The average British person has net worth of £147,134 which is £126,000 more than our fair share of global wealth. I don't think the average Britain is going to be happy giving up £126,000 of their wealth. There would be enough if the wealthy gave you everything they have.

 

Provide for basic needs and infrastructure and at least you level the playing field.

[tinfoilhat]

Why do you keep harping on about dividing the money equally?

That's not what this thread is about. I don't think anyone except you has ever mentioned dividing it equally. It will never happen.

 

As for the wealthy resisting, we have to appeal to their better nature. They also have enormous vanity. What better way to secure your place in history?

There are a good many philanthropists throughout the world, but their gernerosity needs co-ordinating and direction. Some of it will have to be through taxation, but if everyone including the rich just paid the proper 30% without recourse to tax fiddles and dodges, there would be enough.

 

I did early doors to be honest (divide it equally).

 

It still stands though, to get to the top of business you must be a genius with wonder products or utterly ruthless. In politics you have to be utterly ruthless. You could spread all the money perfectly evenly and reset the planet but the same sort of people will end up at the top. The rest - there will be winners and losers. Chuck in a few nasty results of global warming or corruption at a top level and within a decade you'd get world looking like it does.

 

Actually it would look a lot like the BRIC countries with an even greater gap between gap rich and poor.

[firemanbob]

Provide for basic needs and infrastructure and at least you level the playing field.

 

The playing field used to be level and we ended up here, if you level it again the result will be the same. And how much do your plans cost and how can they be achieved without fundamentally changing human nature.

[ronthenekred]

The playing field used to be level and we ended up here, if you level it again the result will be the same. And how much do your plans cost and how can they be achieved without fundamentally changing human nature.

 

Ah..the pessimistic overtones of catatonia. The dullard who kills parties. Human nature can and does change..there are those that drone on in an inclement of misery to suckle suffering and dispair in order to stifle growth, advancement, progress and development of others less fortunate..why? Too many darkies on the planet wanting my council house. Best to do a cull.

Edited September 20, 2014 by ronthenekred

[Stan Tamudo]

The playing field used to be level and we ended up here, if you level it again the result will be the same. And how much do your plans cost and how can they be achieved without fundamentally changing human nature.

 

Is it fundamentally natural to be an internet troll Smithy?

[firemanbob]

Is it fundamentally natural to be an internet troll Smithy?

 

For some of you it would appear so.

 

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

Your post fits the above definition of a troll as do the posts of ronthenekred.

[Stan Tamudo]

For some of you it would appear so.

 

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

Your post fits the above definition of a troll as do the posts of ronthenekred.

 

 

That's one of the most laughable posts I've ever seen on here.

[Anna B]

The playing field used to be level and we ended up here, if you level it again the result will be the same. And how much do your plans cost and how can they be achieved without fundamentally changing human nature.

 

I believe human nature can and does change.

 

Civilisation has done a lot to change human nature, and even though some say the veneer is very thin, at least it's a start. There are examples of this all over the place.

 

However Need and greed are very different but both unacceptable in my book for different reasons. Need can start wars over resources which is understandable but still not acceptable. Surely it's better by far to share what we have, rather than make the desperate, fight for it. We live in a world of plenty, we also have the intelligence, innovation and means to stretch what we have even further.

 

Population actually drops, the higher the GDP.

 

Greed is another thing entirely, and I cannot think of any excuse for it, it should be made as unacceptable as, say, human sacrifice. I also believe in altruism and the good in people. We need to hang onto this and aim to improve.

 

This hard, ruthless, cynical streak in people seems to have come to the fore since the banking crash and I believe is born of fear and uncertainty. I also think because of the crash, the internet etc. ordinary people have had a glimpse behind the veil and can see plainly for the first time the inherant unfairness in the world and are not prepared to put up with it any longer. Hence the break out of discontent all over the place.

 

We sort it or suffer the consequences...

Edited September 20, 2014 by Anna B

[swarfendor437]

It's already started ... but not in the way you would like to see or know about:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAkj-fEblLc