Posted on 01/20/2013 9:50:34 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
I use the lottery all the time as an example that money does not solve poverty. In the US, poverty is a mindset not a lack of money. Your examples ring true. I have seen it with local lottery winners. Give certain people a big chunk of money and they buy stuff until they are out of money. Very few will actually take their winnings and use it to secure their future.
I think the difference does matter — there’s a big difference between having trouble making ends meet and not being able to afford luxuries because all your income is going to food, shelter and clothing (or maybe those plus a cell phone bill, a cable TV/internet bill and keeping a junk car on the road here in the U.S.) and not being able to get enough to eat on a regular basis while living in a hut made of cardboard and packing crates and wearing rags.
The point of Oxfam’s claim is that 1/4 of the aggregate income of the 100 wealthiest people on the planet would, correctly used, suffice to abolish the truly grinding poverty suffered principally in Third World countries (and replace it with more ordinary, more bearable poverty).
The operative word, here, is "earned". They went out and worked to earn that money, it wasn't a gift (which leftist money-grabbers believe should be theirs to use for buying votes and spending frivolously).
The benefits to the non-rich of the creation of wealth by the rich mainly occur under conditions of freedom and laissez faire capitalism, where beyond a certain point, excess concentration of capital is incompatible with the division of knowledge and the benefits of the division of labor.Under capitalism, the rich will realize that they will be better off owning a smaller piece of a large pie in a prosperous society, than owning a large piece of a smaller pie in a hellhole.
“Poverty” can never be ended unless you kill all the poor people. People are not poor because of lack of money. Mt 26:11a “The poor you will always have with you,” (NIV)
There are roughly 10 billion people in the world. Let's say that roughly 24% live in poverty. That's 2.4 billion people. Since his $240 billion is said to eliminate this poverty four times over, this works out to 240B divided by four equals $60 billion. Divided into 2.4 billion people works out to $25 per year per person in poverty. Does the author really believe that 25 bucks will provide food and housing for a person for a whole year? Keep in mind that the next year they will have nothing since the earners will stop working once they won't be able to retain the fruits of their labors.
“$240 billion is enough to end global poverty? LOL”
The article failed to mention that it would end poverty for one month.
Translation > the Author is a fricking hack and joke.
Very true. The point is that the liberal knee-jerk reaction of “feed the poor” has an immense emotional appeal, but in and of itself just simply doesnt work. Really, the only way of solving the problems of some of these very poorest nations is for their entire society to be systematically reorganised. And then of course, you are accused of “recolonisation”.
hmm...how are the poor doing on your graph? More pertinently how are the middle income folk?
Wow, I didn’t realize that “teaching a Man to fish” would cost so much money.
Obama's recent tax increase bill to solve the Fiscal Cliff is expected to raise an additional $62b/year from "the rich", while giving away $68b in investment crony capitalist giveaways! Obama is just a crook from Chicago with an ideology informed by his Kenyan dad.
How many are employed by these people? How many businesses are supported by these people? How many charitable groups
are supported by tese people?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.